Alphabet Belts

[Ezzard]

Do titles mean anything?

I guess what I'm asking is whether you all think that winning a title should be seen as an achievement these days.

Imagine the number of titles Ezzard Charles could have collected had he been around today? He'd have mopped up everything from Super Middle to Heavy. This would not have enhanced his achievements in my mind or his ability. It's simply a fact. Ezzard IMO could have probably won 20+ of these belts.

I appeciate from a boxers perspective that it's great to win one of these belts but how serious should we take them when rating a fighter? Should a guy who won one title be included in a who was the greatest champion debate?

Anyway, seems like one voice on the web has had a go at tracing this back...

Take a look, its a worthwhile project.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/finbarr/btcp2.htm

[barry]

All the alphabet titles are dog shit!!! It's good when a fighter unifies the title, but it most certainly is not more difficult than before, it just means that the actual best fighters actually fight each other. In the past two, or three of the titles holders would have been the top contenders and they would either have to fight one another for a shot at the real title, or get a shot at the one true title holder! But as we have seen since the middle 1980s, rarely do fighters ever unify titles and as a result the two best fighters may go their entire careers without fighting one another because each hold a bogus belt and instead they feed on fighters that would have a hard time making in an actual top five. Even when a fighter does unify a title one, or two of the bullshit orgs ends up stripping him within a year and two years after he unified the title a lot of people can't remember it. The bogus orgs have lead to the invention of a new weight class ever few pounds and they have done more to hurt boxing than TV in the 1950s did! Personally, I don't call anyone a champion unless they have unified their division, the others are nothing but belt holders...not champions in the true sense!

[JC]

In the past two, or three of the titles holders would have been the top contenders and they would either have to fight one another for a shot at the real title, or get a shot at the one true title holder!

This is pretty much exactly my feelings on the subject. When two belt holders meet for a "unification" it's really just two of the top contenders fighting. That's part of the reason why in the past fighters were hardly ever unbeaten by the time they won the title.

Even in a situation as with Roy Jones were he unified every light heavyweight title under the sun. He drops the various belts at different times, the belt becomes vacent, two fighters fight for it and suddenly we have another "champion" without the original champion actually having lost a fight.

[BoxBuzz]

Barry, you know you and I see eye to eye on quite a few things. I don't like disagreeing with you. But to bring dog shit down to the level of boxing "sanctioning bodies" is an insult to a by product of man's best friend.

My Carolina Swamp Hound who's name is "Braddock" by the way, would be insulted to hear that his contribution to the future growth of trees and bushes around the edges of my property have been so diminished in worth and value.

Barry I truly hope you can find it in you to take back this terrible thing you have said about an underestimated and often verbaly abused fertilizer that already has a terrible public relations issue without you adding fuel to bias on the subject.

[-KOKid-]

In my opinion alphabet titles mean nothing. My reasoning is that they are financially motivated companies like any other today.

Boxing existed long before any of the alphabet bodies, and it will survive them too. What if any of them go bankrupt?
What about all the fighters who fought before they came into existance?
How will history look at titleholders whose belt no longer exists?
Also, I refuse to recognize several champions in every weightclass.

We've seen titles come and go before, like "The Nergo World Championship" which Charley Burley and Sam Langford held at one point, or "The White World Championship" during the white hope era.
These titles had just as much influence as the alphabet bodies today, but who talks about them now? The same fate could easily happen to any one of the alphabet bodies, say 50 years from now. Less even.

No, the only title which can has value in my opinion is the lineal championship, which is a symbolic title that can only be won or lost in the ring, not in courtrooms and through politics.

The Ring title I feel has certain value only for naming new lineal champions. Otherwise naming a new lineal champion could take years. And if The Ring ceases to exist, well, the lineal championship will still live on.

-KOKid-

[Rory McCloskey]

titles have to mean something..i guess... they use to mean a HELL of alot more.. nowadays 100000 heavyweights have titles and maybe 3 of them really mean anything in the forfront of boxing.

just look at a guy like pbf. He is by most accounts the best P4P fighter in boxing oday, yet he doesnt have the titles that hatton has.

How many heavyweight boxers have 1 of the main titles... 3/4?..its ridiculoushow is someone world heavyweight champ, when 2 other people are?!? its crazy.

its something we all have to get use to..boxing wont change its too conservative. boxing could really help things if they broke it down to 1 title per class. (world champ title) and bring the major fights out of the casinos and bring back the garden, the baseball fields, anything.

Boxing today is a shade of its former self. SOME HEAVYWEIGHT PLEASE SAVE US!!! PLEASEEEEE

[Collins2000]

Rory, my old mucker, have you ever been involved in amateur dramatics?

[Rory McCloskey]

nahh i dont do amatuer. i go strait for the big stuff