Is Unification important? should boxers get praised for unifying?

Well yeah, if you hold every belt in your division, that means that either beat the best guy in the division or they're gonna have to beat you to get those belts off of you. Especially, in the glamor division like HW, WW, MW, LW. I like the idea of a guy ruling a division and there being a legitimate champion for years, rather than this division hopping that we get now, where everybody starts off at 135 ends up at 160.

How would it not be It usually implies the fighter has to go after additional belts, which would mean he has to fight more belt holders. It doesn't always mean better competition but what other motives can a boxer have? I have one belt, I want them all, is a fine goal.

At least if a fighter unifies all the belts, he'll pretty well have had to face all the best guys in the division in theory. One fighter owning all the belts is the next best thing to having just 1 title...assuming he faces top contenders.

You can have all the titles in your weight class and still not be the best. Titles are meaningless, they have been for a long time. There was a resurgence in the meaning of titles when GGG/Loeffler started saying their goal is to unify the MW division. When Wlad held the majority of HW titles, no one cared, people just wanted to see better challengers. The Ring/WBC/WBO/WBA 147 titles being on the line for Mayweather-Pacquiao was not what made the fight attractive at all, it was them being the #1 and #3 P4P and Champ vs #1 at WW. Zab Judah held The Ring, WBC, WBA, and IBF titles (all except WBO) at 147 in 2005 yet, Margarito and Mosley were better fighters than him. And even a 140lb Floyd in 2005 would've been favored against Judah. And Baldomir upset him. Titles don't make you the best of the weight class. Once you become a title holder in a weight class by beating some one good for it, that's it, that's all that matters. Collecting all titles is meaningless. If Canelo vs GGG happens for all the titles, the primary celebration of the verdict is going to be that the best of 154-160 have fought each other, not that one guy has all the titles, it's the name you get on your res. Whether the winner is Canelo or GGG, it will be nothing new for either fighter, both have held belts there. It will be a little nice historical feat but nothing that tells us that they are actually the best.

It is important and boxers should be praised for trying to unify titles. The different organizations make unifying very hard and sometimes impossible. I think at one time the WBC had a rule that to be their champion you could not hold a title of any other alphabet organization.

Absolutely. We need it now more than ever. In the past, the best fought the best. Now everyone is content to just sit on their belt and milk it for all its worth (saunders)

Probably better than some crappy mandatories. Fights like young prime Spence vs 41 yr old Bundu, etc.

Everything in today's era of boxing needs context. It all depends on if you are unifying against other highly ranked fighters.

well "you musta forgot", because there were alot of years where Roy got hammered over his choices like Telesco, Kelly, Reggie Johnson, Grant, DelValle, etc etc., to the point where he even wrote a song about it.......lol :lol1: got em

It should be a goal IMO. It's not done often and if you can pull it off, then fair play to you. One legit champions per division is what it's all about for me. Golovkin and Crawford look the closest to pulling it off at the minute. I hope they both pull get it done, even though i admit Crawford/Burns II doesn't seem too appealing on paper.

Roy seeked challenges and had a mouth like the traditional greats before him, not his coach saying things.. well "you musta forgot", because there were alot of years where Roy got hammered over his choices like Telesco, Kelly, Reggie Johnson, Grant, DelValle, etc etc., to the point where he even wrote a song about it.......lol

Burns vs Indongu is a unification. So you do get anomalies like that. Neither are anywhere near being the best in the division.

This all depends on the fans and a boxer's capacity as well as opposition and the money involved. Why do some boxers choose to go northbound and play along with a beef? Why do some boxers verbally acknowledging wanting more belts north? Why do boxers accept fate for their northbound opposition in due time? If Hagler or Monzon had mgmt that influenced them to say things like 154-168 were easy would they have been criticized? Maybe some boxers respect not playing the fool in order to market themselves we all know that GGG owns your soul and consumes most of your life, but damn man, can you even have a SINGLE conversation without having to insert GGG into it?

Yes it is important, but it shouldn't be held against a fighter if he can't unify because of unwillingness of other champions to fight them. But it should be a goal considering there are so many damn belts. You want to be THE MAN at any given weight, unify! Unless you are just passing through weight classes and don't intend to remain at a weight class for very long.

Achieving a complete unification, no matter what the division is, has a much higher likelihood of the fighter fighting top competition than any other achievement in boxing. Moving across the divisions still leaves a large possibility of cherry picking. Fighting a lineal champ doesn't mean as much since majority of lineages have been broken, and the ones that were properly transferred were often accompanied by an asterisk. Cotto beat a shot Martinez, at a catchweight at that, while Wlad lost his lineal at ripe age of 39. Neither one was close to being in their prime. Plus, unifying can be seen as a big FU to everyone else in the division. These guys can't fight a weaker champion (Parker) just to get a title, and if they are not interested in fighting a unified champn, you KNOW it's a duck because there's nowhere else for them to run.

I cant stand all the titles and I have been vocal about this but they really dont mean to much for Legacy unless you hold them all. I was looking at wikipedia and seen the history of Undisputed champs for each weight class and its pretty thin considering boxings long history. So again, legacy wise, an Undisputed champ means a lot. Financially or business wise, 1 belt can mean a lot if not more than 4 titles. As a long time fan of the sport I am fine with a guy holding the wba, wbc and IBF belts. I think the WBO is bogus but if the belt is held by a respected fighter like Crawford, Manny or Loma, then I think a fighter needs to fight them if possible.

There was a very vocal group of posters that have denigrated belts for the past few years, posting that they feel that belts don't matter. However, since GGG has discussed unification as his "goal", many from this group have done a 180 degree change and now see value in having all the belts. IMO unification should be the goal when possible because it looks good for anyone to be a consensus champion. That said, if you are in a situation where unification is virtually impossible (ex: Kieth Thurman at ww-Arum is in tight with the WBO and will not let Manny fight Thurman) it makes sense to take another path. I cant stand all the titles and I have been vocal about this but they really dont mean to much for Legacy unless you hold them all. I was looking at wikipedia and seen the history of Undisputed champs for each weight class and its pretty thin considering boxings long history. So again, legacy wise, an Undisputed champ means a lot. Financially or business wise, 1 belt can mean a lot if not more than 4 titles.

I think its a good thing. A "unification" by definition means there will be 1 less person calling themselves a "champion" after its over. In an ideal world, it would be something every fighter strives for. I always wished Roy had been able to get that last strap from Michelczewski......

Yes. It's the only title-related achievement that has any meaning anymore. Lineal belts have become a joke, super/regular/diamond/etc titles are all a joke. If you completely unify it means all roads lead to you. Most fighters would rather pick 2 guys to make them look good then play games, vacate, hop divisions.

Today in boxing everything is about money. So any little advantage that can be obtained from a promotion standpoint is sought after. As to whether they should get praised, who is to say? I get baffled by the disparity of thought here, but then it's only a tiny fraction of the posters here that have ever put gloves on so the casual fan will never have the same lens. Personally I think it's meaningless and I think there are too many sanctioning bodies and there is too much focus on money in sports, but it is what it is.