BoxRec

VERY heavy speculation they are going to introduce PBC belts

ha ha ha, UFC style. Thats what we need!!! another belt!!!

this is reason why they quickly told thurman team to put the belt away

cold187 wrote:VERY heavy speculation they are going to introduce PBC belts

ha ha ha, UFC style. Thats what we need!!! another belt!!!

this is reason why they quickly told thurman team to put the belt away

If all goes as planned, the PBC belts will eventually take over as the supreme belt. (No more WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO)

Hope not I don't want more of these divides in boxing eg Schaefer v Arum. We need the best fighting the best.

Naandrew wrote:Hope not I don't want more of these divides in boxing eg Schaefer v Arum. We need the best fighting the best.

This is what they are trying to fix.

Impractical Poster wrote:

cold187 wrote:VERY heavy speculation they are going to introduce PBC belts

ha ha ha, UFC style. Thats what we need!!! another belt!!!

this is reason why they quickly told thurman team to put the belt away

If all goes as planned, the PBC belts will eventually take over as the supreme belt. (No more WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO)

Whatever happens with PBC, they couldn't do any worse than the abc orgs already have so who really cares that much what PBC does? Haters thats who.

Theres probably 50 odd abc orgs all told today, whats one more??? And if somehow they can be the one org to rule them all, then everyone would be thanking them at the end so its a win win situation for fans. Either no one gives a f#ck or they shake things up so much there only is one belt.

Impractical Poster wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Hope not I don't want more of these divides in boxing eg Schaefer v Arum. We need the best fighting the best.

This is what they are trying to fix.

No it isn't. It's the opposite. It's an in-house promotional tournament of Haymon's stable. It will never feature Floyd, Pacquiao, Cotto, Canelo, any Top Rank or any signed fighter outside of the US such as Klitchko, Golovkin, Froch, etc.

It strikes me more as a poorly-branded, multi-weight super6.

Ricky_ wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Hope not I don't want more of these divides in boxing eg Schaefer v Arum. We need the best fighting the best.

This is what they are trying to fix.

No it isn't. It's the opposite. It's an in-house promotional tournament of Haymon's stable. It will never feature Floyd, Pacquiao, Cotto, Canelo, any Top Rank or any signed fighter outside of the US such as Klitchko, Golovkin, Froch, etc.

It strikes me more as a poorly-branded, multi-weight super6.

The Belt is stupid. Means nothing.

While PBC is a good idea, it looks like it's just going to be Haymon guys only.

Shpati wrote:it looks like it's just going to be Haymon guys only.

I think its early to come to this conclusion.

Al gots a ton of dates to fill & sooner or later he's gonna need to deal with more guys than he gots so he's either gonna need to sign everyone, deal with others or the product will become watered down quick.

I can understand guesses or speculation one way or the other right now, but with the landscape that is being made he's gonna have to do one of the things I'm suggesting. Cuz John Molina has probably burned his national TV opportunity at this point & surely others will as well & there will be injuries & guys busted for PEDs or whatever. Boxing is a crazy business.

Al gots an impressive roster no question, but he's not that deep on the big names for the amount of TV time he gots imho.

Ricky_ wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Hope not I don't want more of these divides in boxing eg Schaefer v Arum. We need the best fighting the best.

This is what they are trying to fix.

No it isn't. It's the opposite. It's an in-house promotional tournament of Haymon's stable. It will never feature Floyd, Pacquiao, Cotto, Canelo, any Top Rank or any signed fighter outside of the US such as Klitchko, Golovkin, Froch, etc.

It strikes me more as a poorly-branded, multi-weight super6.

Wow pbc belt are u fuucking serious.

Anyone here supporting this joke is a fuucking idiot and cant possibly be a real boxing fan but more of an Al Haymon fan.

Fuucking joke.

kidbazooka1 wrote:Wow pbc belt are u fuucking serious.

Anyone here supporting this joke is a fuucking idiot and cant possibly be a real boxing fan but more of an Al Haymon fan.

Fuucking joke.

