WORLD TITLES

[bigred83]

ok, im sure this has been done to death, but i have my own spin on it. I know that the wba/c/o and ibf are regarded as the most "meaningful" titles. however there are many arguments to go against these being meaningful, eg mundine getting 2 "world Title" shots while there was a super champ(WTF does that mean BTW???), golovkin in the same boat for one fight, the next guy that fights for the vacant wbo(i think) MW title because it was vacated due to politics being played on martinez, guys fighting for "world titles" when a fight like mosley v mayweather wasnt fought for one, guys being "world champ" when another guy holds 2 or more belts at one time, guys being stripped for a title for various reasons other than inactivity and 2 other guys fighting for "vacant title". and then of course you have the "lesser titles" ibo, iba, wbf, and wateva else they have these days.
now i dont have a prob with any of this, because i really regard a guy a world champ based on who he defends the title against. if a guy wins a title and defends against crap then the title is crap(too many to mention) but if a guy wins a title and defends against quality then he should be labelled a champ
look at a scenario like the LHW atm, dawson was the holder of the ibf title and the ibo title. i dont know why he got stripped of the ibf, but they seem to strip titles for wateva reason, and very quickly. but he had the titles. and duly was considered the best/one of the best LHWs in the business his last fight with pascal was for ibo and wbc titles, now lets take out wbc title(hypothetically of course) is he not a world champ just because it was for the ibo title? he has fought top guys in the div for 5 of last 7 fights. so are you prepared to say he isnt a champ because he had ibo title?

[Marlin]

That's a lot of words...

I voted the last option.

[Hounddawg]

Dont care really, it's the fighter that makes the title and of course who they defend against.

In regards to weighting them in a tier system.

Tier 1 WBC,WBA,WBO,IBF
Tier2 IBO
Tier 3 WBF
Tier 4 IBA,IBC

I know in the past i haven't rated the WBO and IBO, and as of yesterday claimed that in 5 years the IBO would be considered a major( Look at who's held the belts recently) considering Wlad,Green,Dawson(now pascal) Pac,Hatton,Mundine and so on have held/hold the IBO title recently.

The WBF is a joke and from memory don't even have a champ for every division, and there is now 2 different WBF titles Foundation/federation.

The IBC and IBA are even worse they're lucky to even have a championship fight once a year in 1 division, so how they get befuddled with a championship belt is beyond me.

But i voted for the last option as well.

[crusader]

Dont care really, it's the fighter that makes the title and of course who they defend against.

In regards to weighting them in a tier system.

Tier 1 WBC,WBA,WBO,IBF
Tier2 IBO
Tier 3 WBF
Tier 4 IBA,IBC

I know in the past i haven't rated the WBO and IBO, and as of yesterday claimed that in 5 years the IBO would be considered a major( Look at who's held the belts recently) considering Wlad,Green,Dawson(now pascal) Pac,Hatton,Mundine and so on have held/hold the IBO title recently.

The WBF is a joke and from memory don't even have a champ for every division, and there is now 2 different WBF titles Foundation/federation.

The IBC and IBA are even worse they're lucky to even have a championship fight once a year in 1 division, so how they get befuddled with a championship belt is beyond me.

But i voted for the last option as well.

I agree with your tier system. The WBF/IBA/IBC shouldn't even be mentioned. They are well below the other five belts in terms of credibility. I also agree with the comment that it is the fighter who makes the belt. There are IBO champions of a higher calibre than their WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF counterparts. However, I find that the fighters who compete for and hold the latter four titles are usually of a higher standard than the average IBO champion or have fought better opposition or both.

If you take a look at the current WBO champions, you will notice that Klitschko, Green, Pascal, and Darchinyan are the only fighters who are truly among the top ten in the world in their respective divisions. Looking at independent ranking of Boxing-Monthly and The Ring, the previously mentioned fighters are the only IBO champions who are ranked. On the contrary, every fighter that currently holds a full version of a WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF title is in the top ten of these publications, barring Guillermo Jones and Jurgen Brahmer. Jones was ranked by both publications until he had been inactive for a year, and Brahmer (who is still ranked in BM) was in the Ring's top ten until they kicked him out because he will likely be incarcerated in the near future.

So, my stance is that when it comes to the number one fighter in the rankings of these sanctioning bodies, the IBF/WBO/WBC/WBA are on relative parity. The IBO is a level below, but there are certainly some excellent IBO champions who have been defending their titles against top opponents.

[Craig14]

Voted last aswell It's certainly the Champion not the belt.

[ra2006]

Bigred,

4 titles that matter. WBC WBA IBF and WBOllox.

Everything else the calls itself a world title is a waste of metal and leather. Basically these titles are if you have to justify it to someone because a world class boxer held/holds it.

