How valid are World titles in modern Boxing??

titles mean nothing.....barerra and morales were the best int heir division for a while and never had their titles long, they gave them up to make good fights.....and not dopey mandatorys that people like sturm, ottke, and even abraham recently with marquez... a title is only as good as the man who holds....valeuv? chagaev? mascaev? these people will not be mentioned in the same brealth with lewis, tyson, holyfield, holmes.....

 

Titles mean ****

 

Titles make the fighters what they are, but when they become too much of a bind they get chucked in the bin.

The bad mandatories, crazy stripping, interim fights and repeated eliminators grind fighters down.

You don't need a title to make a good fight, and, after all, what do these people such as Jose Sulaiman contribute to boxing, other than nothing?

 

Titles help fighters get opportunites to prove themselves.

The fans decide whom is the best.

 

titles mean nothing you don't need a belt to be a champion

 

i think the financelle issue is the mainfactor,if you have a championshipbelt you also make some more money,isn´t a fact anymore imo.
BUT if you are a great champion,with a belt.It will help you make more money i think.:huh :huh

 

i have to laugh when sky sports news go to do a piece on Ricky Hatton and go ''the ibo light welterweight champion'' if they really knew what this title means to mean real boxing people like ourselves.

to be honest lads when i was growing up and boxing i would give anything to hold one of them titles wbc,wba,ibf,wbo, as the chance to be callled a world champion is something really special but the way these organisations handle themselves devalues there belts and ruins boxing but as some of you've already stated it's the fans who decides who's the champ.

 

:nono

 

i know but still a belts a belt loool

 

Yeah thats ridiculous, a lot of people can't keep up with boxing because theres to many champions. boxings not a sport for the people anymore sadly. maybe oneday it will come back to us and change.

 

titles are important early in the career but once a fighter reaches a certain level its more important who he fights than the titles.

 

They add color to a fighter's ansemble. But honestly, the fighter's give the belts credibility, not the other way around. It is really getting out of hand because I can forsee a future where there are at least 7 recognized "world championship" belts within the next 25 years. We need boxing reform and it must start and end with the fighters - no one else. The fighters make this sport, not the managers, promoters, trainers, or fans. When it comes down to it, there are only 2 men in the ring deciding their fate (that's why I love it)! What boxing needs is more independently promoted fighters like B-Hop, Calzaghe, RJJ, and DLH. I thought it was wonderful that RJJ and JC basically set up their mega fight by text messaging each other. That's how it should be, two fighters call each other up, agree on a contract/date and get it on! Anyway, the only champ that matters in this era is the People's Champ; belts are for keeping your pants from falling. Ciaou

 

most titles means **** all.. if there was only 1 title per weight divison, theyd mean something