Which belt is most prestigious in boxing

All the belts are worthless. The TBRB is the only credible organization that awards championships in the sport, and they don't award a belt.

Why does the WBO belt hold more weight than the IBA belt? History, prestige, value in the marketplace, respect among fans, networks, fighters, etc. You can't just say all belts are equal and then only count four. There are dozens of belts. So by even saying there are four, you're showing you don't believe all belts are equal. You're putting four above the others. Of the four recognized titles, you can trace their history, how they came to exist, who held the titles over the years, see how much the titles are worth at purse bid, etc and clearly see what the pecking order custom boxing belts. The WBA started in '62 and the WBC started in '63, but their roots run deeper than that. The WBA is essentially the NBA title from the early 1920s and the WBC is essentially the NYSAC title from the early 1920s and the IBU title from 1910. So those belts are going to mean more than belts that were invented out of thin air in the 1980s. Why is it that Boxing does not have 1 single title belt or 1 highest of title belts for each division? I know there have been talks of making 1 single title belt but it seems like it would be the outright best idea for the sport. Every major sport has one thing that every team or player quests for. That penicle seems like what boxing is lacking and a major reason why so many people don’t get very interested in it.

How are Ring ratings better than TBRB ratings? The guys doing the TBRB ratings are the guys that were doing the Ring ratings before Golden Boy was caught corrupting the Ring ratings. Same here. TBRB rankings are the only ones I truly respect.

I tend to look at them all the same. I look at the fighter's guys are winning titles against, and defending titles against, more so that the letters on the front of the belt.

These ones are getting stale. Everything should be dismantled and three new belts to reflect the times. EBC for Europe, ABC for America, IBC for the rest of the world. Three belts. One independent council. Win three belts and unify. Simples. sounded like an intercontinental bum cleaner joke for a moment, but yeah not a bad idea..

These ones are getting stale. Everything should be dismantled and three new belts to reflect the times. EBC for Europe, ABC for America, IBC for the rest of the world. Three belts. One independent council. Win three belts and unify. Simples.

The old ones carry more prestige, because of their affiliation with past ATGs. I would argue that prestige and worth are not really the same thing. As to worth, that can be various. "Unworthy" is easier - you'd have to go with the "ring" one because its a magazine, as practically worthless, for goodness sake...more like an "award". I know you didnt mention it but "lineal" surely has some flexibility, but it can mean as much as a unified belt, and as little as an IBO, depending on whom you beat to take it. Certainly the question of "unworthy" ones is much easier - they are the unrecognised ones - today they would be IBO, WBU etc. If noone recognises your title fights, then whats the point in calling them title fights?

why would one belt hold more weight then the other?? Why does the WBO belt hold more weight than the IBA belt? History, prestige, value in the marketplace, respect among fans, networks, fighters, etc. You can't just say all belts are equal and then only count four. There are dozens of belts. So by even saying there are four, you're showing you don't believe all belts are equal. You're putting four above the others. Of the four recognized titles, you can trace their history, how they came to exist, who held the titles over the years, see how much the titles are worth at purse bid, etc and clearly see what the pecking order is. The WBA started in '62 and the WBC started in '63, but their roots run deeper than that. The WBA is essentially the NBA title from the early 1920s and the WBC is essentially the NYSAC title from the early 1920s and the IBU title from 1910. So those belts are going to mean more than belts that were invented out of thin air in the 1980s.

I think most would agree ring rankings are better than all the others which their rankings do you disagree with? How are Ring ratings better than TBRB ratings? The guys doing the TBRB ratings are the guys that were doing the Ring ratings before Golden Boy was caught corrupting the Ring ratings.

True but most agree with ring rankings I wish they went back to #1 v #2 for a vacant belt but at least the rankings are honest I would trust TBRB rankings over Ring rankings since TBRB is just the people who were making the Ring rankings before Golden Boy started corrupting the rules and rankings. We know for a fact HBO's lead promoter owns Ring and has selectively enforced rules and invented rules to benefit HBO and harm SHO. People used to depend on Ring to offer independent fair ratings. They can't offer that anymore as they're no longer independent and they've already been exposed for breaking their promise to not interfere. What Ring used to be = TBRB now. It's just a different name, but it's the same people who did the Ring rankings before Ring was ruined.

I voted the WBC but they suck almost as bad as the other 3. They gave us washed up boxers like Guerrero fighting for vacant titles. The belt that really means the most is all 4 belts. The alphabet groups have rules that make that damn near impossible. Only Crawford has done it but GGG is trying like hell to get it done. All we need is a Saunders vs GGG fight and one of them should be a unified champ. Wilder vs AJ would gives use another but that would still be only 2 of the 17 weight classes unified. That's the way the alphabet groups like it.

The Ring Belt. There's only one Tyson Fury!!!! Yeah.. people get confused how many people are actually inside that fat slob body of his..

I'd say the ring...

The Ring Belt. There's only one Tyson Fury!!!!

I'm talking actual belts which one is the most prestigious? The WBC belt.

Why do you pick the WBC??? just curious Tradition. Plus the WBA lost prestige with all those silver-wood-rubber super ultra double interim champ titles. Then you have the IBF which is still viewed by an alphabet belt by some and the WBO which I still don't take seriously for some reason.

a dozen members of the ring ratings advisory board said golden boy had corrupted the ratings and they turned in their resignations in protest. that is why tbrb was formed. I think most would agree ring rankings are better than all the others which their rankings do you disagree with?

The Belt that holds up Fat Dan's pants should be p4p champ, ain't none of us want to see what down there

that mentality is why we have four belts instead of one. that mentality is why we have so much ducking. that mentality has been incredibly destructive. the champion is the champion. allowing a star to hide behind an unrecognized title is what got boxing into the mess it's in. if you pretend all belts are equal and the man makes the belt, it becomes very easy for everybody to hide. why would one belt hold more weight then the other?? Explain please... My post meant the champion makes the belt meaning the champ who beats all comers. Not a champ who hides behind one title and fights bullsh1t contenders pulled out of an organizations hat

The IBO will soon become a part of that least. Thank you, Golovkin and Joshua... ??????????