Are multiple belts really bad for for boxing?

[cold187]

If wilder vs stiverne was not for WBC belt (non lineal) would it still be as exciting
We known Wladimir has all the belts but positive is we all know he is number 1, but takes away excitement from a division.

I watched an interview with brandon rios saying we need "A" heavyweight champion in the USA. not "THE" but "A"

My views are against multiple belts. As fans we can't have have best of both.

what u think?

[bigred83]

If the USA "needs" a heavyweight champ, then they should earn it.
I think multiple belts is a mixed bag. Its great to have a "unified" champ.
However, there can be situations where the unified champ, isn't the best in the division, eg Daniel geale winning against sturm to unify IBF and WBA super titles.
There seems to be a reluctance to unify these days, and possibly that come back to the different orgs asking for too much in sanctioning fees.

[Badhusker]

I have accepted the 5 major belts quite a while ago, but its the minor belts that they create that I have a problem with. The Silver, continental, etc. We now have 17 weights and 5 major champs at each weight for a total of 85. Rarely are they even all filled at one time.

Non-Lineal vs Lineal belts mean nothing. In other words, to me being the Lineal champ is nothing special.

[SteveO]

There seems to be a reluctance to unify these days, and possibly that come back to the different orgs asking for too much in sanctioning fees.

As was the case recently with Kubrat Pulev. He refused to pay sanctioning fees to the WBA, WBO and IBO and therefore could only have won the IBF title had he defeated Wladimir Klitschko - the other titles would have been declared vacant.

[cold187]

There seems to be a reluctance to unify these days, and possibly that come back to the different orgs asking for too much in sanctioning fees.

As was the case recently with Kubrat Pulev. He refused to pay sanctioning fees to the WBA, WBO and IBO and therefore could only have won the IBF title had he defeated Wladimir Klitschko - the other titles would have been declared vacant.

but multiple belts is what stops the best fighting each other and duck. ie leo santa cruz, peter quillin etc.
not always, we know Lennox lewis, tarver in past have dropped belts to fight teh bigger people.

another problem with multiple belts is jennings has decided against Wladimir and decided to fight stiverne/wilder winner instead.
obviously a business move

Shouldd kovalev and golovkin unify all belts will this dry up the division too??

[Perseus]

I have accepted the 5 major belts quite a while ago, but its the minor belts that they create that I have a problem with. The Silver, continental, etc. We now have 17 weights and 5 major champs at each weight for a total of 85. Rarely are they even all filled at one time.

Non-Lineal vs Lineal belts mean nothing. In other words, to me being the Lineal champ is nothing special.

Five major belts??

Is the IBO really considered a major belt these days?
If you look around the web looking at boxing/sports websites a lot of them have a "champions" list not all of them list the IBO.
That seems like a pretty good indication of major vs minor belt, if the websites that keep track of such things don't bother listing it then it's a minor belt.
IMO the belt should have achieved mainstream recognition to be considered a major belt.
Casual fans the world over know about the the WBA and WBC. The IBF and WBO are right there with the older two but mention the IBO and the casual fan gets confused.
Everyone who comes to a site like this one knows about the IBO but it has not achieved mainstream recognition yet.

[Syntax Error]

What is the fifth major belt?

Also, who decides when a belt becomes major & what hoops does that particular alphabet organisation have to jump through in order to be recognised?

After this, at what point do we say, 'enough is enough', because we could feasibly end up with 35 'major' belts on our hands?

[littlepug]

5 major belts ?

[zorndeslammes]

Wilder/Stiverne being for a belt creates a narrative that the networks and media can sell. There's other solid narratives they could use, but with the sport being in a rut, this is easy for the layman to understand and accept. So basically, boxing arrived at this point because it and the media surrounding the sport were hella lazy and super willing to sell out the legitimacy of the "single champion" ideals they often promote to attempt to engage readers and viewers to justify their careers.

[Tony1244]

I'm a Wilder fan but will NOT consider him a champion if he wins next week.

There should only be 1 belt.

If fake title fights like Stiverne-Wilder create fights that wouldn't have happened otherwise, then so be it.

Chagaev-Oquendo was for no real title, but it's good they fought because it's always good when the top 25 fight each other.

