How Much Does It Really Mean, To Be A World Champion Nowadays?

[N/A]

I disagree because we have a definition for champion and it doesn't fit what you're describing.

cham·pi·on
ˈCHampēən/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports.


The IBF world champion has surpassed all rivals in the IBF. They are the IBF champion. Refusing to use the word "champion" to describe them is moronic.

If you don't want to call the IBF world champion "the world champion," then don't. We'd be a lot better off if the media's misguided attempt to refuse to say the names of the championships was discarded. It played a large role in the proliferation of titles to begin with.

The IBF world champion is the IBF world champion. The WBC world champion is the WBC world champion. Etc. We have 17 divisions and exactly ZERO undisputed champions, so the idea of being the actual champion of the world is a dead concept.

[CubanGuyNYC]

The IBU was founded in 1910. A few decades later, the IBU became the EBU, which still controls European boxing to this day. The IBU/EBU recognized world champions until several of the biggest and most influential organizations in boxing, including the EBU, joined together to create the World Boxing Council. However, the IBU/EBU title wasn't considered as prestigious as the NYSAC world championship, so the NYSAC championship was quickly merged as well. So the current WBC world championship is actually the IBU title dating back to 1910 and the NYSAC dating back to the early 1920s, merging together.

The NBA was founded in the early 1920s as well and later became the WBA. The WBA has split twice though, leading to the creation of the IBF and WBO. So you really have to unify the WBA, IBF & WBO titles to have the original NBA lineage, while winning the WBC gives you the IBU/NYSAC lineage. The IBU, NYSAC & NBA were the major titles a hundred years ago.

While there were multiple world titles a hundred years ago, it wasn't until the 1920s and 1930s that they were frequently getting split up.

So for instance, in 1933, Ben Jeby was NYSAC world middleweight champion, even though Marcel Thil was the unified IBU/NBA world middleweight champion.

Maxie Rosenbloom was undisputed light heavyweight champion in the early 1930s, but was stripped by the NBA. He continued as NYSAC world champion for several years while the NBA crowned other champions.

There are countless examples of this.

The reason so many falsely believe that there used to be one champion per division is because there was an undisputed heavyweight champion for a long time. The heavyweight championship was so much more important to the public than any other division (as it should be, the other divisions are gimmicks, the heavyweight champion is the champion of the sport), that as long as there was one heavyweight champion, there was a lot more tolerance for splintered titles in other divisions.

Thanks for the history lesson, brother. Very enlightening. Not often I actually learn something around here. Lol Kudos.

[N/A]

Thanks for the history lesson, brother. Very enlightening. Not often I actually learn something around here. Lol Kudos.

You're welcome. Happy to help any time.

[boliodogs]

Probably a boxer's record of who he beat is more important than titles these days because too many times the guys fighting for vacant titles aren't even close to being the best fighters at that weight. For instance Garcia became the WBC welterweight champion by beating Guerrero who was probably about the 25th or 30th best welterweight at that time and certainly no where near the top 5 best welterweights in the world. Cotto recently won a 154 pound world title by beating a Japanese boxer who wasn't even top 20 by any reasonable ranking place. Broner has won vacant titles by beating very easy guys who had no business fighting for a world title. This happens so often that world titles have lost a lot of their value. They still have value and boxers still want to be champions but they aren't as important as they used to be.

[boliodogs]

A boxer might be the obvious best fighter in his weight class but that doesn't mean he will get all the belts.With the network feuds, the promoter feuds and the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO all feuding with each other a great champion has a very difficult time getting fights with the other 3 belt holders. Beating them in the ring may be easy for him but getting them in the ring is very hard. With 17 different weight classes only 140 has been fully unified by Crawford in years. Now that Crawford left we get 4 new champions at 140.

[R_Walken]

I guess I’m in the minority but don’t really have a problem with the sport having 3-4 recognized World Champs per division

More often the guys holding straps are probably all with in the top 5-10

the way the sport is set up with fighting only 2x per year and only 1 strap Champions and promoters would avoid certain fighters for fear of losing and helping out the other side and it’d probably be worse then the system in place now

[////]

You seriously don't know who the WBC heavyweight champion is? Or who the IBF heavyweight champion is?

hell no i really dont

i know which guys hold belts but have no idea which one is abcadfc

[Long jabber]

cham·pi·on
ˈCHampēən/Submit
noun
1.
a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports.


The IBF world champion has surpassed all rivals in the IBF. They are the IBF champion. Refusing to use the word "champion" to describe them is moronic.

If you don't want to call the IBF world champion "the world champion," then don't. We'd be a lot better off if the media's misguided attempt to refuse to say the names of the championships was discarded. It played a large role in the proliferation of titles to begin with.

The IBF world champion is the IBF world champion. The WBC world champion is the WBC world champion. Etc. We have 17 divisions and exactly ZERO undisputed champions, so the idea of being the actual champion of the world is a dead concept.

You can win a world title and still not defeat all the rivals and people worth beating understand what I'm saying?

The more I think about it the more o understand why titles are important. It establishes who are the top dogs of the division and makes fights more fun because they have something that has prestige worth fighting over, but to be Th true champion of the division I still stand firm on my belief that you gotta acquire all titles to be the true champ. Good discussion though you opened my understanding on the importance of world titles

[McNulty]

sorry but real boxing fans know whats up. just because you have the belt doesnt mean youre the champion. the real champion is the one who holds all the belts.

[N/A]

You can win a world title and still not defeat all the rivals and people worth beating understand what I'm saying?

And you can win the Super Bowl without defeating all rivals.

But the Super Bowl is the mechanism in place to determine the NFL champion, just as the IBF has mechanisms in place to determine the IBF champion. Both are champions. Not trophyholders or beltholders.

It just so happens that boxing has four major leagues, and therefore becoming champion of one of them usually doesn't clearly make you the one true champion of the world.

If you want to reserve the distinction of champion of the world for a fighter who holds every major title, I have no problem with that. Just realize that in the four belt era, undisputed champions are always going to be extremely rare and they're usually going to vacate titles as soon as they have them all.