should titles at all enhance how a fighter is rated

[jamamb]

i mean titles themselves, taken seperatly from who the fighter beat to get a title.

ricky burns for example won his 3rd divisional title vs weak opponent who was subsequently brutally ktfo by eduard troavsnky. no one had talked di rocco up as a good fighter before this. he had no reputation for being world class or top 10. how much shouldve that win itself added to how burns career is rated

also, if two fighters beat an identical opponent who performs equally well vs both, but one fight was a world title fight and the other was non title, with the title winner now able to say hes a world champ but the other cant, should these be rated differntly?

and by rating i dont mean wba/ibf rating etc, but how there career is rated in generall

[jamamb]

doesnt have to be world titles either

i see in horse rankings a lot ppl will say 'oh so and so is british/ebu/' champ, they should be higher!' yet theres no reference to the actual f@cking opponents they beat for those belts. is it a valid point they have to think the belt itself should get fighters higher up?

[KiwiRider]

There are so many belts they have become meaningless.
To me its all about who you beat.
And I don't discriminate between KO artists or going the distance. A win is a win.

[Heretic]

They should not.

But in reality they do. Many people have been ranking Wilder as the number two heavy for long time despite the fact he had not beaten anyone to gain such a ranking. Right now he should still be behind Povetkin who has much better resume than him.

Parker is another guy who constantly gets ranked too high because he has that trinket.

The way many people seem to rank is this. Title holders are automatically on the top and rest is sorted out by the resumes

[keirw]

also, if two fighters beat an identical opponent who performs equally well vs both, but one fight was a world title fight and the other was non title, with the title winner now able to say hes a world champ but the other cant, should these be rated differntly?

There was a time when Kiko Martinez was both Frampton and Quigg's best opponent yet everyone saw Frampton's wins as more impressive as they were for recognised titles, which seemed a bit unfair to Quigg.

Though i appreciate the fact that the WBA regular title infuriates people, if a belt is only as good as the men fighting for it, Quigg should have got more credit for his win over Kiko.

[JamieM]

Opponents mean more than titles. I'd much rather have a guy who has been in with the best. Won some and lost some than a guy who's had a shed load of fights blown everyone away but never thought anyone of note.

[Oiky]

Only if the titles are proper titles not sh*t ones