winning a title in different divisions is one thing

I agree. Titles might be meaningful for up and coming fighters trying to build their name and record, but big name fighters shouldn't even care anymore. I don't think unifying by beating two or more paper champions means much when those so called champs would be lower ranked contenders in other eras and would be lucky to even get a title shot. At the end of day, it's the fighter that makes the title (unified or not) worth a damn, not the other way around. That's why Davis is my favorite boxer. He seems not to give a crap about belts or P4P fantasy lists. Unique indeed. Never seen him talk about even his belts.

That is how I feel about it, Its all about the quality of opponents beaten. I'd rate someone who never had a belt but beat alot of highly skilled fighters who beat alot of highly skilled fighters over a unified champion who got to be that way because maybe he beat a champion who won a vacant strap over some obscure guy sanctioning bodies put in a title fight for it. Exactly. Great post.

Belts mean next to dogshit. That's why not many care. Belts in boxing are completely meaningless I agree. Titles might be meaningful for up and coming fighters trying to build their name and record, but big name fighters shouldn't even care anymore. I don't think unifying by beating two or more paper champions means much when those so called champs would be lower ranked contenders in other eras and would be lucky to even get a title shot. At the end of day, it's the fighter that makes the title (unified or not) worth a damn, not the other way around.

Larry Creates thread: "I have these weird bubbles growing out of my ass, they really f_cking hurt" A week later: "Oh so no-one wants to reply? Really?" What do you want us to say? "Yes Larry, those bubbles DO hurt" Thanks for ruining my chick fil a sandwich........

Yeah it’s getting to that stage. They’ve lost a tonne of credibility over the last two decades. Too many weight classes, too many belts. So what if someone is ranked #2 by the WBC at super super junior straw featherweight? Still could be 20 guys better than him in and around his weight class.

risk reward, promoter spats, aging, belt hostages, mando's, multi belt per org can make even one unification difficult for avoided fighters with not a huge fanbase not to mention the careful planners and risk averse guys, its not a level playing field so comparisons are almost impossible, there needs to be a clear path to the 'top' of a division

Belts in boxing are completely meaningless Yeah it’s getting to that stage. They’ve lost a tonne of credibility over the last two decades.

But unifying titles in different divisions is greatness, not many fighters have been able to do this I value lineal titles over unified in the modern era tbh. Julius Indongo unified titles for example. It’s still impressive obviously but it’s not what it was.

Belts in boxing are completely meaningless

undisputed is achievable than winning octupole division. changing weight is one of your struggles.. if you can still carry your power and speed to the higher weights. but undisputed is just circling around your own weight without gaining or losing lbs.

Eh. I think its ALL about who you beat. And you can beat bad mfers only holding one belt or you can beat bad mfers chasing belts down. Depends on the division. Generally its a good bet the best guys got belts, but its not always true. Ideally I think most tip top high level guys would prefer to fight the best, belt or not, but there is so much business & politics in boxing boxers are focused on making money for themselves & their family more than making a legacy. And as they should. That’s a pretty good way to look at it. Belts mean next to dogshit. That's why not many care. But that’s precisely the reason why unifying is an important factor. Unifying is essentially the same thing as how it was before the ABC titles came around. Back in the day, you knew who the champ was in a division. He has a belt in that weight class. It’s cut and dry. Now you have 4 or 5 belts in each weight class. You need a boxer to unify for it to be crystal clear who the top guy is. And to water it down even more, you have lights and supers in between every weight class, so you’re making it even easier for the boxers now because they can fit in at a weight even better and they have more options, with belts AND weight. So now, a weight class jump and unifying titles is a must for defining how great a boxer is. Also, it doesn’t happen all too often that a boxer unifies. So it’s a good metric to how great a boxer is I think. But like Pandas said, above all of that, who you fight should be the most important factor, but unifying in a weight class or multiple weight classes should be important factors in determining where a boxer fits in the history books.

Lmfao what is there to say? You didnt ask a question or put up a debate. You just made a statement and thats it Larry Creates thread: "I have these weird bubbles growing out of my ass, they really f_cking hurt" A week later: "Oh so no-one wants to reply? Really?" What do you want us to say? "Yes Larry, those bubbles DO hurt"

Belts mean next to dogshit. That's why not many care.

Yep i agree, even though Pacquiao is one of my favourite boxers of all time, he was never a unified champ i don't think. And it is very important to not just fight one Champ in a division who people think is the best, but to fight all champs in the division.

I agree. (character limit)

No comments on this matter?