Do the belts mean anything to you ?
Do the belts mean anything to you ?
The belts were created to market fights to people who knew nothing about boxing. They evolved into something else, I'm not sure what. I guess everyone on this forum is a boxing fan so what is your opinion. Please Vote and Comment
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
Not particularly. They serve a purpose as far as establishing who is truly the top man if he's able to gather multiple titles or whatever, but the very fact that there even are multiple titles in the first place is of course stupid.
If all the belts or all but 1 of them disappeared it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.
I do get the feeling we are soon to be heading into a direction where there'll be less belts or at least where the belts that exist now will be demoted in status in the eyes of many people.
If all the belts or all but 1 of them disappeared it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.
I do get the feeling we are soon to be heading into a direction where there'll be less belts or at least where the belts that exist now will be demoted in status in the eyes of many people.
-
PRINCEKOOL
- Middleweight
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 19:49
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
Do the NBA finals, Super Bowl, Olympics, Grand Slam Tennis, World Championship Athletics, Formula 1 World Championship, World Endurance Racing Championship, Indy Car World Championship, The Masters Golf Championship, mean anything to you? Yes it does.
Note: Titles, and Championships MATTER to the athletes. Those are the facts.
I understand that there is a Lil cult like movement in boxing 'where certain people seem to think titles don't matter. In my opinion those people are not experiencing reality, from an objective perspective. And they are just projecting their frustrations and distorted perceptions on the sport.
General society does not decide what matters. IF all the fighters start out in boxing, with the ambitions to become Champions then that is what matters'.
One of the greatest titles in boxing in my opinion is not even a World title 'it is the British Lonsdale title. The history and prestige which is associated with that title, is almost on a par with any World title' etc.
Note: Titles, and Championships MATTER to the athletes. Those are the facts.
I understand that there is a Lil cult like movement in boxing 'where certain people seem to think titles don't matter. In my opinion those people are not experiencing reality, from an objective perspective. And they are just projecting their frustrations and distorted perceptions on the sport.
General society does not decide what matters. IF all the fighters start out in boxing, with the ambitions to become Champions then that is what matters'.
One of the greatest titles in boxing in my opinion is not even a World title 'it is the British Lonsdale title. The history and prestige which is associated with that title, is almost on a par with any World title' etc.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
No. Four titles in every weight class, minimum. Nice to have for promoters and fighters but about half of the belts are won in set-up fights against nobodies for vacant “titles.” The idea that you have four “champions” in a weight class means there is no single “champion” in a weight class, so the belt is by definition an alphabet belt but only a belt from one of four business entities being paid sanctioning fees. It means nothing to me but it does to promoters and fighters, who can call themselves “world champions” when they win one
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
I guess I will vote the top 1. PrinceKool makes a good point about the Longsdale belt.
The oldest person alive today was born the same year the Longsdale belt was first awarded. So, what boxing used to be pre-1909 doesn't really matter all that much in 2026 when most current fighters were born into the 4 belt era.
For me personally, the ladder as a concept is more important to the sport than the belt. As the pro game doesn't really do tournaments like amateur boxing. The belt is just a sign of who is at the top of the ladder. The problem is that concepts, like the ladder and belts, can be corrupted
Is the answer throw away all structures and the fans keep track of who they think is on top? Probably not wise given the media illiteracy of the many, and that fans of specific fighters and nationalities are usually far louder than those of the sport in general. But having said all that Boxing could probably do with less belts at the pinnacle
The oldest person alive today was born the same year the Longsdale belt was first awarded. So, what boxing used to be pre-1909 doesn't really matter all that much in 2026 when most current fighters were born into the 4 belt era.
For me personally, the ladder as a concept is more important to the sport than the belt. As the pro game doesn't really do tournaments like amateur boxing. The belt is just a sign of who is at the top of the ladder. The problem is that concepts, like the ladder and belts, can be corrupted
Is the answer throw away all structures and the fans keep track of who they think is on top? Probably not wise given the media illiteracy of the many, and that fans of specific fighters and nationalities are usually far louder than those of the sport in general. But having said all that Boxing could probably do with less belts at the pinnacle
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
For a low profile top 15 contender, winning a world title is just the next step up the career ladder — bigger paydays, more visibility, and instant credibility.
Broadcasters push title fights because, unless a boxer is already a star, casual fans only tune in when there’s something allegedly “meaningful” at stake.
Hardcore fans know plenty of alphabet titleholders who aren’t top three talents in their respective divisions, but a belt still makes the fight feel important to the casual boxing audience.
And anyone that appreciates boxing, must support the existence of world titles, because they increase viewership figures and generate revenue. The sport wouldn’t exist without those two things.
Broadcasters push title fights because, unless a boxer is already a star, casual fans only tune in when there’s something allegedly “meaningful” at stake.
Hardcore fans know plenty of alphabet titleholders who aren’t top three talents in their respective divisions, but a belt still makes the fight feel important to the casual boxing audience.
And anyone that appreciates boxing, must support the existence of world titles, because they increase viewership figures and generate revenue. The sport wouldn’t exist without those two things.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
They give some meaning to fights, best pick out of them.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
We have a ranking system, it's not that complicated.
Thing is, boxing is global sport at world level and you have to do some work to keep up with it.
Thing is, boxing is global sport at world level and you have to do some work to keep up with it.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
Maybe once upon a time, when we had 3 but nowadays, its a joke and the rankings even worse.
Intercontinental, Penta, Pan-whatever, WBC / IBF / WBA (insert country name), ditto Regular, Interim, Emiratus in addition to the usual lot is just nonsensical.
