Do the belts really matter?

If that were to happen then say Whyte beats Wilder you will have Whyte claiming to be champ as he holds the WBC.

It’s the prestige of unifying all the belts to claim undisputed, this will also help with the numbers to sell the fight.

 

When you personally rank a division...

...do you rank the 4 or less fighters who hold a title as automatically a top 4 fighter regardless of any circumstance?

If not and if you happen to notice a trend that it often doesn't fit then the answer is to not take it as gospel.

Almost always your "titlists" will rank in the top 10. Usually in the 1-6 or 7 range? But it is no answer.

 

If the scenario you suggest happened OP, Wilder would end up with the WBC, the other belts end up god knows where.

Then PBC and showtime would start piping up, Wilder would fight Ortiz 3 and they'd have George foreman and all that there spinning it, "Fury dropped the belt, he knew he couldn't avoid that right hand again", on and on it goes.

If you know the history of boxing you know how hard it is for brit fighters to get recognition, and how the boxing establishment creams over American fighters.

The belts SHOULDN'T matter but they do.

Fury needs to sow it all up and put his greatness and dominance beyond doubt.

For what it's worth I think Wilder will pull out of the third fight, right now I think he's hoping for step aside money.

 

It’s all about personal preference. There’s lads who’ve won titles and earned a relative pittance. Meanwhile Dillian Whyte has earned 10s of millions and no world title.

So when you finish your career it’s your preference as to what you would look back on, titles earned or the piles of cash you’re sitting on?

 

Joshua if ge choose could drop a belt and not fight Pulev, but Fury contractually must fight Wilder.

 

As a fan I dont care about belts, i know who the better fighters are and who I would want to see face off.

From a boxers pov I'd imagine belts are quite important, just behind money.

 

Regarding fury v Joshua in this situation they should matter because they are no1&2,undisputed is on the line.something neither of them has been.its the chance too definetly prove who's the daddy and they both should want it! imo.

 

Your scenario makes no sense at all for Fury because he only holds the WBC and it’s the most prestigious belt.

I understand letting a belt go if you have more than one like AJ, but not when you are in Furys position.

 

Certainly cash comes first, 2nd, 3rd these days - beginning to resemble football where only a tiny percentage of clubs actually care about winning trophies.

 

For legacy and history yes, you are defined by your belts with key terms like former, one time two time, 2 weight, 3 weight, unified, undisputed etc. You can still be a great fighter without winning belts but history seems to forget you, aside from the so called 'hardcore' fans. In 20 years time everyone will know who Fury and Joshua are, the others not so much.

 

Course they matter whoever wins the fight as it stands will be unified undisputed holding every belt in the sport ! Makes a huge difference to if they fought for the “lineal “ boll#cks

 

I’d think if one of those two won all 4 belts then they would drop one of them afterwards as the mandos would have them fighting too many times a year to justify £20 PPVs

 

Belts don't matter. Gaudy alphabet trinkets. Think about it, four, five, six belt holders in one division. All calling themselves champion of the world.

The only time they come into play is when you start to have the prospect of one man holding all the gaudy alphabet trinkets at once, at least then he can claim to be number one at the weight, ie the champion of the world. Which is what a belt is supposed to signify.

Outside of that, the lineal title is the only way to gauge the true number one in each division - far more relevant in that it has historical meaning, lineage and you can only ever have one lineal champion at once - versus four five six belt holders.

Belts are trash.