Can someone explain the story or rationale of Floyd only wanting the WBC belts?

Lennox Lewis allways said the WBC was like gold to him :boxing:

Just curious as to why this is. Are they more prestigious than the rest? Belts just collect dust....

Who knows? It's just his thing. Belts ain't that important at this point in his career. That said, I'm surprised he don't want Shane's WBA belt since he could add 1 more statistic trying to catch up to Pac. he could care less about catching up to another fighter or getting belts... he could easliy have that..thats why its not important to him.. and no one cares about belts

My guess is it is considered the better belt because in general their rankings are more in tune with the general consensus. Everyone in this thread has come in an agreed that the WBC is the most "prestigious" belt. Why is that? If there were no differences between the belts then theoretically the votes would have been split up 4 ways in a question of which belt was best. 1/4 would think WBC, 1/4 would think WBA etc. But that was not the case. 99% of people in this thread said WBC was the best belt. Why is that? this is also true. They all suck but the WBC apparently sucks the least... they're working on that apparently... with all this silver belt crap :nonono:

Just to solidify my argument a little check out this thread from 2006: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70286&highlight=rankings+belts 76% percent of BoxingScene thought the WBC was the most presitgious. That isn't random at all. The general consensus is WBC is best. Why exactly is that? No one knows, but probably the most important factors are Champions, Rankings and Rules.

I can respect your opinion, I'll just ask you to explain why the WBC is more prestigious? My guess is it is considered the better belt because in general their rankings are more in tune with the general consensus. Everyone in this thread has come in an agreed that the WBC is the most "prestigious" belt. Why is that? If there were no differences between the belts then theoretically the votes would have been split up 4 ways in a question of which belt was best. 1/4 would think WBC, 1/4 would think WBA etc. But that was not the case. 99% of people in this thread said WBC was the best belt. Why is that?

You're missing the point my friend. This isn't about how long the NYSAC or EBU has been around, but the WBA and WBC. The WBA has been around and recognized since 1921 (under its original name the NBA) where as the WBC did not form until 1964. Because the NYSAC or the EBU gave the WBC its blessing does not mean it has a deeper legacy than that of the WBA. It also doesn't make it a better organization or any more legit. As I've stated, they all suck, but the WBA is the longest reigning org that has been recognizing world champions out of the 4 major orgs today. We're splitting hairs at this point because I count the legacy of the EBU and NYSAC in that of the WBC. It's not that EBU gave WBC it's blessing, it's more of that fact that the EBU IS the foundation of the WBC. The NYSAC, which was prestigious in its own right, became a part of the WBC in the 70's. That should count for something right? Seeing that they had a choice to either dissolve entirely or become a part of the WBA or the WBC. The fact they chose the WBC counts for something to me. In addition, the WBC stood by Ali with his rematch with Liston and when he refused the US draft. The WBA was the first to drop him on both occassions. The NYSAC was the first to recognize Frazier as champ too. In any case, the ring magazine title supercedes all the alphabet titles in my opinion.

the NYSAC and the EBU (IBU) came out before the NBA. At one point it was the NYSAC, the EBU and the NBA. The NBA formed WBA in the 60's. The EBU and other commissions formed the WBC in the 60's in response (granted after the WBA) and NYSAC later joined the WBC. NYSAC and the EBU were NOT offhshoots of the NBA. The EBU has been around since 1910 homie. My logic: EBU and NYSAC > NBA. You're missing the point my friend. This isn't about how long the NYSAC or EBU has been around, but the WBA and WBC. The WBA has been around and recognized since 1921 (under its original name the NBA) where as the WBC did not form until 1964. Because the NYSAC or the EBU gave the WBC its blessing does not mean it has a deeper legacy than that of the WBA. It also doesn't make it a better organization or any more legit. As I've stated, they all suck, but the WBA is the longest reigning org that has been recognizing world champions out of the 4 major orgs today.

Im not arguing one is better than the other because I think they all suck. But the WBC cannot have more legacy since it was an offshoot of the WBA, which was formed in 1921 under its original name, the NBA. the NYSAC and the EBU (IBU) came out before the NBA. At one point it was the NYSAC, the EBU and the NBA. The NBA formed WBA in the 60's. The EBU and other commissions formed the WBC in the 60's in response (granted after the WBA) and NYSAC later joined the WBC. NYSAC and the EBU were NOT offhshoots of the NBA. The EBU has been around since 1910 homie. My logic: EBU and NYSAC > NBA.

have to say i totally agree with everything i've read so far from JAB5239,there is no official title,but unlike the WBC the WBA can say that at one time their belt was the official title,the only reason i can think of why alot of fighters may favour the WBC belt is because it is defo the coolest looking belt out of the lot and it did go through a phase were it was publicized more than any of the other belts.