[ReggieDiggs]

Yes multiple belts are bad. The problem isn't just the four belts that are considered "world titles" these days. Its the up to 40 "Top Ten" guys we can have under these belts. Its mfing confusing as hell. If there was one champion & one top ten then this fight would maybe be the #3 guy vs the #10 guy (this is arguable I'd agree, I'm just using it for my point). That right there would have more meaning & would make things bigger when undisputed top guys fight. The added value of people being able to actually keep up with who's in the top ten would give more value to just being a top ten guy.

Lets look right now at the HW champions & top ten.

Wladimir (the champ)
Bermane (a champ)
Ruslan (some sorta champ)

Deontay (#1 contender)
Tyson (#1 contender)
Kubrat (#1 contender, old rankings, what can I do)
Luis Ortiz (#1 contender)
Alexander Povetkin (top ten)
Bryant Jennings (top ten)
Vyacheslav Glazkov (top ten)
Andy Ruiz (top ten)
Mike Perez (top ten)
Steve Cunningham (top ten)
Christian Hammer (top ten)
Lucas Brown (top ten)
Francesco Pianeta (top ten)
Shannon Briggs (top ten)
Mark De Mori (top ten)
Charles Martin (top ten)
Anthony Joshua (top ten)
Fres Oquendo (top ten)
David Price (top ten)
Manuel Charr (top ten)
Joseph Parker (top ten)
Travis Kaufman (top ten)

So we got:

3 Champions
4 #1 Contenders
22 Top Ten guys

LOL

And I think the HW's are more in unison ranking-wise. When you go down divisions I think you tend to get more random guys in the top ten of just one org there so you get even more "top ten" guys. Its hilariously confusing & retarded.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

YES THEY ARE ESPECIALLY WHEN MUG'S ARE RUNNING AROUND WITH THEIR WBF/IBO/WBU......etc...etc...etc AND TELLING ANYONE THAT WILL LISTEN THAT THEY ARE WORLD CHAMP'S MAKE YA SICK.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

5 major belts ?

FOR GODS SAKE WHO ARE THE 5 DON'T TELL ME THE FIFTH BELT IS THE IBO THESE SORT OF WORLD TITTLE BELT'S ARE NOT FOR REAL ASK ANYONE AT THE INTERNATIONAL BOXING HALL OF FAME THE 4 REAL WORLD TITTLE'S ARE NOT IN ANY ORDER WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF PERIOD..............................................................
IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOUR A GOOSE.

[tiny_acres]

5 major belts ?

FOR GODS SAKE WHO ARE THE 5 DON'T TELL ME THE FIFTH BELT IS THE IBO THESE SORT OF WORLD TITTLE BELT'S ARE NOT FOR REAL ASK ANYONE AT THE INTERNATIONAL BOXING HALL OF FAME THE 4 REAL WORLD TITTLE'S ARE NOT IN ANY ORDER WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF PERIOD..............................................................
IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOUR A GOOSE.

I still have a hard time counting the WBO.It wook me 20-25 years before I counted the IBF.
Too many alphabet groups

[SenorPipino]

The belts today are worthless. True fans only pay attention to the P4P ratings.

I enjoyed how excited Todd Grisham was on the FNF a few days ago when he could call Darleys Perez the interim WBA lightweight titleholder.
Like that's really a legit title.
Brian Kenny would have rightly referred to it as an "interim trinket."

[ReggieDiggs]

5 major belts ?

FOR GODS SAKE WHO ARE THE 5 DON'T TELL ME THE FIFTH BELT IS THE IBO THESE SORT OF WORLD TITTLE BELT'S ARE NOT FOR REAL ASK ANYONE AT THE INTERNATIONAL BOXING HALL OF FAME THE 4 REAL WORLD TITTLE'S ARE NOT IN ANY ORDER WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF PERIOD..............................................................
IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOUR A GOOSE.

I still have a hard time counting the WBO.It wook me 20-25 years before I counted the IBF.
Too many alphabet groups

Likewise. I kinda hate that they have retroactivity counted WBO titles win as legit belts in guys careers to. Like how Ernie Terrell was retroactively considered a bigger deal than he was with his WBA belt. I mean Michael Moorer won a WBO belt his first year boxing it was such a bs belt. Was that really a "world" title at that time? I'd say hell no. Now it takes a lil more to get to a WBO title so its more legit.

[tiny_acres]

The belts today are worthless. True fans only pay attention to the P4P ratings.

