Boxing prizes, Belts, Trophies, Awards, Rings, Golden Gloves and the like...
How would you rank these in order of 'prestige' and recognition(?); i.e the Lonsdale Belt used to be more sought after and worth more than the Ring World Champion belt, USED to be.
So would it be for instance;
the Ring Belt
a Lonsdale Belt
an Alphebet Belt (which one(s)
what Trophies or Honours...
Rating Boxing's Prizes?
I guess what makes a belt is how difficult it is to win it.
If you're talking about the big three alphbet titles and the EBU (probably the WBO too) they have to be ranked above the Lonsdale belt as you would have had to beat a much better level of fighter to win it. There is certainly a good case for ranking the Lonsdale belt higher than the weaker alphabet belts like the WBU and definately above crap like the WBF.
I would generally go with the Ring magazine belt as the most meaningfull. However it has had its faults in the past too, Calzaghe is the current ring 168lb champ after beating Lacy and Vitali was given the HW belt for beating Sanders, neither man had proved conclusively he was the best in the division at the time IMO.
If you're talking about the big three alphbet titles and the EBU (probably the WBO too) they have to be ranked above the Lonsdale belt as you would have had to beat a much better level of fighter to win it. There is certainly a good case for ranking the Lonsdale belt higher than the weaker alphabet belts like the WBU and definately above crap like the WBF.
I would generally go with the Ring magazine belt as the most meaningfull. However it has had its faults in the past too, Calzaghe is the current ring 168lb champ after beating Lacy and Vitali was given the HW belt for beating Sanders, neither man had proved conclusively he was the best in the division at the time IMO.
WOW Dec, that's much more than I expected, Thanks!
So excluding 'unifications' and 'non'-world titles, your list would look like this...
(Tie) The WBA
(Tie) The WBC
(Tie) The IBF
The WBO
The Ring magazine title
The Londsdale belt
The IBO title
some might put the Ring Belt first looking something like this...
The Ring magazine title
(Tie) The WBA
(Tie) The WBC
(Tie) The IBF
The WBO
The Londsdale belt
The IBO title
the "older" Lonsdale Belts might even squeeze in 'after' the Ring Belt, or ahead (prestige, value), depending on who's grading, I think it was after the war their value ($/£'s) lessened.
Now after these World titles, "what about HONOURS, Trophies, Awards, Rings, Golden Gloves and the like... ?"
So excluding 'unifications' and 'non'-world titles, your list would look like this...
(Tie) The WBA
(Tie) The WBC
(Tie) The IBF
The WBO
The Ring magazine title
The Londsdale belt
The IBO title
some might put the Ring Belt first looking something like this...
The Ring magazine title
(Tie) The WBA
(Tie) The WBC
(Tie) The IBF
The WBO
The Londsdale belt
The IBO title
the "older" Lonsdale Belts might even squeeze in 'after' the Ring Belt, or ahead (prestige, value), depending on who's grading, I think it was after the war their value ($/£'s) lessened.
Now after these World titles, "what about HONOURS, Trophies, Awards, Rings, Golden Gloves and the like... ?"
I understand everything you say here, and I'm aware it is true, and yet in spite of all those deficits on the average I still think their ratings prove to be overall superior over the years. Granted they spike down on some occasions in a shameful fashion. But when graded for accuracy over a long period of time I still think of them as having the accuracy edge.Decagon wrote:Sadly, I had high hopes for the Ring magazine titles, but when they awarded Vitali Klitschko a title for simply having an HBO contract, I lost faith in the magazine. Ring magazine is still the publication that sold rankings in the 1970s and was involved in ABC's championship tournament scandal. The reason I rank the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO over the Ring magazine titles is that the alphabet titles are held accountable to their own rules and bylaws. Ring magazine isn't, and it changes its rules to suit individual situations.
Point made. I was referring to their listings over the many years....who they rated as number 1 and on down the line....not the "prize" aspect.Decagon wrote:Ring magazine has only named 10 or 15 championships in its recent history of doing so, making it difficult to compare it to organizations like the WBA, who have named thousands of champions.
My bad
I still think you have the right point Buzz, throughout the years the Ring 'ratings' and Belt has won it's exceptance. Though of course Not Always precise (trying to rate 10 men in 8 divisions from the Worlds Leading Boxing Nations, IMPOSSIBLE to be 100% right) all of the time!
Anyhow back to the Belts and Awards 'if' this is right:
The Ring magazine title
(Tie) The WBA
(Tie) The WBC
(Tie) The IBF
The WBO
The Londsdale belt (again from the past could be higher, till 19??)
The IBO title
what about the "awards", the HOF's, the Golden Gloves, the Val (whatever) Award and so on. How do these line up after & along with the above?
Anyhow back to the Belts and Awards 'if' this is right:
The Ring magazine title
(Tie) The WBA
(Tie) The WBC
(Tie) The IBF
The WBO
The Londsdale belt (again from the past could be higher, till 19??)
The IBO title
what about the "awards", the HOF's, the Golden Gloves, the Val (whatever) Award and so on. How do these line up after & along with the above?