R. Garcia:No one gives a **** about titles anymore..

That can all be taken cared of with a little money underneath the table.:?

 

The real problem was never the number of belts. It was that the organizations which sanctioned fights wouldn't rank each other's champions. That meant that the top five fighters in each division wouldn't get ranked because they already had titles and the number six guy would fight the number seven guy for a title. The best guy would always ha "A" title. It became more a matter of ranking the titlists. Having a belt used to mean you were the best, now it just means you are a contender, but there is nothing which sets apart the number "1" guy anymore besides the consensus of the fans.

 

But they still get paid. The people who say titles mean less are somewhat right.

But, it depends on the situation. Rankings and titles mean a lot to fighters who are coming up or on the fringes. Maybe it means they get a shot at a name, maybe it means they get a step-aside payday.

The titles still hold some marketing significance as well.

But.. at the higher levels, the real "titles" are premium cable dates. Becoming an HBO franchise is worth a lot more than most belts. But getting a title shot, or defending a title at least brings you to the attention of the networks. It can be a door opener.

Its complicated really, like everything in boxing. A lot of a title significance is simply who holds it, or recently held it if they were beaten. WBA for example is wretched, but their 147-168 super titles hold significance because they are held by Floyd, GGG and Ward.

WBC seems to be making moves to try and make their belt more legit, and rank more relevant fighters. If the trend continues, the WBC Green belt might be considered a truly legit belt in its own right in a year or two, time will tell.

 

I know I don't, haven't for a long time. They are used as bargaining chips by some fighter's, or excuses to fight someone, and excuses not to fight others. For the fans it's about the same, as an excuse for their favorite fighter to fight this easier fight/fighter and not to fight this fight/fighter. It's a bad situation, remove all other belts and leave only one for each division and you end up with very little way to advertise or bring recognition to some fights that probably should have it. Basically, casuals don't watch until there is at least a belt on the line...it's a magic word to them that says the fight will be "good".

 

I know that titles are used as a marketing tool, but I still have to wonder how effective that marketing tool is. Roman Gonzalez has had 12 title fights and is reckoned the #4 p4p in the world but he's never fought for a million dollar purse. Guillermo Rigondeaux who's arguably been #1 p4p for a few years and has had 9 title fights has also never made a million dollars. Meanwhile, there are heavyweights who maybe haven't even been ranked in the top ten, who don't hold belts, who've made millions. Below welterweight, I don't know if you can do anything that would make serious money.

And it wasn't any better back in the day for little guys with just one title. 1965 p4p #1 Eder Jofre, undefeated in his first 50 fights, eight title defenses, steps into the ring with another top p4p fighter Fighting Harada. 12,000 fans, tv in Japan 54.9% rating which is about 50 million viewers. The Purses: Jofre - $30,000.00 plus expenses, Harada - $2,500. With inflation, Jofre's purse would be 225k today.

 

Let's hope those rumors are not true.

 

"One of the main reasons"? No, it's the sanctioning bodies trying to make money. Not Floyd's fault, or any fighter for that matter.