Thread: Are fighters that hold or win belts more credible than fighters that don't?

Generally speaking, are guys that have won at least some portion of a crown or alphabet belt more credible as good fighters than those that have never won any belt be it a trinket or not?

Not these days.

Alphabet titles generally mean your in the top 10.

Compare David Tua, who never had an alphabet title with Oleg Maskaev who was an alphabet champion. I think everyone will agree that Tua had a much better career.

As much as it pains me to say it, I think that having a strap helps fighters at the negotiating table. As for a belt meaning a fighter is better or taking on the best challenges it's not necessarily the case, but to the layman sports fan that occasionally watches boxing it automatically gives some credibility. Furthermore, if a fighter has unified some titles that means something even more to me, let's look at who the guys are that have unified some of the big 4 alphabets. Wlad Klit has the IBF and WBO he is the most credible heavyweight champ. Sergio Martinez took the WBC and WBO titles from Pavlik, making him the most credible middleweight. Devon Alexander has unified the WBC and IBF titles, the other two guys that are in the running at light welter (Khan and Bradley) are also title holders. JMM at lightweight who is the man there has the WBA and WBO. Fernando Montiel cleared as the man at bantam after unifying against Hasegawa to snatch the WBC and WBO. Vic at 115 who has the WBC and WBA is considered the top of his division.

At the end of the day, the straps still hold clout in pro boxing. I wish it wasn't the case and we had one single unified body, but that is the truth of the situation.

You have to qualify "Credible"

What defines a fighter's legacy is who he faces in the ring and of course what actually took place.

Title fights are more news worthy than non-title fights and are thus more popular. "People" will by definition deem a fighter more credible (believe he is the better fighter) if he has a title verses one that does not have a title. Naturally it suggests the fighter has defeated a number of contenders before gaining the title.

I think lineal titles are what are most credible. I think a lot of people tend to go off what Ring Magazine terms a lineal title, despite the fact they lost track of the lineage in the late 80s-earlys 00s.

Granted, we have too many belts now, but we also have two guys who have legitimate lineal title claims at 3 weights (Floyd Mayweather Jr & Oscar De La Hoya) and we have another guy (Manny Pacquiao) who has managed to win an amazing 4 (could go up to 5 if he were to fight & beat Mayweather).

To put that into context, the only other fighters to do that in boxing history are Hank Armstrong & Sugar Ray Leonard. Granted the likes of Armstrong and Robinson didn't have as many divisions to pick up belts in, but the great quartet of the 80s did, and only Leonard managed 3 (and his lineal title at LMW was an easy pick off Ayub Kalule).

So I think that's the most credible title. The profileration of belts does mean that some guys with them are worse than those never lucky enough to win them because they took on tougher opposition. I think particularly of Robert Stieglitz & Librado Andrade. Stieglitz is the current WBO champ, who was battered by Andrade in a IBF eliminator a few years back. Andrade twice took on the possibly p4p worthy Bute and fell just short, whilst Stieglitz took on Karoly Balzsay to win the title. Does this make Stieglitz better than Andrade?

To the boxing fans, definitely NO.

To the common people, it would most likely be a YES.