Why does the boxing media continue to ignore the ring belt.

Do they bill the fights as being for the 'world title' ?

i.e 'an upcoming world title challenge.

If they don't then good luck to them but that is what it is all about!!!

 

winning it makes you the man, defending it doesnt

 

I think your best mate Calzaghe did at light heavy that was the basis he called himself a two weight world champ i honestly think it does have a certain gravitas

 

For example when Khan was fighting Maidana they would say it was for "Khans belt at 140lbs" they wouldn't say "World Title"

They would refer to Khan as a belt holder.

Only when its lineal title do that call it a championshhip fight.

 

The man in your avvy, when he bet B-Hop.

 

bhop at lhw,Clazaghe at lhw,Barrera at featherweight,pac at feather,spinks at hw,casa&marquez at lw

 

is now erdei moved up and retired then cameback so pascal is linear now

 

aren't all titles essential used for that reason

 

Erdei was never the Ring Champion because they stopped following lineage to give Roy Jones the belt.

 

i am aware of that but erdei vacated a moved up so now it is linear

 

That answers my question then. lol.

I think in Theory the Ring Belt is a good thing but in practise it will probably end up getting used in the same way the alphabets do!!!

 

So how comes Juan Manuel Marquez kept his title when he did the same thing?

 

marquez never vacated erdei did

 

Erdei never vacated...he was never the ring champion as it didnt suit the magazines agenda.

 

The only belt I recognise as legitimate is the unofficial lineal championship.

Sure I class the other guys as world champions, but until they beat the man they won't become the man.

The ring doesn't always follow the lineal route: margo vs mosley, hill vs maske, naz vs any of the other beltholders. There aren't many instances, but enough for me to not put too much preference on the ring belt.