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

Uh, Marquez only had 2 belts, and one of them was a paper title.

 

marquez didnt have a belt, he was just ring champ

 

Well every title these days is a paper title. The only title that should mean anything is the linear title and the Ring Magazine belt is the only thing that comes close to it these days.

 

The first time he fought Pacquiao? He had the IBF and WBA belts. Take the five seconds to google it before you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

You only have to defeat one man in order to win the Ring belt. Given all of the contractual, political, personal and professional strife you have to overcome in order to unify all of the belts in a division, and with the exception of the early champions and such stand-out men as Bernard Hopkins and Mike Tyson (prior to the formation of the WBO in the late 80's), it has never been done. Champions are often stripped (Lennox Lewis), choose to dump belts (Riddick Bowe), are unable or unwilling, depending on your point of view, to secure the necessary fight/s (Roy Jones Jr. with Dariusz Michelczewski) or forced to give up belts (Joe Calzaghe) in order to acquire others. Maximum respect to any fighter and his promotional and managerial team who are able to make that happen.

 

Too many belts to begin with. I ****ing hate all of the alphabet soup bull**** that goes on.

 

Yes. I like the Ring's policy and the Ring belt gets more respect from me than any of the alphabet organization belts. That having been said, the act of actually being able to unify all of those belts, in my mind, outweighs the singular accomplishment of acquiring the Ring belt.

 

Unifying is always better. But the 4 belt unified champ in 1 division may not be p4p as good as the Ring Magazine champ

 

There you go. That's pretty much what I was saying, but put much more succinctly.

Unifying doesn't imply being a better boxer or necessarily being deserving of better P4P ratings, but in my eyes, it's a bigger accomplishment.

 

The Ring's policies are a bit more sound than the alphabet orgs (#1 vs. #2 for title, champion cannot be stripped, no stupid mandatories) but at the end of the day it's just a title belt like any other. The fighter that wears it isn't necessarily the best fighter in his division and in no way is the title impervious to the extraneous factors that contaminate the sport. For example, Joel Casamayor got a pretty big gift against Jose Armando Santa Cruz according to most human beings yet retained his Ring belt without any complications. All the Ring could do was squirm at the thought that Casamayor still held their belt and explain in an issue that even though they scored for Santa Cruz, rules are rules. They couldn't take action because they, like the alphabet orgs, have to respect the official outcome. The Ring is not some magic or charitable organization that will give the rightful winner the belt off the champion's waist. If anything, as bad as the alphabet orgs are, I'm pretty sure 1 or 2 of them enforce mandatory rematches after dodgy decisions.

 

The only real way to unify the four belts is for two guys to unify a belt each - you could have say the WBC & WBO champ fighting the IBF & WBA one.

The IBF has to be paired with the WBA though, because they won't hesitate to strip a champion for refusing to fight a **** mandatory.

 

Peter/Toney for example. Not a title fight, but the WBC went for the rematch because it was an eliminator. That's the example freshest in my mind. Otherwise it's usually up to the fighters or a rematch clause in the contract.