What titles do you rate and what ones do you regard as meaningless?

British title I believe is still the msot prestigious, for fighters that aren't gonna make European/World level (which is most) its their dream to win the British, even for fighters who are they want to win the British on the way (even if they dont win it for keeps)

 

frank warren don't want half of his fighters fighting for the british title cos they would prob have a tough time of it, be in a competitive fight against a good British boxer,not a serbian shopkeeper with a 6.0 record(but he has only fought in his shop backyard).
as for the lonsdale belt,i could ask any ex pro or young am down the gym,and they would have wanted/want this belt above most:good

 

Yeah, I agree.

I'm not sure fighters stay awake at night dreaming of winning the WBO intercontinental title - given that you aren't actually the champion of anything.

Lose the avatar btw.

It's making the place look untidy.

 

the one thing, and only thing that makes me sit up, about those international / intercontinental titles, is that it gives a top 15 world ranking with the respective governing body, and puts them in line as a potenial world title challenger...
aside from that, i dont know what these titles actually mean

 

i will lose the avatar,just waiting for my computer to be fixed(im rained off at mo so at the wifes work on one of her comps):good

 

I like the idea of going to a 2 belt maximum. I heard Manny Steward oppose this notion by saying that the alphabet belts force an up and comer to fight 12 rounds in getting them prepared for the recognized strap holders in said division. That's true but Manny followed it up with linear fights needing to go back to 15 rounds...but after the fatal bouts of the 80's like Boom Boom Mancini, I think it's wishful thinking.

 

This the wbc can **** off anyone that rank chavez jr no 1 at lmw is an idiot

 

i agree 12 for abc 15 or anything 12+ for the ring/lineal