BoxRec

Im a little confused by this. Whats the WBC "Diamond" Title - on Martinez's profile it says he holds the ring title, but was stripped of the WBC world title and WBO world title. And now holds WBC diamond title. Which i assume is not a real world title but im not actually sure what it is or what it means.

Yup, he's the Diamond champ and i think Chavez jr is the world champ.

Ring title. End of the day he is 'the man' at MW and Barker is fighting the best.

Sod the alphabets, this fight involves the true champ

bfchunk wrote:Ring title. End of the day he is 'the man' at MW and Barker is fighting the best.

Sod the alphabets, this fight involves the true champ

Personally the ring title is - THE title to me.

I was just interested to know what the hell the diamond title is, because barker wouldnt get the ring title if he won would he? So technically he could beat the man but not be a recognised world champion.

The Ring title seems the most legitimate these days.

Barker would be the Ring champ if he pulls off a shock win. Anyone who beats their champ takes the title irrespective of alphabets.

The Diamond belt is just a fudge by the WBC.

bfchunk wrote:The Ring title seems the most legitimate these days.

Barker would be the Ring champ if he pulls off a shock win. Anyone who beats their champ takes the title irrespective of alphabets.

The Diamond belt is just a fudge by the WBC.

I thought the ring title became vacant unless the fight is sanctioned by the ring, and you usually have to be the top contender for that to happen.

kingfinn wrote:I thought the ring title became vacant unless the fight is sanctioned by the ring, and you usually have to be the top contender for that to happen.

Surely anyone in their top 10 would be good enough?

On wiki it says the fight is for the ring title and doesnt mention the diamond title. so if barker wins he is the number 1 recognised world champion.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

kingfinn wrote:On wiki it says the fight is for the ring title and doesnt mention the diamond title. so if barker wins he is the number 1 recognised world champion.

He won't be a world champion will he, as there is no world title? He will be the man at the weight though.

the ring title is a world title belt.

the ring title can be the only one that is taken seriously.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote: He won't be a world champion will he, as there is no world title? He will be the man at the weight though.

the ring title is a world title belt.

It's a belt made up by a magazine. It isn't a real world title even though it behaves better than the real ones.

i get what you're saying but he would still be counted as a world champion as calzaghe was when he beat hopkins, and of course the well known world heavy weight champion Rocky Balboa held only the ring belt..

kingfinn wrote:

bfchunk wrote:The Ring title seems the most legitimate these days.

Barker would be the Ring champ if he pulls off a shock win. Anyone who beats their champ takes the title irrespective of alphabets.

The Diamond belt is just a fudge by the WBC.

I thought the ring title became vacant unless the fight is sanctioned by the ring, and you usually have to be the top contender for that to happen.

taylor beat hopkins, pavlik beat taylor, martinez beat pavlik - this is the lineage of the title, regardless of what the alphabet organisations say

ring mag, and the major network HBO - the sport's biggest paymaster - regard this as the title.

the also-rans, like sturm, chavez jr etc regard themselves as champions - legends in their own households.

dmitry pirog, the WBO champ, should really be regarded as the #1 contender to martinez.

The Ring title is the most legitimate these days f*uk the rest one weight one title one champ

kingfinn wrote:

bfchunk wrote:The Ring title seems the most legitimate these days.

Barker would be the Ring champ if he pulls off a shock win. Anyone who beats their champ takes the title irrespective of alphabets.

The Diamond belt is just a fudge by the WBC.

I thought the ring title became vacant unless the fight is sanctioned by the ring, and you usually have to be the top contender for that to happen.

Na, you're thinking of when they crown a new champion if it's vacant.

Scottrf wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

bfchunk wrote:The Ring title seems the most legitimate these days.

Barker would be the Ring champ if he pulls off a shock win. Anyone who beats their champ takes the title irrespective of alphabets.

The Diamond belt is just a fudge by the WBC.

I thought the ring title became vacant unless the fight is sanctioned by the ring, and you usually have to be the top contender for that to happen.

Na, you're thinking of when they crown a new champion if it's vacant.

ah

Like many above, I agree that The Ring's title is the most legit one (or at least the most indicative of who is actually the man). But the interesting thing is that the MC doesn't usually announce a fighter as The Ring Magazine Champion (because it's not an official sanctioning body I guess).

So I expect he'll be introduced as the "generally accepted number 1 middleweight in the world", or something similar.

The ''world champion'' is whoever holds lineage in the division.

When the world champion leaves the division, that's when it gets messy. If the consensus top two fight - it's easy, if not it's whoever cleans out the division, irrespective of whether the alphabets throw a spanner into the works or not.

For instance, Khan vs Bradley would be for the ''vacant'' title at 140 - they've beaten everybody between them in the past two years.... Maidana, Alexander, Kotelnik etc.

Ok, I'm still confused .......

If Barker wins, then does he become "World Champion" and take home a WBC belt ?

Or does he become effectively "regarded" as a world champion by boxing fans - not exactly the same thing, as this would not be recorded in the history books (although should open up doors for Barker).

I was always under the impression that the diamond belt was more like a sort of lifetime achievement award, not something that can actually be defended? If I haven't just made that up then Barker would win only the Ring title if he caused the upset. Of course he would have also beaten the man who beat the man so would be recognised as the true middleweight champion regardless

it has got to the stage where belts literally mean f*ck all, unless all are held. that's why khan has to win all 4 before stepping up. he should be in no rush, he still has plenty of time.

bripez wrote:Or does he become effectively "regarded" as a world champion by boxing fans - not exactly the same thing, as this would not be recorded in the history books (although should open up doors for Barker).

It would be recorded in the history books.

The WBC have invented Diamond and Silver titles in addition to their World title.
Of course there is also the WBC International title as well.
It was put to me that these titles were brought in to replace "eliminators" or "final eliminators".
In other words a marketing ploy, and another way to make sanctioning fees.
I was told the silver belt is equivalent to the old Intercontinental titles.

I'm sure Sky said on ringside that should Barker shock the world he won't come home with a belt.

If Barker wins he will bring the "Eddie Hearn Told You So" title back too the UK!

But I'm 99.9% sure Eddie will we Tweeting at the airport come Sunday morning on how he thinks Audley can still fulfill his destiny.....

re the title, martinez was stripped of whichever belt, allowing chavez jr to pick up the title. hbo wanted martinz in the best fight possible, dzinziruk's promoter had been promised a tv date also, and so on...