-
Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Please vote and give your reasons.
A lot of fans believe that the lineal title is nothing and that the WBC, IBF, WBA, WBO titles are more important. For example someone here said that when Pac beat Hatton in '09 at 140, Pac was no champ because none of the ABC titles were on the line, but hardcore fans and boxing historians say he was the king of the 140 division because he beat the man even though no alphabet title was on the line. Or that John Ruiz has the same kind of legitimate claim as HW champ as Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Foreman, Frazier, Lennox Lewis, when he beat Holyfield for the WBA version of the title in March of '01, while Lewis was the lineal champ and recognized as the best HW in the world. Or that Mike Tyson was the HW champ when he beat Berbick although lots of people say he did not become champ until he beat Spinks.
I am of the belief that the lineal title only counts, meaning the man who beat the man. Or in the absence that the lineal champ retires or moves up a division the no. 1 or 2 contender square off to be the new champ of the division and the new lineage is started.
Discuss.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Their was no same shit different pile option so I was unable to vote.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Their was no same shit different pile option so I was unable to vote.
The only two things that carry ANY weight at all are the lineal crowns and Ring Magazine.
All the other organizations exist to charge sanctioning fees for "title" fights and therefore ALWAYS want there to be champion they can charge (regardless of legitimacy) and hence are corrupted at the core. None has any validity at all.
For the word CHAMPION to have any useful meaning? There can only be one per divisision and it must be won in the ring fighting the existing champion if he is active. If it isn't clear? There is no champion.
As an extreme example is the WBA. The WBA RIGHT NOW has THREE featherweight champions. THREE!!!!!!!!!!! NONE of whom has fought the other. It also has TWO champions at 140, 160 (neither of which is Sergio Martinez), 168 and 118. It's NUTS!
In Ray Robinson's day there were 8 champions in the sport. Now there are somewhere around 100 just from the four largest organizations. Does ANYONE want to make the case those "titles" mean remotely the same things?
The alphabet gangs mean precisely squat. The BS marketing stuff of "x titles in Y divisions" is for the short bus crowd. As someone noted on another thread saying Muhammad Ali and John Ruiz were both heavyweight champions is to broaden he meaning of the word beyond usefulness.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Their was no same shit different pile option so I was unable to vote.
The only two things that carry ANY weight at all are the lineal crowns and Ring Magazine.
All the other organizations exist to charge sanctioning fees for "title" fights and therefore ALWAYS want there to be champion they can charge (regardless of legitimacy) and hence are corrupted at the core. None has any validity at all.
For the word CHAMPION to have any useful meaning? There can only be one per divisision and it must be won in the ring fighting the existing champion if he is active. If it isn't clear? There is no champion.
As an extreme example is the WBA. The WBA RIGHT NOW has THREE featherweight champions. THREE!!!!!!!!!!! NONE of whom has fought the other. It also has TWO champions at 140, 160 (neither of which is Sergio Martinez), 168 and 118. It's NUTS!
In Ray Robinson's day there were 8 champions in the sport. Now there are somewhere around 100 just from the four largest organizations. Does ANYONE want to make the case those "titles" mean remotely the same things?
The alphabet gangs mean precisely squat. The BS marketing stuff of "x titles in Y divisions" is for the short bus crowd. As someone noted on another thread saying Muhammad Ali and John Ruiz were both heavyweight champions is to broaden he meaning of the word beyond usefulness.
You know what man lineal means little or nothing to me and Ring is now owned by Oscar. The Orgs continue and they are antiquated. Hbo should be the governing body.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
I would argue that the lineal title has more meaning because it is typically won or lost in the ring, whereas the alphabet titles are handed out like halloween candy and taken away for political/monetary reasons.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
When you get fights like MAB vs Barrera that are not for any strap then it makes all straps unimportant imo. I don't really worry to much about either of the options in the poll. Lineal is flawed for many reasons and Alphabet titles mean fook all. What would mean more than either to me, would be to have unified champions in each division.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
I couldnt give a rats arse about titles - they don't mean shiht! The fact that their rankings are all so different shows how pathetic it is. If i'm talking to a mate who is a casual boxing fan and he starts saying that such and such a fighter must be better because he holds this or that title i quickly lose interest.