Belts are a f#cking joke. Belts have lost so much value. Being a "champion" means less than it ever has since I've been a boxing fan & arguable at anytime since there have been titles. I don't see a problem with a PBC belt, a Teddy Atlas belt, a DiamondWeapon memorial belt or whatever. Who really cares? Why care? There are 50 titles man. I don't got the strength, desire or f#cks to give about belt nonsense.

I am broadly in favour of a Diamond Weapon Memorial Belt, tbh.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

kidbazooka1 wrote:Wow pbc belt are u fuucking serious.

Anyone here supporting this joke is a fuucking idiot and cant possibly be a real boxing fan but more of an Al Haymon fan.

Fuucking joke.

Belts are a f#cking joke. Belts have lost so much value. Being a "champion" means less than it ever has since I've been a boxing fan & arguable at anytime since there have been titles. I don't see a problem with a PBC belt, a Teddy Atlas belt, a DiamondWeapon memorial belt or whatever. Who really cares? Why care? There are 50 titles man. I don't got the strength, desire or f#cks to give about belt nonsense.

A Teddy Atlas belt

fergusg wrote:
So what’s the harm if the mainstream public ignore the WBA, WBC, WBO & IBF and start recognising the PBC instead? The majority of the major stars in boxing are with Al Haymon anyway… and if casual boxing observers only recognise one world champion per weight division, which is the holder of the PBC belt, then surely that’s a good thing, right? :??

Hopefully they don't go this route. The UFC belts only mean anything because they have almost all the top fighters in every weight class. Back when PRIDE existed, the UFC HW belt didn't mean jack. If they introduce PBC belts it's thoroughly meaningless and doesn't do much but further muddy the boxing championship waters. We don't need another ABC that only ranks fighters signed under one banner.

This is such a joke. The 4 major belts are actually given by boxing organizations.

WBA - World Boxing Association
WBC - World Boxing Council
IBF - International Boxing Federation
WBO - World Boxing Organization

These organizations actually have ranking systems. Everyone around the world competes and is in these rankings.
Yes there are 4 belts but this system gives the ability for every boxer in the world to compete and get a shot at a title.
These organizations have boards of directors and people from different countries.
All 4 of these belts are recognized because they have all been held by numerous champions.

And WTF is a PBC belt? It is not a boxing organization.
PBC is a Haymon created belt that will be contested by Haymon signed fighters and won by Haymon fighters.
Who determines who fights for the belt? Haymon.
He might as well call it the Al Haymon Championship (AHC Belt)

This is whole project is an absolute joke. Especially knowing that Haymon has always been hiding his fighters from fighting the best. This basically will legitimately put his stable in a cage away from the real champions like: GGG, Kovalev, Rigo, Brook, Klitschko, Ward.

I think a PBC belt would be awful, but pointing to the ABCs as shining examples is extremely misguided. They are terrible in every respect.

For my money, all belts are equally worthless, except for MAYBE the Ring belt. But it's always the titleholder that gives the belt its value, not vice versa.

fergusg wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

fergusg wrote:
So what’s the harm if the mainstream public ignore the WBA, WBC, WBO & IBF and start recognising the PBC instead? The majority of the major stars in boxing are with Al Haymon anyway… and if casual boxing observers only recognise one world champion per weight division, which is the holder of the PBC belt, then surely that’s a good thing, right? :??

I don’t understand the reason why you find my comment funny... or are you simply trolling?

I thought that having only one recognised world champion per weight class is what the sport is yearning for. Surely you agree, don’t you? The name of the world title itself doesn’t matter.

I'm laughing at you, because you're a laughing stock. The Al Haymon belt replacing world titles....

klitoris wrote:This is such a joke. The 4 major belts are actually given by boxing organizations.

WBA - World Boxing Association
WBC - World Boxing Council
IBF - International Boxing Federation
WBO - World Boxing Organization

These organizations actually have ranking systems. Everyone around the world competes and is in these rankings.
Yes there are 4 belts but this system gives the ability for every boxer in the world to compete and get a shot at a title.
These organizations have boards of directors and people from different countries.
All 4 of these belts are recognized because they have all been held by numerous champions.

