Several years ago, I've been told there are 5 different world titles. The Klitschko brothers hold all the most important belts, however, Vitali holds the most valuable belt there is (WBC). Is this true? How would you rank these different world titles? WBC, WBA, WBO, IBF & IBO. If Wlad loses against Povetkin, will he be stripped of all his belts, or still remain WBO, IBF & IBO champion of the world?
if all the belts are on the line and Wlad loses, I'm not 100% sold on it, but I think Povetkin takes them all, I will do some research just to be sure
Ur statement says it. If all the belts are ON THE LINE it Is because, well....... they are on the line, meaning they are at risk, he'd lose them all if he loses the match.. .
There is little if any difference between the major titles. Anyone who believes the WBC belt is "better" than the others is leaning heavily on nostalgia. I would rank them as follows: IBF - They at least try to hold tournaments to decide the #1 contender, even if they haven't been rather successful. WBO - Average IBO - Not as prestigious as the others (due to its shorter lifetime), but the computerized rankings and awarding of their belts to generally the top fighter in each division lifts them up. This is the case of the fighter making the belt. WBC - The no unification ruling downgrades them severely in my eyes. WBA - Corrupt. For years, they were in Don King's pocket.
The problem is that the rankings for these orgs are garbage, they are corrupt and other orgs belt holders (i.e. some of the best boxers) are never made into mandatories The solution is to create one new belt with these conditions. Use a good ranking system and allow other champs to become mandatories. The idea would be for making #2 fight #1 for the madatory fight. For example, in the heavyweight division, Vitali #2 would be made the madatory for Wlad who is #1. If Vitali wanted to fight Wlad and Wlad refused, Wlad would be strippped. Since Vitali doesn't want to fight Wlad, the fight doesn't happen and #3 becomes the mandatory.
All the belts are ****. They strip and crown champions to suit their agenda. Nowadays the most prestigious is probably the Ring magazine title as that is usually held by the man in each division and the top 2 of the division will fight for it etc. WBC is the belt that was seen as the one to have back in the day and to most fighters they think its the most valuable. WBO seems to have an affiliation with the UK and WBA is just awful, by far the worst of a bad bunch.
more importantly in this sport should be the recognition they get for being the best HWs in the world like ward and Martinez, they are undoubtedly the legitimate champions of their weight class. wlad should really stand alone there. belts are more leverage more than something to be coveted because they cheapen the sport
They need to get rid of all these belts. Should have one belt in each division.There is that many World Champions its a disgrace. The World Champion should be the best in the division and it would avoid all this ducking etc. Also all this Super champion status is rubbish. I dont really class Froch as unifying the division as I still class Ward as the champ and I wont class Quigg as a champ if he wins as Rigo will be the real champ in my eyes.
:good the problem is that the federations are only interested in their pockets and own self-importance they don't have boxing's interests at heart, but also, many 'champions' who would have no chance of calling themselves that if there was one belt per division embrace multiple federations, because it lines their pockets and allows them to fight sub-standard opponents far away from US exposure while parading their 'world title belt' have a listen when ricky burns talks up a fight - its like hes trying to convince everyone that hes legit unfortunately, a LOT of casual fans just don't know the difference, and this is where the extra $$$ comes from if you have a trinket
