The Most Important Belt in Boxing is Still the Ring Magazine Belt

The ring belt is only as strong as their rankings. The ring ranking system was the best there was in the sport...until oscar took over. Not to say that the ring rankings aren't probably still the best, but having a promoter in charge of it definitely makes it suspect imo. I dunno about that, the ring belt had become completely irrelevant circa 1990, it wasn't until GBP took over that it became recognised once more. In fact, at one stage, it became de-recognised during the 90s.

As I learned, the Ring belt is recognized as 'lineal' only for the Middleweight and Heavyweight divisions.

Ted - It does seem most are in agreement that the WBC belt looks the best. They've also done the best job of marketing their belt and done the best job of catering to the biggest stars. Also, let's face it, they have the most credible history. New York State Athletic Commission, British Boxing Board of Control, European Boxing Union, etc joining together to create a world body. A world body that has never had a split. Meanwhile, the WBA was formed by far less prestigious entities and on top of it, they've had major defections leading to the creation of the IBF and WBO. So really, you have to unify the WBA, IBF and WBO belts just to gain the recognition a WBA champion had in the 60s. Meanwhile, the WBC keeps chugging along. Nobody has splintered off. They've ruled with an iron fist. Even if the IBF is the least corrupt, the WBC is the clear leader. Most of the modern rules changes have been instituted by the WBC first, then everybody follows suit. They steer the ship. If Fury wanted to put the IBO on the map, he probably could, but it doesn't seem to be his plan. As for the ring belt, once a promoter buys the magazine, the belt loses every ounce of credibility it had. It means nothing now. Which is fine. The fans don't need a magazine to tell them who the lineal champion is. The entire point of the lineal concept is that no authority is needed at all.

History has shown the WBC belt to be the most prestigious and lucrative championship BELT in boxing. If someone values the lineal championship over a specific championship BELT, that's cool with me, but you're asking specifically about belts. I don't think there's any doubt out of all of the belts in boxing, the WBC belt adds the most to a fighter's marketability. The WBC belt just looks the best. When it comes to alphabet titles, the fighter makes the belt credible, not the other way round. If Fury gave up all his belts apart from the IBO, that stupid belt would be the most prestigious of any of the alphabet straps in the heavyweight division. The Ring belt is still far more accurate at showing who the top guy of the division is then any of the titles.

Whats the #1 belt? History has shown the WBC belt to be the most prestigious and lucrative championship BELT in boxing. If someone values the lineal championship over a specific championship BELT, that's cool with me, but you're asking specifically about belts. I don't think there's any doubt out of all of the belts in boxing, the WBC belt adds the most to a fighter's marketability.

Lol. Don't make me laugh with that nonsense Ring belt. It's a magazine owned by Oscar the fishnet pantyhose and highheels wearing transformer. The Ring Belt does not carry weight in Europe, Latin America and Asia. It's only a simple american magazine recognition. The Ring Magazine. The same magazine that featured Ronda Rousey on the cover, an MMA fighter was the hype of the decade.

You're making me feel like Jon Stewart asking Bill O'Reilly a question on the Daily Show back in the day. So you're of the opinion the WBC, IBF, WBA, Ring, WBO, IBO & all the other belts are equally bull**** as stand alone titles? See I can't really go with that. I think the Ring is clearly & without dispute the best title around these days. Nearly any top ten caliber guy can win a WBC, IBF, WBA, WBA or IBO belt. I don't believe the same can be said for the Ring belt. You are a higher level of fighter for winning the Ring belt vs these other alphabet belts. I mean just go look at the Ring champions through out history & than go look at any or all of these other belts' champions through out history. Its no comparison who has the superior title holders & the least bs title holders. And again thats not to say the Ring is perfect. In recent years they've lowered the bar on winning the Ring belt + Oscar owns the mag & surely has more influence than he'd admit which brings questions to a great many things going on with Ring. BUT that level of sketchiness is 1/10 of the straight up corruption with these other belts & the often severely sub par title holders. There are cases where fighters have moved into a division and been better than the ring champ but never faced him before moving up.

ronda rousey #1 p4p boxer though :boxing::boxing:

The ring belt is only as strong as their rankings. The ring ranking system was the best there was in the sport...until oscar took over. Not to say that the ring rankings aren't probably still the best, but having a promoter in charge of it definitely makes it suspect imo.

I'm not a huge fan of the ring magazine in recent years and have not agreed with all of their decisions, for example stripping Adonis Stevenson....but the ring belt is still the most prestigious and important of all the belts. While all the corrupt alphabet organizations are gonna make up whatever rules that suit them, the ring magazine belt should (not always, but for the most part) be the belt that is respected by fans of boxing. That's my opinion, would like to hear some thoughts.... Still? What do you mean still...the Ring Magazine belt for decades was behind the WBA and WBC or at times the NBA (later the WBA) and the new york state commissions or in the early 20th century, european commissions, which also awarded "world" titles. I will however, agree that if the top 2 guys, by consensus, within a division, fight each other, they should be regarded as legitimate champions and if the ring sticks to that, then yes, their belt can be given more credibility than all of these regular, diamond, super champions from other organisations.

It's a magazine OWNED BY A BOXING PROMOTER. It is, by far, the least credible "belt" in boxing. The magazine became completely irrelevant as an independent the second a promoter bought it.

It's been devalued greatly since Golden Boy took over and tinkered with the rules. For the most part, The Ring meant Lineal. It no longer does so what's the point really? ^^^^^^ This