All Boxing Fans: WHo really cares about Belts?

Even 'lineal' championship doesn't mean **** . See George Foreman's reign in the 90s , he avoided every semi decent opponent and won it from a man who didn't really win it from Holyfield , when Holyfield got a heart attack in the ring . There are more examples to the 'lineal' and 'Ring' titles being meaningless , like Hopkins' reign @ LHW , when he defended it a 170 3 times , losing it in the third , and cheating vs. Wrinky Wright without even getting penalized .

i don't care. if a champion loses his belt, he just grabs a different one off an unknown who just happens to have one of the belts. if it's that easy to get a belt then it doesn't mean much. the only thing that has the slightest significance is the lineal champion and even then it doesn't mean a whole lot since we all know triangle theories don't work.

I say there should be 2 belts per each division. The reason for this, is because styles makes fight. a boxer might have another boxers number and wont allow him to progress. its difficult to explain what i mean, but 2 per division. i don't give a crap about a boxers progression. what is this the day care center? every boxer has to get to 50-0 before they are put in with someone who isn't a corpse? if you fight and lose to the top guy more than once just don't fight him again or wait till he loses and fight the guy that beat him. we got the media creating stars before they even fight anyone. you beat mathew hatton and you are star? jeff lacy is the next tyson even though he has no boxing talent? the best fighters should be the stars. it really is pretty simple but they have it all backwards. having 2 belts won't solve anything because the top 2 guys will each have a belt and never fight each other. they will just fight the b level retreads just like what happens now. if you had one belt then you could have that guy fighting the most worthy challenger every fight. if he beats him then move on to the next best. if he refuses to fight someone then strip his ass. no fake retirement frauds in this sport. the other guys in the top 10 would have to fight each other to earn a shot. the most worthy guy would earn the shot at the belt holder. obviously rankings should be decided by an unbiased panel or something instead of a slimy promoter/organization. now every guy in the top 10 has his own bum parade going and is just waiting for a bigger fight to come along. fighting each other would rid the sport of these terrible mismatches that happen over and over again. not only would we have a clear champ but we would get great fights all the time.

This pretty much. The belts aren't everything of themselves, but they are guidelines which keep the sport structured. keep the sport fractured.

if there are no belts there is nothing to strive for. i like to see champions with belts full of diamonds and other gems. yeah it would be nice to have 1 belt in every division. but having 4 to 5 plus interim and super champions is a disgrace. imagine in football if they had like 5 superbowl champs every year. who really is the best? "i am!" "no i am!" "no i am!" "hey should we play each other and settle this?" "ummm no let's play some crappy team no ones ever heard of and make gobs of money!" "yeah good idea we all win(except the fans fukk them) hahahah!"

Belts don't mean squad now. Not when their being given away just so they can make a buck n a fake legacy.

i care... if ur the best ranked. fight for the belt. its also a great causual fan advertising tool and how do you become the best ranked? it's basically whatever the hell they think/want. if you've never even fought in the division they will rank you number 1 sometimes. if you are popular you will be ranked higher. if you just fought 3 tomato cans you will be ranked number 1 if you have some sort of worth to them. if you are a "champion" and want an easy fight the corrupt organizations will rank complete bums who you've never heard of and have never fought anyone in the top 15 so you can beat up a can and make good money...oh yeah and so they can make good money too. lol boxing!

You have to care. It dictates who fights who most of the time. yeah and most of the time the best fighters in a division all have belts so they never have to fight each other and can keep fighting bums for big money. lol boxing!

what im saying if Floyd fought Pacman or Sergio Martinez vs Floyd and there's no belt on the line, you wouldn't be interested? Would people be more excited for Felix Sturm vs. Daniel Geale because its for belts instead of watching Sergio Martinez against Angulo ? it's the fight itself that matters of course, the belt is just a bonus

what im saying if Floyd fought Pacman or Sergio Martinez vs Floyd and there's no belt on the line, you wouldn't be interested? Would people be more excited for Felix Sturm vs. Daniel Geale because its for belts instead of watching Sergio Martinez against Angulo ?

i care... if ur the best ranked. fight for the belt. its also a great causual fan advertising tool

You have to care. It dictates who fights who most of the time. This pretty much. The belts aren't everything of themselves, but they are guidelines which keep the sport structured.

Belts keep my pants up.

having a title belt doesn't mean to much. I care about who has The Ring or Lineal Championship.....and even that doesn't mean they're the top fighters in a division

I wanted to ask all of you after seeing how Dan Rafael (who i like) goes on and on about all this "bogus" title fights. He bashed the hell out of the Mayweather- Ortiz fight because Morales was fighting for a title. I personally dont know who has which title (besides the K-bros who have all) but i im completely focused on just the fighters and the fights. You have to care. It dictates who fights who most of the time.