Whats the most legitimate belt now?

[cklmaced]

I would say the WBC is the most legit in most cases i.e not that Saul-Hatton farce. The RING title is more for the fans im sure most boxers would rather have a version of a world title than the RING title if they had to choose one.

[yuppie]

But will/do belts matter when boxing historians/hardcore boxing fans look back at this era of boxing? Especially when people win these belts the easy way (Berto). It should be about beating the main boxers and the belts should be seen as a secondary thing.
I dunno..these are all points that have been said before but i wish for the calibre of boxing that world title belts were more elusive. IMO i look at the alvarez/hatton fight and think...why wasnt an interim title put on the line..then who ever won that can face the winner of another fight. Surely having a mini 4 man tourney would get people having more of an interest in boxing. That way there would be 3 fights (two prelims then a final) and if boxers didnt want to do that then they can go fight at their domestic level.

[DET. IRONSIDE]

I'd still say the Ring belt. It only gets awarded to champions once they've unified or proved their mettle.

Its not awarded at 140 right now and if Khan fights Bradley the winner will get the Ring belt.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't really win the Ring belt on its own. Its like a stamp of approval that the Ring recognises you're the legit champ.

Right?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

They're all legitmately *****.

People who try to argue that one is more pretigious than another are idiots

[Spray_resistant]

The belts in themselves are no more or less legit than each other in themselves. Its the fighter behaving like a champion that make his strap actually worth something should someone beat him for it.