Do the belts really matter?

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Who_Necks, May 22, 2020.


  1. Who_Necks

    Who_Necks New Member Full Member

    43
    39
    Sportsbook:
    2,662
    Dec 11, 2016
    Should Fury just vacate the WBC and let Wilder fight Whyte for the vacant belt and AJ vacate the IBF and let Pulev and Martin fight for it.
    They should just fight each other whoever wins would still be Lineal and hold the WBO WBA and Ring belts and be the No1 in the division.
    The alphabet organisations are a joke and make up the rules as they go along imo the only belt that has any credibility at all is the Ring Magazine belt.
    Belts mean nothing and they dont put food on the table for fighters only for the corrupt top brass of the organisations.
     
  2. ShadesOfAli

    ShadesOfAli Member Full Member

    155
    85
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 3, 2019
    If that were to happen then say Whyte beats Wilder you will have Whyte claiming to be champ as he holds the WBC.

    It’s the prestige of unifying all the belts to claim undisputed, this will also help with the numbers to sell the fight.
     
  3. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    51,107
    4,659
    Sportsbook:
    12,102
    Sep 8, 2010
    When you personally rank a division...

    ...do you rank the 4 or less fighters who hold a title as automatically a top 4 fighter regardless of any circumstance?

    If not and if you happen to notice a trend that it often doesn't fit then the answer is to not take it as gospel.

    Almost always your "titlists" will rank in the top 10. Usually in the 1-6 or 7 range? But it is no answer.
     
    Holler likes this.
  4. FuryFTW

    FuryFTW Member Full Member

    447
    389
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 21, 2020
    If the scenario you suggest happened OP, Wilder would end up with the WBC, the other belts end up god knows where.

    Then PBC and showtime would start piping up, Wilder would fight Ortiz 3 and they'd have George foreman and all that there spinning it, "Fury dropped the belt, he knew he couldn't avoid that right hand again", on and on it goes.

    If you know the history of boxing you know how hard it is for brit fighters to get recognition, and how the boxing establishment creams over American fighters.

    The belts SHOULDN'T matter but they do.

    Fury needs to sow it all up and put his greatness and dominance beyond doubt.

    For what it's worth I think Wilder will pull out of the third fight, right now I think he's hoping for step aside money.
     
  5. Scissors

    Scissors Posts are sponsored by Matchroom Full Member

    7,332
    9,535
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Feb 11, 2018
    It’s all about personal preference. There’s lads who’ve won titles and earned a relative pittance. Meanwhile Dillian Whyte has earned 10s of millions and no world title.

    So when you finish your career it’s your preference as to what you would look back on, titles earned or the piles of cash you’re sitting on?
     
    UKboxingfan, EJC83, kojak and 2 others like this.
  6. moog

    moog Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,068
    3,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 12, 2012
    Joshua if ge choose could drop a belt and not fight Pulev, but Fury contractually must fight Wilder.
     
  7. nurological

    nurological Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,047
    3,985
    Sportsbook:
    1,188
    May 25, 2012
    As a fan I dont care about belts, i know who the better fighters are and who I would want to see face off.

    From a boxers pov I'd imagine belts are quite important, just behind money.
     
  8. Skyver

    Skyver New Member Full Member

    97
    85
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 29, 2015
    Regarding fury v Joshua in this situation they should matter because they are no1&2,undisputed is on the line.something neither of them has been.its the chance too definetly prove who's the daddy and they both should want it! imo.
     
  9. destruction

    destruction Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,848
    5,855
    Sportsbook:
    100
    Mar 26, 2009
    Your scenario makes no sense at all for Fury because he only holds the WBC and it’s the most prestigious belt.

    I understand letting a belt go if you have more than one like AJ, but not when you are in Furys position.
     
  10. Jurgen

    Jurgen Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,768
    7,362
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 30, 2016
    Certainly cash comes first, 2nd, 3rd these days - beginning to resemble football where only a tiny percentage of clubs actually care about winning trophies.
     
    EJC83 and kojak like this.
  11. pow

    pow Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,871
    2,008
    Sportsbook:
    240
    Apr 26, 2014
    For legacy and history yes, you are defined by your belts with key terms like former, one time two time, 2 weight, 3 weight, unified, undisputed etc. You can still be a great fighter without winning belts but history seems to forget you, aside from the so called 'hardcore' fans. In 20 years time everyone will know who Fury and Joshua are, the others not so much.
     
  12. Who_Necks

    Who_Necks New Member Full Member

    43
    39
    Sportsbook:
    2,662
    Dec 11, 2016
    Fury also holds the RING belt which imo is the most prestigious 'belt' and is also lineal which although no belt is arguably the most prestigious title of all.
    I just think the Fury AJ fight doesn't need the belts and will be the biggest heavyweight boxing event since the days of Ali Foreman and Frazier.
     
  13. Patter983

    Patter983 Active Member Full Member

    1,030
    1,131
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 20, 2018
    Course they matter whoever wins the fight as it stands will be unified undisputed holding every belt in the sport ! Makes a huge difference to if they fought for the “lineal “ boll#cks
     
  14. Awkwardlefty

    Awkwardlefty New Member Full Member

    25
    14
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 13, 2020
    I’d think if one of those two won all 4 belts then they would drop one of them afterwards as the mandos would have them fighting too many times a year to justify £20 PPVs
     
  15. Wig

    Wig Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,260
    992
    Sportsbook:
    1,364
    May 31, 2010
    Belts don't matter. Gaudy alphabet trinkets. Think about it, four, five, six belt holders in one division. All calling themselves champion of the world.

    The only time they come into play is when you start to have the prospect of one man holding all the gaudy alphabet trinkets at once, at least then he can claim to be number one at the weight, ie the champion of the world. Which is what a belt is supposed to signify.

    Outside of that, the lineal title is the only way to gauge the true number one in each division - far more relevant in that it has historical meaning, lineage and you can only ever have one lineal champion at once - versus four five six belt holders.

    Belts are trash.
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement