are the belts really that important?

[Prince Madison]

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. Congrats!

just trying to initiate discussion. More fool me, didnt take long before people bring up golovkin, happens in every damn thread i do. And then i get people saying 'man, all you talk about is golovkin!!!'

[just the facts]

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

Bullshyte, anyone that's followed boxing for years doesn't spend time posting childish posts criticizing Andre Ward that are stupid beyond repair. You do all this in an attempt to disguise the fact that your man crush (g string) ducked Ward.

Not one boxing fan that has been following boxing for years claims that g string would beat Hagler, SRR, etc.

Boxing fan that has been following the sport for years? Johnny come Lately cheerleader is a perfect description of you.

[Prince Madison]

Bullshyte, anyone that's followed boxing for years doesn't spend time posting childish posts criticizing Andre Ward that are stupid beyond repair. You do all this in an attempt to disguise the fact that your man crush (g string) ducked Ward.

Not one boxing fan that has been following boxing for years claims that g string would beat Hagler, SRR, etc.

Boxing fan that has been following the sport for years? Johnny come Lately cheerleader is a perfect description of you.

i said hagler would be 50/50, hagler was an awesome fighter. No, i backed up my talk with ward. If anything that proves i know my ****. What did i predict- ward to go down early, kovalev on points (which 80 percent of media agree with), kovalev to be wards last fight. As i kept telling people at the time, i wasnt trolling. Said he wasnt as good as people think, and i think in pretty much evyerones view, wards stock has gone down slightly.

[just the facts]

i said hagler would be 50/50, hagler was an awesome fighter. No, i backed up my talk with ward. If anything that proves i know my ****. What did i predict- ward to go down early, kovalev on points (which 80 percent of media agree with), kovalev to be wards last fight. As i kept telling people at the time, i wasnt trolling. Said he wasnt as good as people think, and i think in pretty much evyerones view, wards stock has gone down slightly.

I see you're conveintly leaving out that you swore up and down that Ward wouldn't fight Kovalev to begin with but whatever. I'll stand by my post. Long time boxing fan my azz, Johnny come lately, ball gagging cheerleader is a perfect description of you.

[b00g13man]

just trying to initiate discussion. More fool me, didnt take long before people bring up golovkin, happens in every damn thread i do. And then i get people saying 'man, all you talk about is golovkin!!!'

Erm.....you've fangirled vigorously on here for Golovkin long enough, then try to complain about the same shit fights you've defended, and expect not to be called out on it?

[boliodogs]

For most fighters yes belts hold a great value. It is a ticket to a bigger payday for the next fight, win or lose.

Once you are up there it doesnt mean as much but those fighters only come in a few.

I agree with this. The top boxers themselves come right out and say they want the belts. Look at Spence. He is a terrific fighter without any belt but he wants a belt badly and he has called out every welterweight champion. Many good fighters have never won a belt and would damn sure like to win one. Kirkland and Andre Dirrell have never been a champion and you can believe they would love to be a champion. Jermell Charlo beat a mediocre fighter to get his belt but he seems very proud of that belt. Garcia got his belt for beating washed up Guerrero but he is very proud of that belt.

[World Champion?]

Belts are only as important as the guy holding it makes it, if the guy is a stud the belt means something.

If it is a belt picked up out of a trash can by a hobo lucky to have it then it is meaningless. If that hobo turns out of be a real fighter that belt can gain a lot of extra meaning over time, but it take wins for that to occur.

Man make the titles, titles don't make the man~

What about in GGG's case? He's generally been a good champion in that he hasn't ducked his mandatories, has fought often and continued to knock out all of his opponents on his way to receiving the WBA, WBC & IBF belts. Despite this, he insists upon gaining the WBO belt even though beating the WBO champ will not enhance his accomplishments, other than to say that he has all of the belts. The fact is that he could be avoided by the WBO champion forever and waste his career chasing that elusive title. Why would he chase a 4th belt when clearly the more enticing and challenging fights are in the division above?

Boxers know who the best in each division are, moreso than the fans do but it seems that a belt can be used as a tool to say 'i'm the best' without having to prove it in the ring by beating the best. There are few fighters that can generate large paydays without belts, like Floyd Mayweather. Few fighters now seem to stride to get to that level where they are recognised as the best with or without a belt.

[A.K]

It should be but boxing has made it so everyone had a belt, which is ****in stupid hence why mma is winning right now.

[Elroy The Great]

obviously, no. there are just too many off them out there. but they represent the thing all fighters are after; ''a'' title.

[KLockard23]

Belts are for casuals. Not even most fighters take them completely serious, since they often vacate them the second they don't feel like facing a particular mandatory. They exist because they're the easiest and most convenient way for casuals to identify who the "best" guy in the division is. It's a lot simpler to look at how many belts someone has won or how many champions they've beat and conclude how good they are based off that than it is to know diehard specifics about why someone's overall skill level and resume (and the resume and skill level of the people they've beat) makes them either a good/great fighter or a crappy one. By extension, there's probably an assumption that having a belt on the line generates more interest and revenue from the public, although I wonder how much actual proof there is of that.

I'm not saying belts should never mean anything, but it's hard for them to when there's half a dozen of them in every weight class, along with the politics of why certain guys get gifted undeserved title shots over others.