How Important Are Belts Any more? Seriously?

Titles are still very important. The names that matter in a division are generally the title holders. Holding a title is usually a guarantee of bigger paydays for a fighter. There are very few exceptions.

BigReg just explaining in another thread why the IBF stripped Clottey.



Even in history, titles are important.

for example, alot of boxing writers call Pac a 4 weight champ because although Barrera was the #1 guy in his division, he had been previously stripped of all his titles.

in comparison, OScar de la Hoya is often called a 6 weight champ even though at Middleweight all he got was a gift against Sturm and then got knocked out by the real champ, Hopkins

 

Ask RJJ, he had like 8 or 10 belts at one point. I think he used them as his bling outside the ring too....

 

They aren't really important anymore, to most fans. HBO has done a good job of pretty much not mentioning them at all anymore.

 

titles dont mean **** ,any scrub is elegible to fight for a title nowadays .

 

The sanctioning bodies sure find them important! Every mandatory they inflict us with is another payday for them with the fees and skimming off the top.

Kind of like a protection racket.

Until the belt-holders who are being gouged team up in a class-action lawsuit, the alphabet soup parasites are going to keep on sucking. The last time one was forced into bankruptcy by fighters' lawsuits, there were some minor changes conceded in the settlement. It's well past time to beat the alphabet soup into submission.

 

The fighters find them important. It's still a dream for them.

For us? Eh...I think you can separate a good fighter from a title holder.

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134670

It gives the explanation but it still seems petty. And, as I mention in the thread, it seems like bad business... why not collect the fee for Cotto fight, then put a 3 month time limit on mando enforcement? They may end up stripping the winner, but at least he'd have a chance to fulfill it.

To answer the thread question: titles make nice comments in Wikipedia articles and help boxers get fights, but thankfully they don't truly determine legacy. Look at Pac/Hatton (IBO?? who cares?? nobody - it's the fight).

A few years ago, some of the Tarver/Jones/Johnson fights came off without major belts at stake. BHop/Tarver wasn't for a big belt but everyone calls BHop (and Calzaghe, for that matter) LHW champs.

 

I don't give too much importance if 2 fighters are fighting for a belt.
I'm more concerned about the skill level of the fighters.

Nowadays almost any fighter can get his hands on a belt if he's managed correctly.

 

Nice thought, but beyond being a pipe dream it's also fraught with the same problem of fan-voted all star games. They're right part of the time, but less-deserving veterans always end up getting too much prestige.

Boxing's organizational structure problems are currently basically unfixable. With the WBO now considered a "legit" belt (whatever that means), things have even become worse. The Ring belt, the "prestigious" one that doesn't even really exist, is now hopelssly compromised via GBP.

Damn this sport can be frustrating.

 

the ring belts the only good one. the rest give fighters excuses to avoid one other