are the belts really that important?

[BrometheusBob.]

I know, right?

"He wants all the belts"
"Unification is the goal"

Not so important after all, huh?

lol

the guy is learning, he doesn't deserve to be laughed at for that

[b00g13man]

lol

the guy is learning, he doesn't deserve to be laughed at for that

I've got no issue with someone new to the sport learning, but don't act the way he and others have been when you're completely clueless.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

i see so many **** fights cause someone has been installed as a mandatory, or its a title eliminator or whatever.
In terms of reputations, would a fighter actually be better off getting rid of their belt and just fighting big names? So almost being a 'freelance' fighter so to speak, not affiliating themselves to any organisation. So they dont worry about mandatory fights, eliminators, but they just get themselves to world level and pick and choose who they fight?
does it really mean much to have all your career moves dictated to win/defend a belt which doesnt really mean ****?
What do people think? Does anyone place much importance in the 4 belts? To me winning the belt plays second fiddle to the opponent that you beat, dont know whether others feel the same...

The old saying "To be the man, you have to beat the man" sums it up. The belts did mean something when you had one per division in eight classes and even two wasn't bad. Once the IBF came along, it got to be ridiculous and the WBO turned it into a circus that not even hardcore fight fans can keep up with. The WBA super and regular BS was just blatantly saying they care nothing about the best, but they're in it to make money off yet another "title" fight. So no. I place no emphasis on it. Even becoming multiple divisions now is a joke when comparing it with fighters from the past. The sport is really screwed up in these areas- corruption abounds and there are few real champions and in many cases the best are not forced into fighting the best. So get things like Golovkin-Wade and it can be forgiven because it's "Mandatory." The real question is, "Who would make this obvious mismatch and waste of time for fans mandatory? The IBF. And are they mandatory for the sport?" Answer: Definitely not.

Maybe some of them will go under but it's going to be tough. They money will have to be taken out of it and any guy will fall for his first title shot when coming up. The odds of them sticking around are in their favor unfortunately.

In the end, you just have to look at names and how many truly dangerous opponents the fighter has fought and beaten. If he's unbeaten, fine, but look at the names on the ledger. If he's got several losses, look at the names once again and how he lost and did he really lose or get hosed? Boxing by its own nature, requires a good deal of research and digging to find out what really happened. Hence another reason for the decline in popularity. I wish they'd get their act together.

[Madison Boxing]

I know, right?

"He wants all the belts"
"Unification is the goal"

Not so important after all, huh?

I'd rather see him fight canelo for no belt than saunders for a belt. The threads mainly aimed at those who are champ with just one sanctioning body and fight noone other than the slop that the sanctioning body serve up.

[Humean]

Belts are very important, that is why they exist, fighters, managers, promoters and tv companies aren't paying money for them just so that a fighter can accessorise.

[Madison Boxing]

I've got no issue with someone new to the sport learning, but don't act the way he and others have been when you're completely clueless.

new to the sport?!?! Relatively new to the forum but no way am i new to the sport. Went to sleep last night and forgot more about boxing than youve ever known. Been following it many years

[BrometheusBob.]

I've got no issue with someone new to the sport learning, but don't act the way he and others have been when you're completely clueless.

new to the sport?!?! Relatively new to the forum but no way am i new to the sport. Went to sleep last night and forgot more about boxing than youve ever known. Been following it many years

My bad there boogieman, you're right

[b00g13man]

new to the sport?!?! Relatively new to the forum but no way am i new to the sport. Went to sleep last night and forgot more about boxing than youve ever known. Been following it many years

Sure buddy. A "vet" wouldn't create a thread asking this question. It's something that would've been obvious quite a while ago.

This is progress though. Cong****!

[therealpugilist]

i see so many **** fights cause someone has been installed as a mandatory, or its a title eliminator or whatever.
In terms of reputations, would a fighter actually be better off getting rid of their belt and just fighting big names? So almost being a 'freelance' fighter so to speak, not affiliating themselves to any organisation. So they dont worry about mandatory fights, eliminators, but they just get themselves to world level and pick and choose who they fight?
does it really mean much to have all your career moves dictated to win/defend a belt which doesnt really mean ****?
What do people think? Does anyone place much importance in the 4 belts? To me winning the belt plays second fiddle to the opponent that you beat, dont know whether others feel the same...

not when you dont fight for them like GGG......

[b00g13man]

My bad there boogieman, you're right

Yeah, that's the problem.