Ricky Hatton held the IBO for two years, however he used the title as a promotional thing (IE, on the news the fight would be referred to as a world title fight). Ricky was viewed as the best LWW in the world at the time, but he was forced to give his IBF and WBA because he wanted to fight the best instead of the sub standard manditories they he has told to defend against. The fact other boxers started banging out the 'Ricky Hatton has this belt' chestnut without taking on the level of oppenent Ricky was facing was the cause of this whole bloody IBOllox thing.

[oliverfennell]

Bigred,

4 titles that matter. WBC WBA IBF and WBOllox.

Everything else the calls itself a world title is a waste of metal and leather. Basically these titles are if you have to justify it to someone because a world class boxer held/holds it.

Ricky Hatton held the IBO for two years, however he used the title as a promotional thing (IE, on the news the fight would be referred to as a world title fight). Ricky was viewed as the best LWW in the world at the time, but he was forced to give his IBF and WBA because he wanted to fight the best instead of the sub standard manditories they he has told to defend against. The fact other boxers started banging out the 'Ricky Hatton has this belt' chestnut without taking on the level of oppenent Ricky was facing was the cause of this whole bloody IBOllox thing.

Exactly. Whenever I've had the temerity to challenge Danny Green's position as a "world champion", the Aussies usually bring up Hatton, forgetting that at the time Hatton only had an IBO belt to his name:

a) he was the universally recognised number one in the division
b) he had beaten the previous universally recognised number one in the division
c) he had not lost at the weight since
d) he had claimed several "big 4" championships in doing so, and did not lose them in the ring

And, as you point out,

e) Castillo, Lazcano and Maliganaggi > Dominguez, Siaca and Briggs

[Hounddawg]

Castillo was pretty shop worn though, you have to admit, a gift against an up and coming fighter proved that, before he entered the ring with Hatton, Hatton was after a name. You can't have Castillo.

Temerity you make me laugh Ollie

And Mallignaggi was powder puff puncher, he might have been up there at a time in a weak division but he certainly ain't an all time great.

[ra2006]

Castillo was pretty shop worn though, you have to admit, a gift against an up and coming fighter proved that, before he entered the ring with Hatton, Hatton was after a name. You can't have Castillo.

Temerity you make me laugh Ollie

And Mallignaggi was powder puff puncher, he might have been up there at a time in a weak division but he certainly ain't an all time great.

Sorry Hounddawg, I think you have missed the point. The point is that it was bloody Fatton who started this IBOllox crap and he was by far the best LWW at the time, no arguments, no maybe's, that is a complete fact!

He did not hold a world championship but used his IBOllox title to promote his fights as world titles.

[adamheight]

Castillo was pretty shop worn though, you have to admit, a gift against an up and coming fighter proved that, before he entered the ring with Hatton, Hatton was after a name. You can't have Castillo.

Temerity you make me laugh Ollie

And Mallignaggi was powder puff puncher, he might have been up there at a time in a weak division but he certainly ain't an all time great.

Sorry Hounddawg, I don't think you have missed the point. The point is that it was bloody Fatton who started this IBO crap and he was by far the best LWW at the time, no arguments, no maybe's, that is a complete fact!

He did not hold a world championship but used his IBOllox title to promote his fights as world titles.

wasnt there some fairly decent heavyweight who held a IBO belt..cant recall his name off hand. think it was lennox something

[ra2006]

Castillo was pretty shop worn though, you have to admit, a gift against an up and coming fighter proved that, before he entered the ring with Hatton, Hatton was after a name. You can't have Castillo.

Temerity you make me laugh Ollie

And Mallignaggi was powder puff puncher, he might have been up there at a time in a weak division but he certainly ain't an all time great.

Sorry Hounddawg, I don't think you have missed the point. The point is that it was bloody Fatton who started this IBO crap and he was by far the best LWW at the time, no arguments, no maybe's, that is a complete fact!

He did not hold a world championship but used his IBOllox title to promote his fights as world titles.

wasnt there some fairly decent heavyweight who held a IBOllox belt..cant recall his name off hand. think it was lennox something

What Lennox the undisputed World heavyweight champion, or Lennox the IBOllox title holder. No one in the UK gives a stuff that he won the IBOllox.

Sorry, I am not getting involved in this stupid thread anymore. Only four belts count - END OF, NO ARGUMENTS. The rest are xmas cracker trinkets.

[colin russell]

Bigred get a job and please not such big colums

[Hounddawg]

[adamheight]

[bigred83]

im sorry colin, whats wrong with being on the dole???
lol.
am i not allowed to have an opinion on a forum? if you dont like it heres a suggestion, DONT READ IT.
there are heaps of threads i dont read on here cos i dont like it. did u see me whinging about them instead?

[Rogue]

government schools get cash for buildings.... in boxing it's a case of cash for titles..... the Australasian model is the perfect blue print for any sanctioning scheme world wide. woo hoo....

[dberry]

Dont care really, it's the fighter that makes the title and of course who they defend against.

In regards to weighting them in a tier system.

