Is Unification important? should boxers get praised for unifying?

[future hendrixx]

being introduced as "undisputed" by buffer should be what all boxers aim for. it puts the fighter in the history books. period.

[Elroy The Great]

fighting ''the best'' is what every boxer should do. unifying does just that. we must assume whoever is a champ at the time is the best guy available. champs fighting champs is what its all about.

[PK3434]

Unifying is important. To some it is an absolute goal and one of the positive recent developments is that other fighters are now adopting that goal. Clarity about who is the best in a division is a great thing.

[Buckfever]

Today in boxing everything is about money. So any little advantage that can be obtained from a promotion standpoint is sought after. As to whether they should get praised, who is to say? I get baffled by the disparity of thought here, but then it's only a tiny fraction of the posters here that have ever put gloves on so the casual fan will never have the same lens.

Personally I think it's meaningless and I think there are too many sanctioning bodies and there is too much focus on money in sports, but it is what it is.

[////]

Yes.

It's the only title-related achievement that has any meaning anymore.

Lineal belts have become a joke, super/regular/diamond/etc titles are all a joke.

If you completely unify it means all roads lead to you. Most fighters would rather pick 2 guys to make them look good then play games, vacate, hop divisions.

[OnePunch]

I think its a good thing. A "unification" by definition means there will be 1 less person calling themselves a "champion" after its over. In an ideal world, it would be something every fighter strives for. I always wished Roy had been able to get that last strap from Michelczewski......

[Lester Tutor]

This all depends on the fans and a boxer's capacity as well as opposition and the money involved. Why do some boxers choose to go northbound and play along with a beef? Why do some boxers verbally acknowledging wanting more belts north? Why do boxers accept fate for their northbound opposition in due time? If Hagler or Monzon had mgmt that influenced them to say things like 154-168 were easy would they have been criticized? Maybe some boxers respect not playing the fool in order to market themselves

[Lester Tutor]

I think its a good thing. A "unification" by definition means there will be 1 less person calling themselves a "champion" after its over. In an ideal world, it would be something every fighter strives for. I always wished Roy had been able to get that last strap from Michelczewski......

Roy seeked challenges and had a mouth like the traditional greats before him, not his coach saying things..

[Boxfan83]

There was a very vocal group of posters that have denigrated belts for the past few years, posting that they feel that belts don't matter. However, since GGG has discussed unification as his "goal", many from this group have done a 180 degree change and now see value in having all the belts.

IMO unification should be the goal when possible because it looks good for anyone to be a consensus champion. That said, if you are in a situation where unification is virtually impossible (ex: Kieth Thurman at ww-Arum is in tight with the WBO and will not let Manny fight Thurman) it makes sense to take another path.

I cant stand all the titles and I have been vocal about this but they really dont mean to much for Legacy unless you hold them all. I was looking at wikipedia and seen the history of Undisputed champs for each weight class and its pretty thin considering boxings long history. So again, legacy wise, an Undisputed champ means a lot.

Financially or business wise, 1 belt can mean a lot if not more than 4 titles.

[The Big Dunn]

I cant stand all the titles and I have been vocal about this but they really dont mean to much for Legacy unless you hold them all. I was looking at wikipedia and seen the history of Undisputed champs for each weight class and its pretty thin considering boxings long history. So again, legacy wise, an Undisputed champ means a lot.

Financially or business wise, 1 belt can mean a lot if not more than 4 titles.

As a long time fan of the sport I am fine with a guy holding the wba, wbc and IBF belts. I think the WBO is bogus but if the belt is held by a respected fighter like Crawford, Manny or Loma, then I think a fighter needs to fight them if possible.