Hearns obsession with belts has put AJ between a rock and a hard place

Having the belts always has and always will be important.

Hearn, Joshua and everyone else thought Ruiz was there to put up a fight but get folded by the mid rounds. It didn't go that way. Joshua needs the rematch asap in my opinion...he will look like a ***** if he doesn't

 

“Eddie Hearns said...” we just want that WBC belt, whether wilder or whoever has it is irrelevant

Now “Eddie Hearns says...” we want fury and wilder, it’s not about belts

 

Tyson Fury = No belts

Ring magazine no.1 = Tyson Fury

I personally value belts, but they're obviously not everything.

AJ is just 29 years old. He's had a fantastic run but he reached the top too quickly. He was rushed. His flaws weren't ironed out and now he's been ironed out. Wouldn't his story be phenomenal if he rebuilt his career slowly on normal sky. If he took say three easy fights that focused on improving stamina and tightening up his defence while cutting muscle, before going on to attack the top guys. That's the sensible thing to do after such a bad beating. He doesn't even need the money. If he wants greatness, that's the way to do it. **** the belts, they'll come around again if he's good enough.

It's a pity money and ego will throw him straight back into the lions den when he's probably not ready.

 

Belts are everything. When you take them away the only thing left to fight over is money.

 

Why do people on here add an 's' to names?

Hearns
Eubanks

?

What's going on

 

He had to rematch Ruiz if he wants to be taken seriously again. I agree his career has been rushed though. He’s still only had 23 fights.

 

Annoys me too Gomos.

Not sure why world championship belts being important is a shock tbh.

Plus the goal for a while has been undisputed. If he lets them get fragmented again he’s got all the hard work of unifying to do all over. Or worse, they could end up with Wilder who holds them hostage while fighting bums.

 

Belts are hugely important
Only in the rarest of cases can you make just as much if not more without them

Even fighters that care not about legacy realise this and aim for them

 

Joshua can't win whatever he does. If he didn't take the rematch, people would accuse him of running scared (see Tyson Fury).

 

Some good points. The belts are only as valuable as the promoters make them, and Hearns has pushed the acquisition of all the belts as a big thing. The belts weren't as important during the 90s, when the WBO belt in particular could be ignored. Tyson gave up the WBC belt, Lewis gave up the WBA and IBF belts, Bowe seemed to forget he was WBO champion at one point; they served a purpose when necessary but were not critical in establishing who "the man" was. Fury is now the main man in the division without holding a belt.

I disagree though that the belt issue has put AJ in a difficult position. Getting beaten up by Andy Ruiz has put him in a difficult position, and that's the issue he needs to deal with. He either gets right back in there, or he takes a step back and rebuilds.

Hearns can easily shift the narrative so that it isn't about winning all the belts. The major players at heayweight are established now and the hierachy is clear even to casual fans. Joshua has been shunted out of that, and the simplest route back in is to beat Ruiz. The scenic route where he goes in a different direction will not restore his status, unless he beats one of Fury, Wilder or Ruiz at some point, or if the landscape changes significantly so that other people come into the mix.

 

Couldn't disagree more. Belts are what elite fighters get out of bed for in the morning. If he overlooked Ruiz the first time round, imagine what he would do when there is no belt on the line and he is fighting a less of a fighter

 

The belts are usually the key to the biggest money fights. The belt does signify who is regarded as the best.
With out those belts AJ has no bargaining power over wilder or fury.
To become a true unified undisputed heavyweight champion after so long means a hell of a lot imo

Its history making.

 

Who you beat and how matters a lot more than the stockpiling of belts. There hasn't been a "true unified undisputed heavyweight champion" since 1989, not because there hasn't been great and dominant fighters, but because it's neither practical nor necessary to do so to establish a clear champion. Would Tyson's legacy have been enhanced if he had beaten Francesco Damiani?

Sometimes the fighters holding the belts are the best in the division. Sometimes that isn't the case though; at the end of 1995 only one of the top 5 heavyweights (Bowe) held a belt, and it was so worthless that he gave it up so that he could fight Holyfield (who didn't hold a belt).

 

Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen instances since 1978 when fighters have voluntarily relinquished heavyweight titles. If they were the be all and end all that wouldn't happen.

The belts are sometimes a means to an end, and they only mean as much as they need to in any given situation.