-
Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Last night, I was watching some boxing on Eurosport from the Ukraine, which saw three Ukrainians fighting for what were pretty much small fry in terms of titles, but that set me wondering as to which fighters of true quality came through these small organisational titles to become true greats in their times. After a swift look at the p4p table put forward by Ring Magazine, and their records, the results showed that:
WBC International title: 4
NABF: 3
USBA: 3
NABO: 3
British title: 2
OPBF title: 1
WBA International: 1
WBO Inter-continental title: 1
Out of the current p4p suggested by the Ring ratings, only one of those fighters ignored all the smaller titles and went straight on to World titles, and that was, unsurprisingly, Floyd Mayweather. On that p4p list, Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez and Ricky Hatton were the ones who had worked their way through most regional and international titles.
My question to you would be which of the regional/novice titles do you respect te most, and is there any of those which tend to lend themselves to the real potential in their respective divisions?
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
None. The Mayweather route is the way to go. Shane Mosley also followed the same route. And I think De La Hoya did as well. There's no need for bullshit titles if your truly destined for greatness. Just go right to it.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Id say none as well... If some current p4p fighters happened to hold minor belts early in their career, it isn't signifigant as to why they are where they stand now... The only things I respect as an indicator of future greatness are what can I see in the ring, and I suspect this is true with most anyone..
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
None. The Mayweather route is the way to go. Shane Mosley also followed the same route. And I think De La Hoya did as well. There's no need for bullshit titles if your truly destined for greatness. Just go right to it.
i think Oscar's first title was the WBO 130 lb title wasn't it? and that's not a minor title
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
None. The Mayweather route is the way to go. Shane Mosley also followed the same route. And I think De La Hoya did as well. There's no need for bullshit titles if your truly destined for greatness. Just go right to it.
i think Oscar's first title was the WBO 130 lb title wasn't it? and that's not a minor title
It was back then. The WBO belt used to hardly be recognized by anybody.
It was like a small step up from the NABF title.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
none the less it was the WBO title, not the WBO interim title, so it was directly to a world title, the fact that if it was regarded as highly as it is now, well that's irrelevant
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Last night, I was watching some boxing on Eurosport from the Ukraine, which saw three Ukrainians fighting for what were pretty much small fry in terms of titles, but that set me wondering as to which fighters of true quality came through these small organisational titles to become true greats in their times. After a swift look at the p4p table put forward by Ring Magazine, and their records, the results showed that:
WBC International title: 4
NABF: 3
USBA: 3
NABO: 3
British title: 2
OPBF title: 1
WBA International: 1
WBO Inter-continental title: 1
Out of the current p4p suggested by the Ring ratings, only one of those fighters ignored all the smaller titles and went straight on to World titles, and that was, unsurprisingly, Floyd Mayweather. On that p4p list, Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez and Ricky Hatton were the ones who had worked their way through most regional and international titles.
My question to you would be which of the regional/novice titles do you respect te most, and is there any of those which tend to lend themselves to the real potential in their respective divisions?
I go with Violent Demise NONE......Avoid the BS titles if you can....But in all fairness Mosley and DLH had advantages where they did not havce to go through a lot of the scrub ranks like most to....So you have to start somewhere I suppose....
NABO and NABF are always a jumping off point so is the USBA,,,,,All British titles are only important in Great Britian and half the rest of the world has no idea who claims them so you can't go by any of those...
WBC continental title holders have a high future world champion rate
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
WBC International. I consider it as an indicator to greatness in the future. Take a look at PAcquaio. O0
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
WBC International. I consider it as an indicator to greatness in the future. Take a look at PAcquaio. O0
Can you name me 5 others that were "great," that held that belt?
I'm not doubting it, I'm just curious.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
I don't think that there is a certain set way a fighter should come up. I mean fighters progress at many different speeds and it is hard for many fighters to get fights so if the oppurtunity to capture a regional belt comes up all depends on situation.