And WTF is a PBC belt? It is not a boxing organization.
PBC is a Haymon created belt that will be contested by Haymon signed fighters and won by Haymon fighters.
Who determines who fights for the belt? Haymon.
He might as well call it the Al Haymon Championship (AHC Belt)

This is whole project is an absolute joke. Especially knowing that Haymon has always been hiding his fighters from fighting the best. This basically will legitimately put his stable in a cage away from the real champions like: GGG, Kovalev, Rigo, Brook, Klitschko, Ward.

Wow. Never thought I'd see the day when a boxing fan would defend the abc orgs. Wow. I'm shocked.

I don't see the upside in 4 belts or 5 (if you count the ring) or 6 (if you count the ring & the lineal) or 7+ (if you count the ring & the lineal & the various abc belts for super, interim & etc. "champs"). Who cares if there is one more? Why care? An there are probably 3 or 4 dozen lesser belts. Whats one more gonna do? I don't understand all the hoopla over a potential PBC belt.

jujigatame wrote:I think a PBC belt would be awful, but pointing to the ABCs as shining examples is extremely misguided. They are terrible in every respect.

For my money, all belts are equally worthless, except for MAYBE the Ring belt. But it's always the titleholder that gives the belt its value, not vice versa.

Why would another belt be "awful" if all the belts are already "worthless"?

And I definitely am in agreement that its the boxer who puts the value in being the best guy, title or no title.

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Why would another belt be "awful" if all the belts are already "worthless"?

It further muddies the waters while adding no value whatsoever. I think the average fan having to reconcile (and keep track of) 3-4 champs in each weight class contributed to boxing's decline as a major sport.

jujigatame wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Why would another belt be "awful" if all the belts are already "worthless"?

It further muddies the waters while adding no value whatsoever. I think the average fan having to reconcile (and keep track of) 3-4 champs in each weight class contributed to boxing's decline as a major sport.

One belt ain't doing that much damage when there are 3-4 dozen or so "world" belts & 4-7+ "legit world" belts lol.

I think this is just Haymon hate.

fergusg wrote: We know for certain that Al Haymon controls the majority of top level boxers in various weight divisions from his 170+ stable of fighters.

If the media and fans stopped talking about the WBC, WBA, WBO & IBF, they’d become irrelevant, which might happen if the PBC continues to attract audiences of 4m+ per show.

I would like to see one recognised world champion per weight class… and I don’t really care what the name of the belt is.

It's a nice idea, but as many fighters as he has, he will never be able to accomplish this. The sport is too splintered and too global. If the Lee/Quillin fight is for the "PBC MW championship" how does that improve anything at all? Any talk of boxing's MW title picture without mentioning Cotto and Golovkin is worthless.

ReggieDiggs wrote:
Wow. Never thought I'd see the day when a boxing fan would defend the abc orgs. Wow. I'm shocked.

I don't see the upside in 4 belts or 5 (if you count the ring) or 6 (if you count the ring & the lineal) or 7+ (if you count the ring & the lineal & the various abc belts for super, interim & etc. "champs"). Who cares if there is one more? Why care? An there are probably 3 or 4 dozen lesser belts. Whats one more gonna do? I don't understand all the hoopla over a potential PBC belt.

First of all there are 4 belts. These are the belts that are the official championships. This is because all 4 organizations: WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF all recognize each other as legitimate boxing organizations. On top of that all 4 are by far the biggest organizations. So you can throw out any other ones that exist.

Secondly there is no such a thing as a "lineal belt". Being the lineal champion (today) means to hold all 4 belts in a weight category. Then you are considered a lineal champion or in other words "undisputed".

The ring championship is given by the Ring Magazine and is only awarded to champions who already hold one or more of the 4 above mentioned belts. It is basically to determine who is the best fighter in the division, because as you may know many champions, like Haymon's Santa Cruz, are protected from fighting the real champions like Rigo.

And that's it. You can forget about any other belts. WBA Regular&Interim are just joke belts and are not real. Ignore them. The super belt is the only one that matters from the WBA.