If I could, I would scrap all of them and have one world belt, which will never ever happen, or just the 2 or 3 (WBA, WBC and IBF), alongside the more minor ie area (or equivalent), national and European / Pacific, NABF type of thing.
TV / PPV and casuals like a belt on the line but as a purist, its rubbish.
NB- I never begrudge fighters earning more from having belts (TV & Promoters demand it). It shouldn't be that way but it is, so I just accept it and tend to focus on the quality of fighter and ignore the belt status thing.
Intercontinental, Penta, Pan-whatever, WBC / IBF / WBA (insert country name), ditto Regular, Interim, Emiratus in addition to the usual lot is just nonsensical.
If I could, I would scrap all of them and have one world belt, which will never ever happen, or just the 2 or 3 (WBA, WBC and IBF), alongside the more minor ie area (or equivalent), national and European / Pacific, NABF type of thing.
TV / PPV and casuals like a belt on the line but as a purist, its rubbish.
NB- I never begrudge fighters earning more from having belts (TV & Promoters demand it). It shouldn't be that way but it is, so I just accept it and tend to focus on the quality of fighter and ignore the belt status thing.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
I want to click on both the 2nd & 4th options.
-
Thomastearns
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 2405
- Joined: 26 Feb 2017, 11:11
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
Belts and medals still matter, but only in the amateur ranks.
In professional boxing, it's only the money that counts.
Amateur bouts take next to no time to arrange but professional boxing matchups where the strategy is to wring every last dollar out of the paying fans can take years.
And more years.
In fact, in some instances the legal wrangling over the contracts and purse splits, TV/broadcasting percentages and various rematch/rehydration/ weight clauses can mean the fights only happen once both fighters have run out of all viable options.
Any residual feelings of sentimentality or nostalgia over belts are now confined to a few long term fans and a remaining few delusional fighters.
The only reason why belts have any viability left is because sport is supposedly about competition and, Floyd Mayweather aside, it's still considered undignified to be competing only for the money.
All trophies/belts/medals are now mere relics of a long past sporting amateur age.
Like it or not, we're now in a professional business age.
We can continue to pretend otherwise, admire the bravery, the guts and determination of the competitors, but almost universally these days it's a carefully calculated business transaction.
It's the winners cheque and corporate profits that count.
No amount of "medical justification" can hide the real reason we're seeing mandatory 'rehydration' breaks in the World Cup.
Everyone knows, and if they didn't, they did after watching one happening during a heavy rainstorm.
Corporate greed might one day end up destroying its own golden calf in sport.
Here's an idea, how about turning boxing back into a genuine sport, where champions no longer choose their opponents, once more?
In professional boxing, it's only the money that counts.
Amateur bouts take next to no time to arrange but professional boxing matchups where the strategy is to wring every last dollar out of the paying fans can take years.
And more years.
In fact, in some instances the legal wrangling over the contracts and purse splits, TV/broadcasting percentages and various rematch/rehydration/ weight clauses can mean the fights only happen once both fighters have run out of all viable options.
Any residual feelings of sentimentality or nostalgia over belts are now confined to a few long term fans and a remaining few delusional fighters.
The only reason why belts have any viability left is because sport is supposedly about competition and, Floyd Mayweather aside, it's still considered undignified to be competing only for the money.
All trophies/belts/medals are now mere relics of a long past sporting amateur age.
Like it or not, we're now in a professional business age.
We can continue to pretend otherwise, admire the bravery, the guts and determination of the competitors, but almost universally these days it's a carefully calculated business transaction.
It's the winners cheque and corporate profits that count.
No amount of "medical justification" can hide the real reason we're seeing mandatory 'rehydration' breaks in the World Cup.
Everyone knows, and if they didn't, they did after watching one happening during a heavy rainstorm.
Corporate greed might one day end up destroying its own golden calf in sport.
Here's an idea, how about turning boxing back into a genuine sport, where champions no longer choose their opponents, once more?
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
A belt by itself? Usually not..
The fact that a fighter has one or more of a select list of belts? Yes.
The fact that a fighter has one or more of a select list of belts? Yes.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
I like to think the "world champion" belt still means something to the fighters and a lot of fans, but I'm also a realist and know that fighters chase the largest payday - can't blame them for that - regardless if a title is on the line or not. However, in this day and age of watered down titles due to multiple belts in each weight class of which there are too many, I can see why many people consider them mostly meaningless trinkets.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
End of the day ...
We have a ranking system right here on the site.
Might not be to everyones liking.
Don't agree, then come on here and discuss it.
My experience tells me no matter how you slice it and dice it ... you'll still have rankings with bells and whistles but it'll be pretty much the same thing.
We have a ranking system right here on the site.
Might not be to everyones liking.
Don't agree, then come on here and discuss it.
My experience tells me no matter how you slice it and dice it ... you'll still have rankings with bells and whistles but it'll be pretty much the same thing.
Re: Do the belts mean anything to you ?
Personally, I use the BoxRec rankings as a guide to gauge where boxers stand in comparison to others in the weight class but not the final word. While they're not perfect - I admit, some make me scratch my head - the rankings are also not random nor arbitrary. For better or worse, the computer formula/algorithm takes the human element out of them, so there is no undue influence from outside factors.Evander wrote: ↑07 Jul 2026, 03:44 End of the day ...
We have a ranking system right here on the site.
Might not be to everyones liking.
Don't agree, then come on here and discuss it.
My experience tells me no matter how you slice it and dice it ... you'll still have rankings with bells and whistles but it'll be pretty much the same thing.