Discussion in 'Boxing Discussion' started by Pro**, Sep 21, 2010.
Which one of these is the best in your opinion?
Or do you even like the WBO belt holders better...
they are all retarded, the wbc is highly biased to mexican fighters (why is chavez jr martinez's mando),the wbo is biased to european fighters and strip fighters for no reason,the wba has 3 champs at each weight,the ibf refuses to rank fighters that have other belts or fight for them.the best belt is the ring magazines no fees no bullshit and hard to get
the wbc belt does look nice in fairness
Yeah, they are all a joke now. I used to respect the WBC but now with there Silver belt I lost respect for them too.
Iba for sure
So fighters cannot hold the IBF and another belt simutaneously anymore?
They still can, Wladimir Klitschko is the WBO/IBF/IBO champion.
I prefer the WBC but only because the green strap is legendary.
Whatever belt nip102's av is wearing.
That would be the WBC belt
The Ring Magazine belt is the only one that counts anymore.
The days where a title (to an extent even the Ring) brought a legacy with it are sadly gone. None of the big 4 ABC titles are worth more than any other and even the Ring has lost some of its shine.
It's who you've beaten and how you've beaten them that matters.
The belts only matter really if you can unify them in truth. On thier own they mean nothing because the rules and rankings make no sense anymore and it's just about money with all the fees that come with fighting for the title. It's a shame because it's virtually impossible to know who the true linear champion is.
All the Organisations are just as bad as each other. The ring is probably the best belt because the fighters who it are the best in the world
It's not that hard... essentially the Ring rankings are the linear title although with the frequency people jump around weight classes it becomes a bit harder... for example Pac is the linear 140lbs champ after destroying Hatton... but he's unlikely to ever fight in that division again which means it's in a bit of a mess.
The real issue is when the Ring/Linear Champion isn't really the best boxer in a division. Look at 135lbs a few years back. Joel Casamayor was the ring champion after an uninspiring win over a badly faded Diego Corrales. His reign consisted of a very controversial win/robbery over Santa Cruz and a come from behind victory over Katsidis before he eventually lost the title to Marquez.
At the same time Juan Diaz was an undefeated young gun who had quietly been picking up titles until he held 3 of the main ABC belts. In turn he was broken down by Nate Campbell in what has to be considered a big upset.
So the question was... in 2007 was the best LW Casa or Diaz? If you went by the Ring/linear method it was Casa... but quite frankly I think virtually everyone who followed the fighters had Diaz as the best fighter. In 2008 was it Nate or Casa... the same theory applies.
^^^^^Typical of someone with that sort of avatar :icon_lol:
That's my main issue with the ABC belts because even if your eyes tell you who the best fighter is in a given division to get the two top guys to face off is very difficult. I do agree that the ring champ is the linear champ (most times) and best in the division but that says alot when that's the way we need to sort out who's the best that way rather then the belt. Kinda college football like with the who beat who conversations and strength of opposition.
in all fairness, that was the physically prettiest belt ever made p4p.
The WBC belt looks pretty.
Separate names with a comma.