How highly do you rate world titles in boxing today?

Worthless.

All about WHO you beat.

 

not very highly

too many title holders are the work of careful management and promoters, or some of the sanctioning bodies come up with 3 world champions per division

like Slip! said, it's who you beat, not how many or which belts you hold that matters

 

Having a belt and being the man are two different things nowadays. I prefer it when the best boxer in a division has belts and attempts to unify, but realize that is not always possible. Just look at how the WBC stripped Martinez in order to hand his belt to Chavez.

 

They should get rid of them , nothing productive about them!!!

 

The fighter makes the belt, the belt doesn't make the fighter:yep

 

people made fun of belts when they added the IBF belt in the 90's to make 3.

now thanks to the WBA they give out 3 belts PER WEIGHT DIVISION, all consider world titles

WBA regular title
WBA interim title
super WBA title

its pretty shameless at this point

 

Not very highly unless their ranking in the division correlates with it.

 

To really understand the rankings these days you have to know a lot of background. I don't mean about the history of the various sanctioning bodies and who held what title (doesn't really matter), but the recent history of the division and how each fighter got to where they are now, if they're currently holding a title or not. Given that, I'd say titles mean nothing, but a title is still usually an indicator of a good fighter and a title on the line can often make a match happen that one or both fighters involved would otherwise deem too risky.

 

Belts are used more for PR purposes now a days. If a fighter wants to get some publicity from a news paper or a tv programme, they wont say he's a title'ist they'l say he's a world champion! Boxing is'nt a mainstream sport so casual fans wont know the difference. I suppose these titles are good for the boxers making money and a name for themselves. But these sanctioning bodies cant fool the hardcore fans! We know who the real champion's are!

 

As another poster said its all about who you fight and beat, However I still say that the titles are worth more than the Ring title, example, Ring never will enforce a mandatory this allows a fighter to pick and choose who he wants to fight with out having to face a legit#1 or #2 guy why? cus Ring Magazine believes the only way you should lose your title is in the ring, this is why we need rules that enforce mandatory's

However knowing that it seems that you dont see that anymore with the IBF WBA or the WBC either, it seems that they too allow you to pick and choose for a small sanctioning fee which is why I am saying I agree with who ever said its about who you fight and beat.

However if your a fighter who is concerned about your legacy those titles dont hurt.

 

They have real world meaning in terms of who gets the big fights and who gets the paydays but to answer the question, I don't rate a guy higher because he has a belt.

I do, however, thing unification is a great achievement as that shows ambition.

But to use an example, I wouldn't rate jmm any higher had Pac got the decision over Bradley and therefore jmm took the wbo belt. That would actually be of no significance to my viewing.

I also think linearity is over rated. For instance Igarashi has the lineal flyweight belt but only a silly person would rate him above viloria.

 

Too many dammed belts. They don't carry that much weight im my mind.:bbb

 

The only belt I actually consider legitimate is the Ring belt.

 

I take little notice of the titles. Boxing now is more about just hoping the best fighters fight the other best fighters in their division rather than watching someone work their way up through the rankings beating all the other contenders.

Only problem is this can leads to fighters getting nice padded records, being hyped into that big fight and then getting exposed as not belonging at that level whereas back in the day they'd have been weeded out long before then.