Do belts mean much in boxing?

[TheRuthlessOne]

People complaining that UFC belts are starting to lose meaning

I am a very causal follower of boxing and I dont get the impression that belts mean a whole lot in boxing either. Seems like its the fighters themselves who are what people wanna see regardless if they have a belt or not

 

[mozfonky]

not as much as they did when there was one champion but it also depends on who holds the belt for how long and how they defend it and against who. Lots of champions, most of them don't make much and most of them are pretty interchangeable and won't be champion for long. with 3 belts and however many divisions, it's not as much of a feat as it was before.

 

[Bogotazo]

If you have a belt it's usually because you're one of the best in your division, or you're someone the sanctioning bodies think will get there and use it as a promotional tool. So either way it's essentially a marker for the big names in the division. Sometimes it's won in lineal fashion (beating the man who beat the man) or a vacant title but eventually the best get the major titles in their hands.

Just look at the beltholders per division and you'll typically see at least 3 out of the 4 major titles being held by the number 1 and number 2 guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions

 

[Sakuraba7]

Belts do mean something, but so do the fighter.

But if you're going to compare it with the UFC, than boxing fans are smart enough to know not everyone who has a belt is necessarily best....which is why there's multiple belts. But usually the best has one of those belts.

With the UFC on the other hand, you might have a total fraud like Conor hijacking a belt and guys like Tony or Khabib being denied their TS, or guys like Mousasi or Yoel denied their TS, despite winstreaks and record.


There's gift TS in boxing too, but that's where the multiple belts help IMO. People look at the champs, then respect the real one(s) and disregard the paper ones. This would have been much more complicated if there was one belt. At least with multiple belts identifying paper champs is far easier than when 90% of the public consider the ONE paper champ to be the real champ.

 

[Sunfish]

I guess they can help keep your trunks up or you can multibox the ref and then use it as a weapon.

Does UFC stand for what the management do when fools sign ridiculously underpaid contracts?

 

[mozfonky]

If you have a belt it's usually because you're one of the best in your division, or you're someone the sanctioning bodies think will get there and use it as a promotional tool. So either way it's essentially a marker for the big names in the division. Sometimes it's won in lineal fashion (beating the man who beat the man) or a vacant title but eventually the best get the major titles in their hands.

Just look at the beltholders per division and you'll typically see at least 3 out of the 4 major titles being held by the number 1 and number 2 guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions

sometimes you have a belt because you have the better connections, lots of good fighters get lost in the shuffle. Hagler, for example, had to wait for a good while for his shots because he didn't have connections. It really depends on the decisions a person makes, same with anything (like our recent hollywood sex controversies) you do have a choice what you agree to. Yesterday i watched jake lamottas heartbreaking admission to throwing the Fox fight to get a title shot, it's the world we live in, there are always men up higher who want your soul, you either give it to them or not.

 

[DaveDave]

As Sunfish said, belts are there to keep your trunks up.

At this stage of prizefighting's development, they're essentially meaningless promotional tools to make people buy fights or to give anointed fighters legitimacy. They bear no relation to what they're actually meant to be representing (i.e. the "best" of something) or have definitions so vague as to be completely meaningless (i.e. Polish dudes fighting for WBA African titles, the proliferation of Penta-Intergalactic-Planetary interim titles...).

Of course, collecting a big wodge of them in one division by beating up several top fighters to collect them is still a worthy endeavour & should clue a fan in that this fighter means business. But it's the conquering of several top fighters that is the impressive feat, not the collection of trinkets thus collected. The individual belts themselves are given out free in Xmas crackers, & even if they weren't, if your fighter doesn't have a "name" or doesn't have enough money behind him the sanctioning body would clone your belt the night you fight for it & have some promoter's boy fighting a no-hoper for the vacant "interim" version of your title at the exact same moment.

 

[HardasNAILZ]

They mean absolutely nothing.

No one cares about belts anymore.

 

[Seano]

They do. They obviously get cheapened with the sanctioning bodies greed, but yeah they are a milestone for a fighter for sure. Belts get you big fights and prove your at least one of the better guys in the division.

 

[Sunfish]

They do. They obviously get cheapened with the sanctioning bodies greed, but yeah they are a milestone for a fighter for sure. Belts get you big fights and prove your at least one of the better guys in the division.

So why do lineal champs even bother paying money to the fucking ibo?

I'll crown you as heavyweight champ of my back yard if you pay me enough.

 

[Prefect]

I guess they can help keep your trunks up or you can multibox the ref and then use it as a weapon.

Does UFC stand for what the management do when fools sign ridiculously underpaid contracts?

 

[Sunfish]

That awkward moment when you post a picture of Seth Rollins 4 times for no reason? You want to give him a bum or something?