Are the ABC belts becoming meaningless?

They already are. Thats why when DLH calls himself a 6-division champ. Or Mayweather a 5 division champ. I everytime. They may have held paper belts. But that doesnt mean they were the best at the weight class.

 

Are the belts becoming meaningless?

They already are meaningless. In fact, the Alphabet Syndicate's trinkets are less than meaningless...

 

Really, there isn't any good championshipd belt out there. The best, I guess, is The Ring Magazine chamionship, but that seems to be a farce because they don't have a champ in every division and the champions can sit on it and not fight anybody, and then if they fight somebody it's against a bum.

If The Ring wants to be more credible they need to do this:
1. Make a belt so the fighters can walk out with it
2. Buy out all the ABC bull**** belts
3. Give the number one fighter in a division The Ring belt and make them fight whoever is the next best fighter within a 6 months time and if a fighter decides to move or down in weight then he will vacate his Ring belt and the number 1 and 2 will fight for The Ring.

 

Belts are meaningless . . . it is the man behind the belt that counts not the belt itself. :deal

 

Becoming?

IBF became ridiculous when it made that stupid decision around letting Zab Judah keep his title after losing to Baldomir, not to mention some if it's stupid stripping.

WBA became ridiculous when it kept the belt off Klitschko by making some bull**** situation where Valuev was the champ without even fighting for the title.

WBC became ridiculous with a number of stupid decisions but none more so than the so called Diamond Belt.

WBO for all the **** it gets, at least it lets it's fighters keep the belt.

 

Roy Jones is trying convince people that beating Danny Green for something called IBO cruiserweight confirms he is a multi-weight champ

 

its all about the diamond belt now baby!!!

 

IMHO, the belts are not meaningless as far as the boxers are concerned. The more belts around their waist, the more money fights they can get. For the die hard fans, most regard it as meaningless. It's the quality of the fights that they want to see, regardless if they're title fights or not. For the casual fans, the belts are very confusing to them. Too many title belt holders in one division, too many divisions. It's hard to figure out who really is the so called champ.

 

Thats exactly the HBO plan. To get the organizations out of the way and then use the P4P bull**** to turn boxing into something like MMA and get all the money for themselves.

 

I'm [pretty sure he helkd a load of shite belts at the same time as more important ones. Could be wrong.

 

The belts aren't meaningles in a sense...... what is meaningless is having so many champions in one division and not knowing who the real man is.....

There was a time when we only had one champion in each division and therefore one belt..... and the champ used to defend his belt and that's when people knew who the real man was..... and with that his belt became meaningful and appreciated and wanted by many.....

At the present we have too many ABC organizations and with that too many belts that makes it impossible to know who the real man is..... why??? because when you defend your title against the best in the ranking is when you prove that you are for real......but having so many champs and avoinding eachother for different reasons, then there is no way of knowing......

Linear champ, ring champ, who cares..... it is not the belt who makes the boxer, it is the boxer who makes the belt..... when a boxer wins a belt in the ring (fighting) the boxer does not get with it the accomplishments that other boxers had while they were champs.... it is like buying a toy but batteries aren't included, so you can't play it..... exactly the same thing happens with the belt.... the belt is not going to defend the boxer in the ring neither.... it is the boxer who defends the belt..... It dosn't matter who had it before, you don't get the greatness of others who held it with it, you get some credit by defeating the boxer who had it, that's it, then you would have to build your own reputation and greatness while holding the belt...

In other words it is up to the boxer who holds the belt up to a point.... some won't be able to do nothing because maybe they were just a one hit wonder....

 

Would love for someone with the backing of a ton of money(someone like Dana White) attempt to buy out the belts and sort the **** out.

 

I do take your point, but I still believe it is the best system (by miles) out there of a very bad bunch. If the Ring were to start forcing madatories and stripping titles, then they'd be no different to the other ABC organisations, IMHO. Also, in fairness, if someone does become a Ring Champion, it means they have earned it: they can only win the title in the ring itself against a present champ or (if the title is vacant) against another world-class opponent ranked 1st or 2nd (and in special cases 3rd):good.