I enjoyed how excited Todd Grisham was on the FNF a few days ago when he could call Darleys Perez the interim WBA lightweight titleholder.
Like that's really a legit title.
Brian Kenny would have rightly referred to it as an "interim trinket."

I have said for years guys like Wlad and Floyd should throw the belts in the trash.
The fans know who is champ and a sanctioning fee and a gaudy belt don't make you the champ.

[ReggieDiggs]

The belts today are worthless. True fans only pay attention to the P4P ratings.

The belts aren't worthless as much as I wish I could agree with you. They legitimize you. In particular on your way up they legitimize you as an elite level guy. Even after who've won a title, winning a second, third & fourth legitimizes you further as a top guy of your era p4p. Being a top ten contender used legitimize a fighter when the top ten had meaning.

[expe]

FOR GODS SAKE WHO ARE THE 5 DON'T TELL ME THE FIFTH BELT IS THE IBO THESE SORT OF WORLD TITTLE BELT'S ARE NOT FOR REAL ASK ANYONE AT THE INTERNATIONAL BOXING HALL OF FAME THE 4 REAL WORLD TITTLE'S ARE NOT IN ANY ORDER WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF PERIOD..............................................................
IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOUR A GOOSE.

I still have a hard time counting the WBO.It wook me 20-25 years before I counted the IBF.
Too many alphabet groups

Likewise. I kinda hate that they have retroactivity counted WBO titles win as legit belts in guys careers to. Like how Ernie Terrell was retroactively considered a bigger deal than he was with his WBA belt. I mean Michael Moorer won a WBO belt his first year boxing it was such a bs belt. Was that really a "world" title at that time? I'd say hell no. Now it takes a lil more to get to a WBO title so its more legit.

I don't think the legitimacy of the WBO can be argued post 1993, when Benn and Eubank fought to unify WBC and WBO, before that point it gets debatable, Francesco Damiani winning their first Heavyweight title fight doesn't exactly help their cause. Leonard-Hearns II did have the WBO title on the line too though and that was in 1989. In general I'd say early 90s, varying slightly depending on the division.

[Perseus]

^^^^Yes it can be argued that WBO was considered a second rate belt many years after that fight.
The WBO was not on equal standing with the other three until roughly 10 years ago.

Any boxer unifying the WBA/WBC and IBF was still recognized as "undisputed" champ well into the 2000's.
The WBO was generally considered a second rate belt that was not needed to be considered "undisputed" champ.
Not the WBO and any two of the other three. Holding the WBA/WBC and IBF was the standard for main stream recognition as "undisputed" champ of a division.

Lennox Lewis comes to mind.
Bernard Hopkins after him.
Winky Wright in 2004
Even O'Niel Bell was generally considered "undisputed" champ after unifying those 3 belts in early 2006

Sometime in the mid-2000's was when the WBO achieved equal standing with the other three major alphabets.

[ReggieDiggs]

I don't think the legitimacy of the WBO can be argued post 1993, when Benn and Eubank fought to unify WBC and WBO, before that point it gets debatable, Francesco Damiani winning their first Heavyweight title fight doesn't exactly help their cause. Leonard-Hearns II did have the WBO title on the line too though and that was in 1989. In general I'd say early 90s, varying slightly depending on the division.

Yea I don't exactly agree with Tiny's timeline tbqh I just mainly meant to say that once the WBO became a legit belt the guys that won it before it was a legit belt still get the fanfare of being a champion or multi-champion or multi-division champ even though the belt wasn't as meaningful at the time. And thats happened with the other belts.

If Badhuskers "fifth belt" ever comes to be a reality & the IBO ever becomes a legit belt at some point Danell Nicholson & Jeff Mayweather will be lauded as legit world champions which is a hilarious thing to think about, but its already happened with guys like Ernie Terrell & a Michael Moorer in his first year of boxing.

[cold187]

but as in the OP

would widler/stiverne be as big a fight if there was no belt involved (like povetkin/takam)

i doubt it.

[Noxy]

The worst thing about them is it means the best don't necessarily fight the best, which is ridiculous. In which other sport would that happen. On the other hand, if it gives more fighters the chance to earn more money through having title fights, then that's a good thing.

[Cloutov]

Maybe he was talking about the Ring belt!! I doubt you can put it there but this belt his significant for a lot of fan.

[lillywhite14]

Bad for the fans but good for the fighters. More "world champs" means more money...hopefully!