Why do fans/msm care about undisputed so much?I thought Belts mean nothing

[Marchegiano]

Sorry bro but you're not negating anything I said,I myself am not saying lineal is all that matters,

I'm saying that beating the highest rated,best resume champs in a weightclass while not getting all 4 belts,

should be enough to establish whos the real champ,& if the 4th beltholder is a paper champ who prices self out,it doesn't change that. And I'm also asking you,whats the pt in getting all 4 belts if you are automatically stripped by the pos IBF right away anyways?

And whats the pt in undisputed if nobody ever defends it anyways,& the min you become undisputed a bum who lost to who you beat,is once again a beltholder by default?

Undisputed in the 4 belt era is a joke. And at least Lineal needs to be lost in the ring.

How do you judge who has beaten what without rating? Best champions in a weightclass without anything to signify?

They put rematches that are in direct violation with mandatory defenses that were scheduled before unifications were even in talks right into their contracts for what?

I personally do not understand how it's the WBO who looks selfish and greedy. Joshua already had a mando to fulfill. Joshua and Fury started negotiations after the mando was declared, did **** all to try to get the mandos taken care of while ensuring rematches, and went forward with contracts that make them money while stripping them of titles and that's because the WBO is corrupt and greedy?

Is it really that hard?

Wlad never picked up the WBC because he fought like twice a year and we all had to pretend like Mormeck was a worth a **** challenger that required both a full camp to get ready, and recovery time afterward so it's just sooo impossibly for him to pick up Vitali's newly abandoned belt....'cause Wlad had soooo many mandos he fought exactly as often as mother ****ers with one belt a year and those mandos were soooo hard he couldn't possibly **** Stiverne up inbetween Mormeck and Joshua at any point.

[Ricardi]

4 World Title belts is more then enough , if WBC/WBO/WBA/IBF wanted to create more tiltes just make them intern Titles that way it's easy for fans and casuals to understand the difference between a World Title and a lower level belt . Regular/Super/Diamond/Gold/Franchise is just to much Jesus.

[Zaryu]

As I said, It would mean that to me IF the beltholders were the actual best,& most importantly IF a undisputed champ actually went on to keep the belts until dethroned vs the best. (I don't rate big stiff Frankenstein,chips & queso Benevidez as a threat in comparison to who Canelos already beat,but I DO view him as a better opponent than Plant(same goes for Charlo at smw)

And I don't see the point in undisputed if Canelo will just drop the belts anyways or be stripped immediately by the IBF as ALWAYS for not fighting some no hoper that already was beaten his last fight.

More often than not the belt holders are the best. And most often than not, those that some consider better than none belt holders have held a belt at some point. So whether you like it/value or not, belts are an objective way to determine who the best fighters are. When there was only one belt, the belt holder was undisputed recognized as the best fighter (the champion). Unifying is the only true way to do that in this multiple belt era.

[BoxingIsGreat]

I agree with you completely. Belts are garbage. Every single one of them. I use my own eyes instead of believing a scum like Sulaiman and his ilk. I don't take 'fans' who swear by these belts seriously at all. They are the cancer to boxing.

[LA_2_Vegas]

I can barely keep track anymore and admittedly, I barely even try.

I'm always amazed at the guys who are able to follow it all and know the rankings and rules, I'm horrible with that - I mean it does matter because there is money and prestige associated with the belts but sometimes I don't even know how/where certain guys got their belts from. If I was a new fan and I used the belts as a basis for understand the landscape, it would be confusing af .

I just watch the fights and do the ratings in my own head based on what I think I'm seeing and how each guy matches up with each other and then come to my determination. Resume, context, all types of other factors plays a role more than belts. We probably each have our own metrics

[BoxingIsGreat]

I can barely keep track anymore and admittedly, I barely even try.

I'm always amazed at the guys who are able to follow it all and know the rankings and rules, I'm horrible with that - I mean it does matter because there is money and prestige associated with the belts but sometimes I don't even know how/where certain guys got their belts from. If I was a new fan and I used the belts as a basis for understand the landscape, it would be confusing af .

I just watch the fights and do the ratings in my own head based on what I think I'm seeing and how each guy matches up with each other and then come to my determination. Resume, context, all types of other factors plays a role more than belts. We probably each have our own metrics

Very good post, except the prestige part.

Belt orgs have been and still are thieves with zero honor and morals. I used to be an expert on their rules and rankings, until I saw the light very long ago. Now their hardware is sold to the highest bidder. Shameless bunch of crooks. The WBC takes the cake.

Solid post otherwise. Our ranking philosophy is similar.