What do you consider to be "World" titles

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by MonagFam, Apr 10, 2013.


  1. MonagFam

    MonagFam Member Full Member

    493
    13
    Apr 4, 2013
    Are there "world" championship organizations that you feel are better than the others?

    Growing up, for me at any rate, there were three "world" titles that seemed to be equal to me (though obviously not to boxers like Bowe that trashed titles), then the WBO came aboard. There have been a lot of other "W" boxing organization, though WBO has manged to stay on.
     
  2. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    WBA WBC IBF WBO That is all. I do accept the WBO since they have now been around for 25 years and had some of the better matches of the last 10 years believe it or not.
     
  3. sportofkings

    sportofkings Boxing Junkie banned

    12,368
    23
    Jul 21, 2010
    The belts themselves don't mean all that much these days, its the fighter that makes the belt, not the other way round. The quality of opponent the belt's being pitted against is what defines its worth.
     
  4. SouthpawJab

    SouthpawJab On his way up!! 4-0!! Full Member

    8,781
    20
    May 26, 2011
    The fighter makes the belt

    Ishe Smith has the iBF belt, but he isn't a champion.

    Donaire has the WBO and he is a champion.
     
  5. NWS

    NWS Guest

    It's about who you beat.
     
  6. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,423
    1,464
    Sep 7, 2008
    I count the no.1 in the division as champ' only, the belts are generally worthless.
     
  7. TheSouthpaw

    TheSouthpaw Champion Full Member

    7,942
    61
    Jul 21, 2012

    I agree!..well said Flea:good
     
  8. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    If the best fighter was always champion, then a fighter could lose the title outside the ring...

    Anyway, to me 'World titles' are everything 'alphabet', be that WBA, WBC, The Ring, so called 'linear' or WBU and WAA...

    They have there value, and if fighters can get a better pay day because of it, then good.

    But a 'World title' is not the same as being 'World Champion'. To be 'World Champion' you have to remove 'reasonable doubt' in your claim, then you become the 'generally considered World Champion'.
     
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,173
    21,696
    Sep 15, 2009
    Pretty much this.

    I'm not a huge believer in linearity in this day and age. For example I had Moreno as the best titlist in the bw division but given a combination of his inactivity and his loss to mares combined with Yamanaka's red hot form, i now rank Yamanaka number 1.

    Before the 80's the number 1 was usually the champ in my opinion. Given the proliferation as belts there's a few people claiming to be champ and without unifications it's a case of pick the one you think is most deserving for me.
     
  10. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,354
    Jun 29, 2007

    Organizations hardly matter. In some cases the WBO champion is the best of the lot.

    I prefer 3rd party consensus from Ring Magazine, Box Rec, Fight News, and ESPN. If they all agree who the #1 guy is, that is good enough for me regardless of what belt he holds.