Do alphabet titles dilute fighters legacies and punish them in the long run?

To an extent. I think it allows certain fighters not to face other title holders because in their mind they already have a title.

If there was only one champion people would still want to fight him to get the title. People can hide behind ABC titles and avoid facing 'the man' (who, regardless of the title he holds is usually recognisable in a division) due to them already holding a 'belt'.

 

^^^^^only my opinion mind :good

 

On a positve note, alphabet straps look good to some degree on a fighter's resume, in that they can at least have the claim to having held some sort of trincket that is labeled as a " world title. " On a negative note, such belts have often led to much fan confusion, corrupt poilitics, and can sometimes prevent THE BEST fights from happening. They also take some of the attention and spotlight away from the fighters who are truly the best, because there are multiple men running around with world fragments.

 

this thread made me think about a website i saw where they had the lineage of the heavyweight championship, from sullivan to now. Like the blood line of the royal family the true championship has been passed down from man to man regardless of 'ABC titles'. just thought it was an interesting thought kind of along the lines of what your'e discussing. i suppose you could do it with all weight divisions, from the first modern champion to his victor to his victor and so on....There can be only one!!

 

It did seem weird when Shannon Briggs was challenging Lennox Lewis.... when it ought to have been the other way around!

 

All the lineages get broken and rejoined. The HWs at Tunney, Marciano, Ali etc.

 

What to tend happens particularly now a days is a fighter wins a title at weight and then moves up because of the obsession with this pound for pound thing.

I think what some forget is that arguably the Greatest ever (Robinson) only won World championships in two weights. But the difference is, they were World Championships not world titles....

After all, I can pay x amount and become Lord Booze of Tyrone; but although technically I would be a Lord, everyone would (rightly) think different.

 

It helps some people and hurts others.

People like Ruiz/Valuev/Byrd have benefited from it because they can be called world champs where in reality they aren't. It hurts guys like Wlad because there's two other people that can claim to be world champ. No one in their right mind holds the opinion that Valuev is the true champ, but it does take quite a bit off his legacy when there's guys that won't unify the belts with him.

 

True,

Its sickening that men like Ruiz, Valuev, Seldon, and several others have had the claim to holding anything that has the word " world champion " attached to it.

 

Exactly. A reason why we can still tell the difference between a 'good' fighter and a 'great' one.

Regardless of titles, we can still see what a good win is for the resume. Floyd beating Baldomir for the 'WBC' title was good. But, regardless of the 'stature' of the belt, we KNOW that Margarito would've posed a bigger challenge around that time, even if he 'only had the WBO'.

 

Generally it dilutes the whole division. Not only the "champions" but the contenders too. Contenders dont have to eliminate each other so much, dont have to compete as much, because with 3 or 4 titleholders they might all get called to a title fight. You get guys getting shots after beating maybe one or two decent fringe contenders, then losing to the title-holder and going in to their next fight against another titleholder ! Or sometimes just fighting a tomato can "filler" match in-between.
Of course, we all know some champions and contenders fight more of their peers than others. And it's not the fighters who are to blame anyway.

 

Well said. There's an equalizer for everything.