Which belt is most prestigious in boxing

[N/A]

I think most would agree ring rankings are better than all the others which their rankings do you disagree with?

How are Ring ratings better than TBRB ratings? The guys doing the TBRB ratings are the guys that were doing the Ring ratings before Golden Boy was caught corrupting the Ring ratings.

[N/A]

why would one belt hold more weight then the other??

Why does the WBO belt hold more weight than the IBA belt? History, prestige, value in the marketplace, respect among fans, networks, fighters, etc.

You can't just say all belts are equal and then only count four. There are dozens of belts. So by even saying there are four, you're showing you don't believe all belts are equal. You're putting four above the others.


Of the four recognized titles, you can trace their history, how they came to exist, who held the titles over the years, see how much the titles are worth at purse bid, etc and clearly see what the pecking order is.


The WBA started in '62 and the WBC started in '63, but their roots run deeper than that. The WBA is essentially the NBA title from the early 1920s and the WBC is essentially the NYSAC title from the early 1920s and the IBU title from 1910.


So those belts are going to mean more than belts that were invented out of thin air in the 1980s.

[DreamFighter]

The old ones carry more prestige, because of their affiliation with past ATGs. I would argue that prestige and worth are not really the same thing.

As to worth, that can be various. "Unworthy" is easier - you'd have to go with the "ring" one because its a magazine, as practically worthless, for goodness sake...more like an "award".

I know you didnt mention it but "lineal" surely has some flexibility, but it can mean as much as a unified belt, and as little as an IBO, depending on whom you beat to take it.

Certainly the question of "unworthy" ones is much easier - they are the unrecognised ones - today they would be IBO, WBU etc. If noone recognises your title fights, then whats the point in calling them title fights?

[iamboxing]

These ones are getting stale. Everything should be dismantled and three new belts to reflect the times.

EBC for Europe, ABC for America, IBC for the rest of the world. Three belts. One independent council. Win three belts and unify. Simples.

[DreamFighter]

These ones are getting stale. Everything should be dismantled and three new belts to reflect the times.

EBC for Europe, ABC for America, IBC for the rest of the world. Three belts. One independent council. Win three belts and unify. Simples.

sounded like an intercontinental bum cleaner joke for a moment, but yeah not a bad idea..

[Chrismart]

I tend to look at them all the same. I look at the fighter's guys are winning titles against, and defending titles against, more so that the letters on the front of the belt.

[KingHippo]

How are Ring ratings better than TBRB ratings? The guys doing the TBRB ratings are the guys that were doing the Ring ratings before Golden Boy was caught corrupting the Ring ratings.

Same here. TBRB rankings are the only ones I truly respect.

[bambam182]

none !

[adamjones]

Why does the WBO belt hold more weight than the IBA belt? History, prestige, value in the marketplace, respect among fans, networks, fighters, etc.

You can't just say all belts are equal and then only count four. There are dozens of belts. So by even saying there are four, you're showing you don't believe all belts are equal. You're putting four above the others.


Of the four recognized titles, you can trace their history, how they came to exist, who held the titles over the years, see how much the titles are worth at purse bid, etc and clearly see what the pecking order custom boxing belts.


The WBA started in '62 and the WBC started in '63, but their roots run deeper than that. The WBA is essentially the NBA title from the early 1920s and the WBC is essentially the NYSAC title from the early 1920s and the IBU title from 1910.


So those belts are going to mean more than belts that were invented out of thin air in the 1980s.

Why is it that Boxing does not have 1 single title belt or 1 highest of title belts for each division? I know there have been talks of making 1 single title belt but it seems like it would be the outright best idea for the sport. Every major sport has one thing that every team or player quests for. That penicle seems like what boxing is lacking and a major reason why so many people don’t get very interested in it.

[famicommander]

All the belts are worthless.

The TBRB is the only credible organization that awards championships in the sport, and they don't award a belt.