Championship Belts - What Belts holds more weight?

None, the fighter makes the belt. All these ABC organizations are highly corrupt and give out belts like candy.

The highest regarded and respected by almost the entire boxing world is the Ring Magazine Championship belt, won and lost in the ring only, independent from the rules of governing bodies, and the oldest of them all.

 

I'll tell you what son . . . forget about the belts. Irregardless if it's WBA; WBC; IBF or WBO . . .It's the man behind the belt that counts.

 

I get the feeling for some reason people regard the WBC belt with the most weight but as said, its all about the fighter.... I dont care who holds whichever belts have been named, which ever boxer fights to best fighters in their weight and beats them in the undisputed champ of that division

 

i regard the WBA as the best since its the original

the IBF is the worst cause its the most corrupt.

 

RING


the rest are bitches.
WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO are the world titles

and then theres a thousand other titles.

 

It really depends on the beltholder these days. But if I were to rank the bels according to which holds better credibility, I would say:

WBC
WBO
WBA
IBF

I used to like WBA but since the inception of this super champ nonsense, it has really lost a lot of credibility.

 

i would say WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO is the order. WBO is a bull**** belt i don't count it, there only champ was Calzaghe!

 

None of them matter that much anymore without the others. It's a bigger deal to unify two or more belts like the lesser regarded WBO & IBF than to win the WBC on its own. Recently we've had the longstanding WBO SMW champion beat the unified WBA/WBC champion convincingly so it's doesn't mean anything these days.

 

WBC and WBA are traditionally the most prestigious. But the WBA's super champ bull**** and their rankings of Ruiz for example...has put them way down in my books. WBC it is!

 

It doesn't mean too much to be a champion (belt holder) these days. I don't think any of the alphabets are particularly worthy of respect. It really is the fighter and what they had to achieve to be that champion that counts. Until a governing body actually acts like on instead of a sanctioning fee grabbing ***** then the Ring belt is THE only belt that matters in each division.

 

WBA has a super champ in each division and a regular champ. Hopkins used to be the WBA MW superMW champ then Joppy was fighting somebody for the WBA regular champ. :nut

WBO used to be the lowest.

But then IBF really taken over. They got street cops like Ricky Frzaier as Jones mandatory at some point. IBF rankings are so bizzare often times to a point that they usually end up stripping the true champ because he will not fight their mandatory.

 

WBA/WBC/IBF are still recognized as the legit real belts. WBO is still a 4th tier belt, no matter what any Calzaghe nuthugger says.

Ring is just as much bull**** these days as any of the rest.

 

Calzaghe has won each of the five that you mention don't forget.

Personally, I think the WBO is the worst of the lot because I've seen Frank Warren fighters get suspiciously leniant treatment for a number of years. The IBF, for all their stripping faults at least, try to enforce mandatory fights so that the boxer doesn't get bigger than the belt. The belts have lost all credability these days because money comes from TV popularity and not who is the so called champion.

The only true king of boxing is money.

 

I don't see why the WBO would be any worse nowadays than the other 3. It used to be, no doubt but now it's just as good (or bad) as the others. I've made a little calculation a few months ago where I compared the value of the titles based the champs' position on different independent rankings (the Ring, fightnews and IBO rankings were involved) and interestingly the order was: WBC-WBO-WBA-IBF. All of them are corrupt as hell, all of them are run by greedy ****ers so I don't see what makes the WBO any worse apart from history.

edit: and I'm not a Calzaghe nuthugger