Better Accomplishment: Ring Magazine Belt or Unifying the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO Belts?

I don't need the Ring to convince me that Wladimir Klitschko is the best heavyweight in the world cuz I already feel this way as do most intelligent boxing fans regardless of whether or not they like the guy.

That, by the way, is just one example of why I don't give the Ring belt any more credence than I do any other.

 

I didn't agree with the rematch because of selfish reasons as I wanted to see Peter face Maskaev and clear up the title picture but I certainly understood why they went ahead with it. Many people had Toney winning the first fight and so a rematch took place.

 

The Ring belt is without doubt the most important belt. But to unify the other 4 would be a bigger accomplishment, as it is so hard to do. What with all the politics that goes on. Although you could win all 4 but still not be recognised as the best in the division.

 

Having 4 belts is damn impressive. You can be The Ring champion by winning one fight (Adamek v Cunningham). To get 4 belts you have to fight more times. For me that is tougher. Bigger risk, different fighters with different styles and longer period of time to accomplish that.
But there is no doubt that The Ring beltholder, is "the man" in the division.

 

It's pretty unlikely that anyone would unify the four major titles at a weight division without at some point picking up the Ring Magazine belt as well (theoretically possible, but very unlikely, and I doubt it's ever happened or will happen).

On the other hand, you can win the Ring belt without picking up all or indeed any titles.

That tells you what the greater achievement is.

 

Today there still is just one way to become the real champ. You have to unify the WBC & WBA & IBF belt. one this way you earn the ring belt automatically. Forget about the WBO.

 

Pacquiao is WBC champion I think. Campbell never won that title.

 

:deal

 

OBVIOUSLY the second option, seeing as if you manage to do that you'll almost certainly end up having the ring belt as well.

 

These days, the ring belt.

 

likely if u have unified the belts u'll be the ring champ as well.

 

when will you idiots realize that those trinket belts don't mean anything?

 

Yeah but if you've unified all the titles you must have been beating a lot of good men.

Most thought it would be a 50-50 fight between JMM and Campbell.

I guess it depends on who you beat to win the Ring Title (casamayor) or who you beat to get the belts that would determine the best in the division (Campbell beat Juan Diaz of course)

There isn't much between those two fighters IMO. Casamayor was on the slide but coming off the back of a good win (and Marquez was stepping up in weight) but Campbell, despite beating a young, fresh and very good unified champion, was almost accused of winning it on a fluke due to his record pre-Diaz (even though he Draw in a disputed match with Casamayor and beat Kid Diamond, once proclaimed the man to clear up the LW division )

Just a recent example I can think of. Naz didn't have all the belts when Barrera faced him, but beating the linear champ did more for Barrera than winning the paper belts one by one (can anyone remember which title was on the line that night?)

And Malignaggi gave up the IBF title to fight Ring champ Hatton (money) and Dawson gave up the prestigious WBC belt to fight Tarver for the IBF.



Don't know where I'm going here, other than money fights now being the top draw rather than title fights.