GGG v. Canelo may be for one belt come September

[original zero]

that's when haymon springs his power move and moves in on the middleweight division, think hes moving his fighters into position to fight for the vacant belts whether canelo wins or golovkin moves up.

ding ding ding

[icha]

All belts will be on the line.. weather the winner keeps them is to be seen after.

if a fighter decides to not pay sanctioning fees then the belts will only be on the line for the other fighter...

[A.K]

if a fighter decides to not pay sanctioning fees then the belts will only be on the line for the other fighter...

Once again...All belts are on the line

[TheCell8]

If Golovkin were to lose, he would keep the belts then. Similar to Lamont Peterson keeping his IBF belt after getting KOed by Matthysse.

[original zero]

The RING magazine title or WBA are the most worthy if the WBC is not an option. IBO, IBF, are for minor leagues...and realy the WBO has barely any lineage to respect.

Ring magazine is owned by Oscar De La Hoya. It's his personal championship and he makes up the rules as he goes along to benefit HBO fighters and screw Showtime fighters. The Ring title is absolutely worthless. It's not independent. It's a company propaganda tool.

The IBO is for minor leagues and I agree the WBO has barely any lineage to respect, but lumping the IBF in with the IBO is inappropriate.

The IBF has been treated as an equal to the WBC & WBA since the early 80s.

[original zero]

Good. F#ck belts. #1 vs #2 makes the champion not some tacky looking belt.

you can say **** belts all you want, but the promoters, managers, fighters, sponsors and television networks all choose to allow the entire sport to completely revolve around the belts.

the belts are the reason almost every fight you see is taking place. either because it's for a belt or because the fight is designed to move someone up the rankings to get a shot at a belt.

you can say #1 vs #2 all you want, but #1 and #2 is completely subjective and many may completely disagree about who is #1 or who is #2.

but who is the WBC or IBF champion is a fact. not an opinion. and the sport, everyone, the fighters, the networks, the promoters, etc choose the belts as a way to keep track of who is the best.

if you don't like it, watch a different sport.

[1hourRun]

Ring magazine is owned by Oscar De La Hoya. It's his personal championship and he makes up the rules as he goes along to benefit HBO fighters and screw Showtime fighters. The Ring title is absolutely worthless. It's not independent. It's a company propaganda tool.

The IBO is for minor leagues and I agree the WBO has barely any lineage to respect, but lumping the IBF in with the IBO is inappropriate.

The IBF has been treated as an equal to the WBC & WBA since the early 80s.

Yes I would agree the RING is losing any merit - Im speaking from a historical point of view ; in addition the Ring typically runs current with the true lineal champion even till this day.

[original zero]

Yes I would agree the RING is losing any merit - Im speaking from a historical point of view ; in addition the Ring typically runs current with the true lineal champion even till this day.

ring may sometimes coincide with lineal by coincidence, but the ring rules make it very clear they have absolutely no respect for the concept of a lineal championship and they cater to the whims of a coked out ****** who couldnt care less about lineal heritage.

[1hourRun]

ring may sometimes coincide with lineal by coincidence, but the ring rules make it very clear they have absolutely no respect for the concept of a lineal championship and they cater to the whims of a coked out ****** who couldnt care less about lineal heritage.

I forgot to mention the IBF is typically carried by the weakest champion in each division and their strict mandatory policy is playing a significant role in my disdain for this sanctioning body ; in addition its relatively a young organization with less historical basis to hold the same weight in terms of lineage.

I personally dont care what Dela Hoya does in his free time but the RING change in policy is making me sick like striping Adonis Stevenson despite the fact hes the true lineal champion and then these clowns had the opportunity according to the amended rules to sanction Ward vs. Kovalev for its title at 175 but they chocked -- I imagine it was the fear of the backlash from the hardcore seeing right through their bogus criteria.

[original zero]

I forgot to mention the IBF is typically carried by the weakest champion in each division

This is simply not true. Especially in the most prestigious divisions. IBF heavyweight champion is Anthony Joshua. WBO champion is Joshua Parker. Who would be the betting favorite? IBF & WBO are both held by Andre Ward at light heavyweight. IBF middleweight champion is GGG. WBO champion is Billie Joe Saunders. Who would be the betting favorite?

Yes there are some decent WBO champions, thanks to Top Rank essentially being exclusive to the WBO, but the idea that the IBF champion is typically the weakest is simply not true. The IBF title is far more prestigious than the WBO title.

and their strict mandatory policy is playing a significant role in my disdain for this sanctioning body ;

I see no reason to have disdain for the IBF for being honest and fair. If eventually they no longer have any top fighters because the top fighters prefer to have the rules broken in their favor, so be it. Worst thing that happens is the IBF loses recognition and we have one less title. I'd be all for it. Would love if the IBF went out of business. And the WBO too.

in addition its relatively a young organization with less historical basis to hold the same weight in terms of lineage.

IBF has been recognized since 1983. WBO has been recognized since 2007. No comparison.