Why did titles awarded by continental sanctioning bodies lose their sheen?

In most cases, the top four guys in the division are all world champions. Instead of there being one (or maybe two when the WBC/WBA thing became prevalent) people at the top.

And there’s not a clear pecking order of all the various regional titles, many of which just have ridiculous made-up names (the WBC Silver Continental Breakfast Eastern West Africa title), so having one of these many trinkets doesn’t do much.

When there was a more linear progression of these — North American, U.S., European, Asia/OP, etc. — they mean a lot more. Probably still do in the Brit/Euro sphere, where the holder is likely a top guy who isn’t a world champion (yet) but the rest are just too muddled.

Also, back in the day to win a USBA, USBA, European title or such, you probably had to beat a contender or at least fringe contender. Now it can be some rando with a 14-3 record if you just stroke a check for a sanctioning fee.

 

If you are going to continue being allowed to post on this site, it is imperative that you get your facts straight. Accuracy is of paramount importance here!

It is "The WBC Bridgerweight Silver Continental Breakfast Eastern Sub-Saharan West Central African Title!" We absolutely MUST keep these belts straight or we will fall hopelessly behind in our Belt awareness! Please!

 

I think it’s because if you hold any belt named WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, you already got an in with the big organizations, and probably get preferential treatment by them in the future.

EBU, NABF, USBA, I don’t think they got those connections.

I do wish it was different though. I don’t agree with the big four creating that many belts.

 

Yeah disected far, far too much, the One World Title MEANT Everything and the Title Holders of LEADING Boxing Nations were Highly Prized & Sought after, also they 'often' meant a Top 10 World Contender consideration or not...

it has become a Candy Jar selection, with No Guarantee of a good one... and like Shay jokingly states, rediculously labelled & made up Faux Titles.

 

The Commonwealth belt was originally at least as prestigious as the world belt. It loses that distinction around the turn of the 20th century and continued to lose "sheen" as history progressed. At HW a turning point IMO would be Dan Creedon winning the vacant belt and not returning to defend it for like 7 years. But the British would continue to try elevating their champs and those attempts would almost always fail and the prestige of their belts would go with it.

The European belt lost "sheen" first in the 1920s when Carpentier lost to Dempsey and Tunney establishing he was not the champ at HW or LHW. After that its the same story as the British the Euros would periodocally try to elevate their champ above the US one and it almost would never work out.

The NABF was never an alternative to the world belt. Initially the NABF was sort of a consolation prize for Muhammad Ali and George Foreman but eventually ceased serving this function as the alphabet era removed the need for secondary belts. But the earlier "American title" from the 1920s and 1930s was considered a world belt. Harry Greb and Gene Tunney held this at LHW and Jack Sharkey held this at HW. However at some point they stopped giving this out as a seperate honor.

And like many mentioned whatever prestige these belts still had by the 80s was undercut by the alphabet bodies which were giving out recognized world titles. They went from being the 3rd and 4th most important belts in boxing to being like the 7th and 8th most important belts in boxing.

 

I think they got less and less meaning the more "World" Champions we have. We can have the world champ Ali, and it would be ok for a guy like Henry Cooper or Don Cockell being English champ. But what happens if Rocky Marciano was WBA champ, Charles the Wbc champ and Don was able to nab the IBF title?? That English belt would mean very little imo.

 

The USBA belt was the IBF's domestic (United States) title. The NABF (North American Boxing Federation) was the WBC's domestic North American title. The WBC had other regional titles across the world, too.

The USBA (United States Boxing Association) belt was actually created first, and then the same group formed the world organization (IBF) after that.

The NABF and USBA belts first began to lose their luster when world title fights went from 15 to 12 rounds.

All world title fights by the 1970s were 15 rounds, NABF titles were 12-rounders. When the USBA belt was created in the 1970s, they were 12-rounders, because they were stepping stones to the world title. All other non-title fights were 10 rounds or less.

When world title fights went to 12 rounds, that meant all regional title fights and world title fights went the 12-round distance. So there was less to distinguish them in the public's mind.

Then boxing promoters started scheduling non-title fights for 12 rounds, too, if the fighters were big enough names.

And the sanctioning bodies began creating more and more regional titles and then belts for special events.

Currently, the WBO's regional North American title (the NABO) title fights are only scheduled for 10 rounds. Which, being a longtime fan, really throws me when I see at "title" fight scheduled for 10.

But those original regional belts (NABF and USBA) were belts handed out by the major sanctioning bodies (WBC and IBF). That's why, when Ali and Norton, for instance, or Ali and Frazier fought 12 rounds for the NABF belt, the winner was ranked at the top of the WBC's world ratings.

The same org was responsible for both belts.