and its sister poll.... Most prestigious Belt

I don't get the respect that many of you show for the ring belt, it is exactly the same as any other ABC, but without mandatory challengers. I selected WBA only on the basis that that strap is the oldest.

 

was thinking about this today. how as fans of boxing could we get rid of the alphabets. theres got to be a way to do it. the tv stations and promoers feed us this wbo bull ****. Joe Calzaghe was a world champion for 10 years, but never fought a guy ranked in the top 5 by the Ring until Lacy. its just bull**** drives me crazy.

we got a guy at lightweight nate campbell whos got 3 world titles but he is essentially ranked number 3 in that division, behind 2 guys that have only had 1 fight there (Manny Pac and Juan Manual Marquez)

the really bad thing about this is that it allows guys like Hopkins, Toney, Holyfield, De La Hoya, Jones Jnr to fight on, as they have more of a chance of winning a world title, and therefore they carry on. if they had to fight 4 fights agianst tough young hungry contenders before they got another title shot, guys like De La Hoya would of retired along time ago and the sport would be in a better place. you also would not be able to avoid people as a champion or even challanger if the one organisation enforced mandatories. it would also make fights for the European and Brtish titles much more meaningful.

 

WBC is still the most respected, but the sad truth is its no better than the WBO or any of the others.

Ring Mag is respected I guess.

 

The Ring magazine belt is awarded objectively. Not every division has one, but where there is a clear number 1, they will be awarded it, or be able to fight for it against an opponent of similair credentials.

Sad that a ****ing magazine is needed to show us who the real champions are, but there you go.

 

Bluntly put, none of them.

Also, how exactly did the WBC become more prestigious in most people's eyes than the WBA, seeing as the WBA is the older belt?

 

Ali.

 

if you go through the belts and pick out the number 1 in each division, there mostly IBF champions.

 

I suppose the WBC is marginally worth a bit more as people within the game seem to regard it in higher esteem. However, to the untrained eye, an outsider wouldn't be able to distinguish between any of the champions and therein lies the problem. When you have guys like Hatton owning the IBO title and nothing else (except the Ring I guess) when he's clearly the best in his division, it doesn't make the situation any easier. That's why I don't regard the belts as THAT important an achievement these days - it's more of a promotional vehicle for boxers trying to establish a name in the sport.

Guys like Calzaghe and Hatton don't need belts/trinkets/letters to get fights or people to pay and watch them these days so it negates the need for titles.

They are great for guys like Froch who would have fought the Pascals of this world in front of half the audience if it wasn't a world title fight. Also, would ITV have been interested if it was for nothing?

So I'd say the WBC is the more important as it's more prestigious too the important people in the sport... the boxers. Then the WBA and IBF are next because a lot of people don't give the WBO the time of day. The IBO comes after the WBO presently. The Ring magazine... I don't care about that.

 

I like the idea of the ring mag belt but surely as a boxer there is something special about the green belt of the WBC.

 

Its because we are frequently told WBC is most prestigious belt people believe it.Its a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Its a terrible actual belt though...green,cheap and plastic looking.
Its easily the crappest strap.

 

Im off the belief that the fighter makes the belt but you usually find that the majority of boxers see the WBC as the main strap for whatever reason.

 

Its because they primarily only care about and look after superstars,so are associated with big names(Leonard,Oscar,Mayweather,Klitschko,Tyson etc...)
they let the big guys do what the hell they like.Can you imagine them telling Delahoya to make a mandatory?.....

 

Im not disagreeing with you, i think they are all corrupt and like i say the fighter makes the belt.

Most knowledgable fans know who the No1 guy in a division is whether they have a belt or not, if i recall correctly Barrera fought Pac or Morales, cant remeber who and neither paid for the sanctioning fees as they both knew they were the the two main guys and thats the way it should be, how mant bull**** WBO calzaghe defences against nobodies did we have to endure!!!!

Calzaghes numerous title defences will look good in the history books but look at who they were against, only a few legit names and whilst a great fighter that has discredited his reign in my opinion.

Im all for one title although obviously that will never happen as casual fans love the idea of a belt being on the line.

I actually had to explain to my mates a cpl of weeks back when Khan fought ***in that the title they were fighting for, some international **** that basically meant **** all didnt mean that whoever won was some kind of champion :-(

Thats why i do like independant titles but even the ring belt has been kind of tainted in the past cpl of years.

 

If I were boxer, the belt that I would want to win is the Lonsdale one... Hell the old Commonwealth cup looks more classy than some green plastic alphabet crap, or even the silly meaningless Ring belt.

 

Discussed well here. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=18201&more=1