Do you care about world title belts anymore?

The problem with all the belts is that it's preventing the top fighters fighting each other.

 

As a coach I still think the belts are still needed in boxing, I agree that they no longer tell you who is the best in a division anymore but they do give you memories when your career is over!

Imagine after your boxing career is finished, you are speaking to your grandkids and you are telling them you fought x,y or z in the battle of britain but you don't have anything to show them? or you are telling them how you fought an undefeated Russian/Mexican/American to be top fighter in the world but once again it's a story but with no proof.

The professional sport is a very tough sport and as mentioned I don't agree that we don't find always find out who is the best but for the normal professional that doesn't make a fortune but achieves something in the sport then belts are a great way to have memories of your career!

 

Agreed. To be honest domestic belts like the British title still carry prestige at that level. After all, there is only one BBBC. You win that belt and you can claim to be the best domestic level fighter in the country at that time, and that still means a hell of a lot.

 

The number of belts bother me but not as much as the horrific matchmaking and politics in the sport.

You can have as many belts as you like but the best should be made to fight the best.

1 fight a year based on unified rankings between the number 1 and 2 in their respective divisions, would that be so hard to do ?

 

All the associations are a joke but the WBA are the ultimate joke.

 

Yes it would. It has yet to happen, and I do not think it ever will. And I maybe alone here, but part of the appeal of the sport to me, is the politics.

 

The titles mean something but they're not quite world championship level due to the number. Still a good stepping stone.

 

Getting a world championship belt means that you are the ranking champion of that organisation but not necessarily the best in the division. Boxing fans don't need belts to tell them who's the best, its clear to see.

Are they relevant? Yes. They are collectors items for boxers and casuals love them. Also bump up purses and generate interest in fights.

 

They're well beyond a joke, personally don't count their champ unless they're the lineal one as well or hold another belt

 

It would mean even more if it meant you were the best British fighter at your weight. Another thing that all the abc titles has managed to devalue.

 

Having a world belt means nothing any more when they can be bought on any corner.

Liam Smith won his VACANT belt against a f.uckin BALLET dancer. atsch

And in what universe is Stuey Hall a world champion? I know he lost it, but he should have never been close to a "world title". That literally was the worst "world title" fight I have ever seen.

Boxing's goin down the bog.

 

Boxing is steeped in history. The constant deterioration of the belts is not a good thing.

I don't care about the belts but I care about what the fighter does with the belt. If a fighter is WBC champion i.e. Wilder then it's completely irrelevant. What he does and who he fights and when he fights them is what will legitimise his claim to the throne.

 

People have always moaned about split titles. There is an article bemoaning such in the first issue of The Ring... It does not seem to have done boxing too much harm.

 

Really? The whole point of fighting, and sport in general, is to find the best. Even more so than other sports where fans accept different types of competition/titles i.e. EPL/Champs League or clay court in France (I think) versus grass in Wimbledon.

In boxing there is only one type of competition. 2 people fight, one wins. Wash, rinse, repeat. There is almost no competitive architecture. A single title, or even 2, allow people to establish who is the best even past all of the talk. Think about when Braddock was champion but Louis took it off him. Prior to Louis winning, him being better/the best in the world was an opinion. Once he beat him, it became a fact. This conclusive eventuality no longer really exists in boxing thus the sport has become a joke (though people can still make money from it).

Almost all of the mainstream don't know who the champion is and a large majority of hardcore fans are unsure of the lineage or will argue as to who is the most credible champion. It's become incredibly murky.

 

It does not matter, boxing is rarely about who is the very best, but who is the best between two individuals.

Boxing was never more popular in the US and UK than when two neighbourhood rivals met in the early to mid part of the 20th century. It did not matter there was no title involved or that the individuals involved were not highly rated, it was about the fight, who was better on the given night.

That to me, is when boxing is at its best.