Why Is So Much Emphasis Placed On Belts?

Well in that case, he did not win a title at 126. He beat Barrera who had no belt, but was the best at that time. So I don't understand all of this comotion that Pac has achieved six division champ and trying to be seven at WW. He was not a FW champ.

 

I would guess that most of them value the belts for being able to bring them more money most of all, while I'm sure it has some professional pride, too, a way of marking an accomplishment.

 

Barrera was the ring magazine champion ... he had vacated his WBO strap at the time when he lost to Pacquiao ... he was the lineal FW champion.

 

walkwitme ... in general, it doesn't matter but in the case of big match ups and super fights it's very hard to just depend on the name of the fighters themselves ... they should be able to bring something to the table. Its not like DLH going to walk through the door any time soon.

If Pac is putting his mythical title of p4p king on the line than Cotto should bring something to the line besides the ghost of Margarito haunting him.

I think establishing a championship fight, there should be a title on the line, yeah many say that titles are overrated but when it comes to putting something on the line you need something.

 

I am not in agreement with the linear and ring magazine acknowledgements. I only acknowledge the WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO. Again, due to this thread, too many belts.

 

You are missing two things, belts are important to set the rank inside
the division, but what you are talking is the p4p rank.

So beating Berto is the proper way to establish the status of the best
WW at this particular time, Floyd is not relevant at this point to achieve
status of best WW, but he is highly marketable opponent on the p4p list.

 

I think belts have a new emphisis which is to prove that you are not just another belt holder but a championship standard fighter and then to prove you are established p4p class. Once you hit the latter the need for belts goes out of the window really.

One thing that people some times forget is that most world champions will lose the belt in their first 3 defense's. Also that winning a belt quite often provides the confidence and momentum to improve a fighter just look at Humberto Soto, Cristobal Cruz and most prominently Manny Pacquaio.

The need to acquire belts comes down to a new agenda as well, do you want to be the undisputed king and potential all time great at your weight? If so win the belts and defend them. If you want prove yourself and talents win a belt defend it a few times and either face the best fighter in the division or move up and win at a new weight.

 

Agreed.

 

Belts are a mere side-effect as far as I am concerned.

I don't care about the preposterous rankings and never have.

This "ring belt" seems very suspicious as well.

 

IMHO the only belt that matters is The Ring belt.

 

So a belt that is basically 'owned' by a promotion company is somehow less corrupt? :nut

 

No fees, to have it the No 1 and 2 fighters in the division must fight, can't be stripped, no questionable contenders (for the most part), no super, interim or emirtus "champs". Sounds alot better to me.

 

No mandatories either so you can 'rest on your laurels. I think there are a few people Hopkins should have been fighting for example.

 

True.