Tier 1 WBC,WBA,WBO,IBF
Tier2 IBO
Tier 3 WBF
Tier 4 IBA,IBC

I know in the past i haven't rated the WBO and IBO, and as of yesterday claimed that in 5 years the IBO would be considered a major( Look at who's held the belts recently) considering Wlad,Green,Dawson(now pascal) Pac,Hatton,Mundine and so on have held/hold the IBO title recently.

The WBF is a joke and from memory don't even have a champ for every division, and there is now 2 different WBF titles Foundation/federation.

The IBC and IBA are even worse they're lucky to even have a championship fight once a year in 1 division, so how they get befuddled with a championship belt is beyond me.

But i voted for the last option as well.

Sorry 'dawg, but since when did the WBO become one of the big three? I sort of agree with your tier system though, and I guess you could argue that the WBO hasn't been elevated to the first tier, merely the others have degenerated.
I, too, voted for the last option.

[Hounddawg]

Dont care really, it's the fighter that makes the title and of course who they defend against.

In regards to weighting them in a tier system.

Tier 1 WBC,WBA,WBO,IBF
Tier2 IBO
Tier 3 WBF
Tier 4 IBA,IBC

I know in the past i haven't rated the WBO and IBO, and as of yesterday claimed that in 5 years the IBO would be considered a major( Look at who's held the belts recently) considering Wlad,Green,Dawson(now pascal) Pac,Hatton,Mundine and so on have held/hold the IBO title recently.

The WBF is a joke and from memory don't even have a champ for every division, and there is now 2 different WBF titles Foundation/federation.

The IBC and IBA are even worse they're lucky to even have a championship fight once a year in 1 division, so how they get befuddled with a championship belt is beyond me.

But i voted for the last option as well.

Sorry 'dawg, but since when did the WBO become one of the big three? I sort of agree with your tier system though, and I guess you could argue that the WBO hasn't been elevated to the first tier, merely the others have degenerated.
I, too, voted for the last option.

I won't argue there mate, never truly been a fan of the WBO, it's popularity of recent years has given it credibility amongst fraternity's in the game, but it now allows people who were winning the WBO belt in the eighties/ninetys to proclaim they were world champs, when the true champions wouldn't even consider challenging for the WBO, being that the WBC/WBA and to a lesser extent the IBF were universally recognized as the true belts to hold any validity to being World champ.

The others have definitely degenerated however the WBO have some decent representatives sporting there belts atm.

[Marlin]

most people speak of the big four...

[Hounddawg]

Which is what i do now, theres too many legit champions currently to refute that it's not a real belt.

[dberry]

most people speak of the big four...

As polled by Marlin, from a study group of Marlin ;;-)
Sorry mate but it's always (since the eighties) been the big three, you must be thinking of the Asian motor cycle manufacturers, the big four, Yamaha, Suzuki, Honda and Kawasaki.

[oliverfennell]

Castillo was pretty shop worn though, you have to admit, a gift against an up and coming fighter proved that, before he entered the ring with Hatton, Hatton was after a name. You can't have Castillo.

Temerity you make me laugh Ollie

And Mallignaggi was powder puff puncher, he might have been up there at a time in a weak division but he certainly ain't an all time great.

If you can have Jones, then I can have Castillo!

And yes, Malignaggi is a light puncher but he was top 5 at the time - something neither Dominquez nor Briggs were.

[Hounddawg]

Fair enough

[Marlin]

most people speak of the big four...

As polled by Marlin, from a study group of Marlin ;;-)
Sorry mate but it's always (since the eighties) been the big three, you must be thinking of the Asian motor cycle manufacturers, the big four, Yamaha, Suzuki, Honda and Kawasaki.

Or perhaps we are just both showing our age D

[Brute]

Bigred,

4 titles that matter. WBC WBA IBF and WBOllox.

Everything else the calls itself a world title is a waste of metal and leather. Basically these titles are if you have to justify it to someone because a world class boxer held/holds it.

Ricky Hatton held the IBO for two years, however he used the title as a promotional thing (IE, on the news the fight would be referred to as a world title fight). Ricky was viewed as the best LWW in the world at the time, but he was forced to give his IBF and WBA because he wanted to fight the best instead of the sub standard manditories they he has told to defend against. The fact other boxers started banging out the 'Ricky Hatton has this belt' chestnut without taking on the level of oppenent Ricky was facing was the cause of this whole bloody IBOllox thing.

Exactly. Whenever I've had the temerity to challenge Danny Green's position as a "world champion", the Aussies usually bring up Hatton, forgetting that at the time Hatton only had an IBO belt to his name:

a) he was the universally recognised number one in the division
b) he had beaten the previous universally recognised number one in the division
c) he had not lost at the weight since
d) he had claimed several "big 4" championships in doing so, and did not lose them in the ring

And, as you point out,

e) Castillo, Lazcano and Maliganaggi > Dominguez, Siaca and Briggs

Didn't Audrey Harrison have a WBF belt for a while?