Well, they're the coolest looking ones.

Jab, my friend, I think if we stop being technical for a bit here we'll see WBC is regarded as the official belt by the majority of boxers. But if you want to get technical then no, maybe it's not the official one. Kev, with all due respect, how is it considered official by the majority of boxers? You my man and Im not trying to be a dick to you, but was there a poll? One belt simply isn't better than another today. Its all about the man representing that belt. Back when there was only one title is was usually the best guy wearing it, the most deserving. That isn't true today. The best could be wearing any belt today and he'd be considered the world champ. Not because of the belt, but because he's the best.

WBC does hold more prestige. The fighter does make the belt in the end but WBC still has more prestige than the other 3. I can respect your opinion, I'll just ask you to explain why the WBC is more prestigious?

That could be argued, but the WBC incorporates the NYSAC and EBU (or IBU) both of which have been active before the NBA. They were the only organization that actually incorporated reps from different countries in it's inception, so the WBC has more legacy. The WBA also has a super champ, an undisputed super champ, a regular champ and if i'm not mistaken an interim champ... the WBC is not that much better... but in the land of the blind... Im not arguing one is better than the other because I think they all suck. But the WBC cannot have more legacy since it was an offshoot of the WBA, which was formed in 1921 under its original name, the NBA.

If I recall correctly you called it the "official" belt. What makes it "official"? Jab, my friend, I think if we stop being technical for a bit here we'll see WBC is regarded as the official belt by the majority of boxers. But if you want to get technical then no, maybe it's not the official one.

No the WBA has the most legacy, and no belt today really holds any prestige. Its the fighter who makes the belt, not the other way around. WBC does hold more prestige. The fighter does make the belt in the end but WBC still has more prestige than the other 3.

So many moronic poster. Just to educate you: WBC belt is NOT the belt. There are several champions. One is a lineal, another is titlist. For a boxing historian, lineal champion is what matters. Definition of terms; lineal = the champion, the man of the division. Oh and just to clarify the ring champion is not the lineal champion, although it is usually the case. titlist = person who gets a piece of the four sanctioning bodies belt. Ideally, with one belt per division, the lineal is also the titlist. However with four title per divisions, it gets complicated. The WBA was the oldest organization, followed by the WBC, IBF then WBO. How to become the lineal champion? There are two generally accepted way. One is to beat the current lineal champion. Now the lineal champion might have a belt, or he might not have. Doesn't matter. The lineage stays with that person so long he's not defeated, vacated or dead. There are times when there is no lineal champion because he moved up in weight, died or voluntarily vacates or retire. The second way to became the champion is to arrange a fight between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ranked fighters of that division. Again, it doest matter if these ranked fighters are titlist, so long as they are universally recognized the best fighters of that division. Nowadays it is also becoming acceptable that a fight between the 1st and 2nd ranked fighter determines the lineal champ. Now lets fo back to Pacquiao's case. The reason he's a 7-div world champ is because: 1. 112 = lineal, WBC champ. 2. 122 = IBF champ 3. 126 = lineal, no sanctioning belt 4. 130 = lineal, WBC 5. 135 = WBC 6. 140 = lineal, no sanctioning belt 7. 147 = WBO For a boxing purist, he is 4-division champ. That are the divisions where he is lineal. Coincidentally, two of these division he did not held any belt. The lineal champs he defeated, Barrera and Hatton, does not have belts. You're even a bigger moron for writing such a long post because daggum is a Floyd hater and was just being sarcastic.

No the WBA has the most legacy, and no belt today really holds any prestige. Its the fighter who makes the belt, not the other way around. That could be argued, but the WBC incorporates the NYSAC and EBU (or IBU) both of which have been active before the NBA. They were the only organization that actually incorporated reps from different countries in it's inception, so the WBC has more legacy. The WBA also has a super champ, an undisputed super champ, a regular champ and if i'm not mistaken an interim champ... the WBC is not that much better... but in the land of the blind...

Well he never seemed that intrested in the ring belt so maybe he just likes the bling on the WBC belt.

To answer the TS's question, like other posters have mentioned out of all the trinkets the WBC has the most legacy and prestige. No the WBA has the most legacy, and no belt today really holds any prestige. Its the fighter who makes the belt, not the other way around.