For example, some fighters like Hasim rachman did not even have any amatuer background work so I find one certain path for all fighters to be quite silly.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
PAcquaio, Manny, PAcman, the Destroyer, and Emmanuel PAcquaio. ;D
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
None. The Mayweather route is the way to go. Shane Mosley also followed the same route. And I think De La Hoya did as well. There's no need for bullshit titles if your truly destined for greatness. Just go right to it.
Couldn't have said it better myself, theres no need for MORE confussion of titles and rankings.
Just jump right in and go for it, if it's to be it will be.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozensolid_702
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
WBC International. I consider it as an indicator to greatness in the future. Take a look at PAcquaio. O0
Can you name me 5 others that were "great," that held that belt?
I'm not doubting it, I'm just curious.
Well Hatton holds the 140lb version of that now. He won it off Castillo, so there's two...although they both won 'world' titles before this belt.
The British & Commonwealth titles are a great route to go down as they're respected and is something to fall back on if it all goes down the shitter.
I see it like most sports. Become the best in the country, then continent, then the world. It's a natural step.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozensolid_702
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
WBC International. I consider it as an indicator to greatness in the future. Take a look at PAcquaio. O0
Can you name me 5 others that were "great," that held that belt?
I'm not doubting it, I'm just curious.
I think Pacquiao is the joker in the pack (pun most certainly intended) here, because he was at the top of his game well before he claimed the WBC International title at Super Featherweight, which he has held for a while, but he also held the same title at Super Bantamweight earlier in his career.
Ricky Hatton and Miguel Cotto have also held the title in their respective divisions, and just a cursory glance on boxrec shows such names as Wlad Klitschko, Mikkel Kessler, Herol Graham, Chris Eubank, and Naseem Hamed have also held versions of the title, along with numerous names that never made it on to the world stage.
I was interested to see a lot of people back Mayweather's route to world title greatness, but I think that these regional titles play an important part in helping fighters develop, and gradually move up through different levels of opponents before going in with a world titlist.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
None. The Mayweather route is the way to go. Shane Mosley also followed the same route. And I think De La Hoya did as well. There's no need for bullshit titles if your truly destined for greatness. Just go right to it.
Baring in mind the current state of boxing, i have to agree.
Althogh i think regional/ national & continental titles should be an integral part of boxings infrastructure.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
It's easy to knock the micky mouse titles but the people that appreciate them are the fighters. Ever heard a fighter rubbish the minor title they've won?
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
The title of the thread is "which novice titles do you respect as indicator(s) of future greatness?". I'd say, WBC International. WBC fighters and champions are simply more hard hitting than other boxing organization fighters.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
My question to you would be which of the regional/novice titles do you respect te most, and is there any of those which tend to lend themselves to the real potential in their respective divisions?
Good topic.
As for respect, the titles that have a history, a somewhat competetive field and a clear demarcation (usually by geography). In other words the titles where it is clear what it actually stands for.
This for example includes the British title or the EBU title. On the other hand - despite my nationality - it definitely doesnt include the Danish title, as that is something that only comes to show once in a while, in the rare occasion where a Danish fighter finally fights another Danish fighter. And that kind of title always seems to be 'made up for the occasion'. Inter-Continental titles belongs in this category as well.
Now, this doesnt mean that those boxers holding the 'respected' titles are better than others. It definitely seems to be the case that the best European boxers bypass the European titles, while the best American boxers bypass the minor titles altogether. But a title and a boxer can be respected for what they are, even if it doesnt relate to p4p lists or HOF or anything of the sort. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that there can be a difference between 'which novice titles give the best indicators' and 'which novice titles are better to hold' - the WBC international for example seems like a better indicator of actual boxing potential than the EBU, but on a career resume I would prefer to have the latter.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
True greats win an Olympic medal, adjust to the Pro's and then win a world title. End Of Story.
-
Re: Which Novice titles do you respect as indicators of future greatness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozensolid_702
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
WBC International. I consider it as an indicator to greatness in the future. Take a look at PAcquaio. O0
Can you name me 5 others that were "great," that held that belt?
I'm not doubting it, I'm just curious.
Wlad Klitschko
Miguel Cotto
Hmmm, that's all I got on that one..........maybe it's not a good indicator. ;)
