How do you view the World Title scene?

the best fighter in the division is the best fighter in the division. usually the best fighter will have some kind of ABC belt

thats how i look at it

for example floyd can have any of the main 3 and still be champ in my eyes

 

Idea of lineality or RING belt is ****. Lineal or RING champ cannot be stripped for not facing the best. The champion should beat the best.

 

If a fighter has an abc belt (prefferably wbc) AND has the ring belt, i consider him the champ of his division. Example: Israel vazquez and Pretty boy floyd.

 

****....posted twice by mistake lol

 

for me, a champ means you are the best. you don't share it with anyone else. champs are the universally regarded as the best in the division. like pbf at 147. all the other are just title holders.

 

ABC's need more money.

 

Title should only matter when it's undisputed. Ring is just another alphabet title, like it or not.

 

I take them division by division.

It depends on the fighter more than the belt.

 

My thoughts:

• It doesn't matter one jot whether you are linear champ or not: just because you beat the linear champ, it doesn't mean that, at the time you beat him, he was the best man in the division. Maybe he was faded when you beat him and there were better and more danerous fighters out there at the time.
• I doesn't matter one bit whether you are a belt holder, unless the fighters you beat to get the belt were, at the time you beat them, some of the best contenders in the division
• Not all the four belt holders are equally good just because they all have a big-4 belt.
• It doesn't matter at all whether you are "undisputed" Champion (i.e. if you have three of the four belts) if the guy who has the fourth belt is better than you
• The Ring belt means nothing at all. The Ring magazine is biased and has shokingly bad p4p rankings. They are sometimes wrong about who the best fighter in the division is. No one ie perfect, especially not those who are clearly biased.

Sometimes, good journeymen are better than contenders. Sometimes contenders are better than title holders. Sometimes title holders are better than multiple beltholders/undisputed champions. And sometimes they are not...it depends.

:good

 

And sometimes, they strip you for not fighting a mandatory because you want to fight a worse but more commercial/hyped-up/better known fighter a victory against whom you think will get you a shot at the very best. So...ABC's sometimes get it wrong even when they get it right...it's inevitable - the business of boxing is regulated such that this is inevitable.

 

that becomes subjective and will be disputed by all sides...endless debates..:think