BoxRec

Just a topic for discussion.

Should the holders of various titles simply be refered to as "belt holders" now, rather than Champions?

It does make a lot more sense, in many ways, especially with the "World" belts?

World title claimants would be a good alternative also. Just like back in the day when the IBU champions like Marcel Thil were defending their world titles - they are not recognized as 'world champions' but as a world title claimant.

We need to clean this mess up - we fans have a responsibility as well as the managers, boxers and promoters. TV and the print media are doing their part by ignoring the sport - I know it upsets people like our mate Spud - but it is the only way for boxing to get serious again. The sport needs to police itself.

Just my 2 RMB on it all.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:World title claimants would be a good alternative also.

That sounds a touch negative, though.

It's best to see belts for what they are- belts, won against an opponent from a specified area.

it's so difficult to keep track these days.

unfortunately the behaviour of the sanctioning bodies has cheapened there status.

it's all about the fight these days.

abraham-dirrell tomorrow night has no title involved.

but that is a much better fight than klitschko-chambers the other week.

and those guys were fighting for 2 world titles.

what happend to the wbc diamond belt

I've said this same thing for ages. Will never happen generally but the boxing press should make a start.

Basically, they should just accept that boxing is generally not based around Championships*, and as such, doesn't really have champions.

*Prizefighter, Super 6 (although thats got a bit messed up) etc are exceptions.


the idea of a "Champion" of the commonwealth is the most absurd.

I like to call the WBF belt, for example, the world title of Ferntree Gully. (Or whatever town the title fight was fought in). I think it is best to recognize State, National (except in New Zealand where they have several national titles per weight division), Commonwealth/European/Asian/Americas/African titles and then disregard all but the most relevant world title. Please, as fans, participants and contributors to this sport, do it a favour and ignore, refuse and refuse to acknowledge the plethora of BullShit titles.

If you truly love this sport then recognize that meaningless titles, terrible mismatches and handpicking opponents/padding records is giving the public a false idea of what our noble sport is truly about and driving people away from it.

When the Joe Public sees a bloke who has trained for less than a year punch up a bloke who couldn't win a raffle if he bought all the tickets, for a 'Title', and Joe thinks 'What did I pay to see this shyte for, I could beet both those duds', do you think that helps our couse?

As people stop paying to watch the fights, and the sport gets more of a bad rap, less people get involved at a training, therefore competitive level, and we lose competitors. Soon we'll have more titles then pro boxers

whicker wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:World title claimants would be a good alternative also.

That sounds a touch negative, though.

It's best to see belts for what they are- belts, won against an opponent from a specified area.

And what area do Intercontinental and Masters belts cover?

whicker wrote:the idea of a "Champion" of the commonwealth is the most absurd.

Why is it? Putting aside the current quality of the title fights, the idea of a Commonwealth championship is perfectly sound, covering as it does some 70 nations, including major ones such as UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa and so on.

Belt holder works for me. Doug Fisher at the Ring online tends to use this terminology.

oliverfennell wrote:

whicker wrote:the idea of a "Champion" of the commonwealth is the most absurd.

Why is it? Putting aside the current quality of the title fights, the idea of a Commonwealth championship is perfectly sound, covering as it does some 70 nations, including major ones such as UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa and so on.

Yes, but these days, it's really little more than an almost random (and somewhat exclusive) collection of Nations. Yes, I know it's historical and all that, but in all honesty, it's little more than "champion these random places."

Area, country, continent, world, are all logical areas- covering a bigger geographical are each time, and by implication, each carries more prestige.

oliverfennell wrote:

whicker wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:World title claimants would be a good alternative also.

That sounds a touch negative, though.

It's best to see belts for what they are- belts, won against an opponent from a specified area.

And what area do Intercontinental and Masters belts cover?

Well, Britain and the World, I assume. British Masters- Winner of a belt competed for against a fellow countryman.

Intercontinental is just another "world" title, same with International, basically they're just money spinning fads.

it'd hardly help sell a fight to the public. promoters clearly rely on a 3 letter sanctioning body to look official and credible. you didn't see ricky hatton promoting a fight as "ring magazine" championship. he'd sell it as an IBO world title fight.

in magazines, i believe boxing news put the word 'champion' in inverted commas, and ring mag mention the sanctioning bodies as little as possible unless they have done something wrong. it is common practice for online writers to call belt holders lacking a big claim as the main champ at their weight, as "title holder", "belt holder," holder of this or that "bauble."

I almost always call them titlists. They're not all champions.