The Legitimacy Of A Belt

i remember when the WBO came around in the late 80's
HBO wouldnt recognize it for about 10 years and would say they only recognize the big 3....
and now to think that 1 of the big 3 they recognized has 3 all by themselves

 

for once I agree with you

 

The Champion makes the belt, the belt doesn't make the Champion. In other words... I don't care which belt it is... the belt is only as good as the person who holds it.

 

There are a million belts. The more they make the less they mean,but you still need them to make the big bucks unfortunately....................TV loves them..........

 

Man makes the belt.

9 times out of 10 you'll find the best belt holder is the one ranked highest by the ring.

 

boxers give the belts it's legitimacy not the other way around.. when the OMB started nobody wanted the belt then camacho, dlh, and the klits started fighting for it and they gave the OMB what they were looking for money and a reputation for having good champions

fighters want belts to make money and become famous but once you make it they dont need them.. that's why i dont get why fighters like floyd and cotto keep giving them 15percent of their money when the fight can be made for no belt and still be as big..

remember when leonard used to refused to fight for belts



:hat

 

the belts are source of income for guys like sulaiman.

 

youre way off with your 15% figure of paying someone for sanctioning fees for a title...its not that nearly that high
and sugar ray leonard was a title belt *****...they created the WBO 168 belt for him and hearns to fight for in the rematch :rofl
and he somehow was the only man in history to fight the current light heavyweight champion at a catch weight of the super middleweight limit for his 175 pound belt and also fight for a vacant 168 pound title
1 fight
for the
WBC 168 AND WBC 175 titles

so you are a little off on your ray leonard history too