Ok sometime the top dog might have a belt or 2 but does it really matter? When Jones held loads belts at LHW we all knew he was the man but if i remember rightly most of the time he stuck to fighting his mandatories and didn't take many risks but he used the belts as an excuse.
As knowlegeable boxing fans on here we are more able to say who are the better fighters in the division are.
I'm not even getting into a discussion as to who should run boxing or what titles are the most legitimate. As long as there is a boatload of cash to be made the organisations are going nowhere not in our lifetime anyway. :(
I say the man who beats the man is now the man regardless of titles.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
When you get fights like MAB vs Barrera that are not for any strap then it makes all straps unimportant imo. I don't really worry to much about either of the options in the poll. Lineal is flawed for many reasons and Alphabet titles mean fook all. What would mean more than either to me, would be to have unified champions in each division.
never knew that Barrera fought himself ;D
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
When you get fights like MAB vs Barrera that are not for any strap then it makes all straps unimportant imo. I don't really worry to much about either of the options in the poll. Lineal is flawed for many reasons and Alphabet titles mean fook all. What would mean more than either to me, would be to have unified champions in each division.
never knew that Barrera fought himself ;D
Haha -no, he isn't Tyson Fury ;D
I meant Morales vs MAB
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
having more than one world title isnt bad for the sport as long as people recognise that you arent world champ if you dont hold one of these 4
perhaps 4 is too many, 3 would be fine
having more world titles gives more boxers the chance to make money, when you consider the amount of money people make in other sports in comparision and you also compare the hard slog training and all that
The ring magazine belts are daft, probably one of the stoopidest introduction to the sport, the sooner it disapears the better, it just gives boxing fans something else to moan about
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
WBC is the oldest title? so that one from the alphabet boys.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Their was no same shit different pile option so I was unable to vote.
The only two things that carry ANY weight at all are the lineal crowns and Ring Magazine.
All the other organizations exist to charge sanctioning fees for "title" fights and therefore ALWAYS want there to be champion they can charge (regardless of legitimacy) and hence are corrupted at the core. None has any validity at all.
For the word CHAMPION to have any useful meaning? There can only be one per divisision and it must be won in the ring fighting the existing champion if he is active. If it isn't clear? There is no champion.
As an extreme example is the WBA.
The WBA RIGHT NOW has THREE featherweight champions. THREE!!!!!!!!!!! NONE of whom has fought the other. It also has TWO champions at 140, 160 (neither of which is Sergio Martinez), 168 and 118. It's NUTS!
In Ray Robinson's day there were 8 champions in the sport. Now there are somewhere around 100 just from the four largest organizations. Does ANYONE want to make the case those "titles" mean remotely the same things?
The alphabet gangs mean precisely squat. The BS marketing stuff of "x titles in Y divisions" is for the short bus crowd. As someone noted on another thread saying Muhammad Ali and John Ruiz were both heavyweight champions is to broaden he meaning of the word beyond usefulness.
Just to pick you up on this, Gamboa has beaten Barros, one of the other title holders the WBA recognise at 126.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
I Think the belts hold weight at least the WBC does or did. I mean the man who beat the man to me is flawed as well. I mean was Larry Holmes the champ because he beat a shell of Ali, or because he was better skilled then everyone else and defending his belt to me that what makes the champ.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
The lineal title isn't perfect but it's better than having someone like John Ruiz walking around calling himself a 2x HW champ.:-X
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
WBC is the oldest title? so that one from the alphabet boys.
The WBA is the oldest. They started in the 20's as the NBA (National Boxing Association), then changed to the WBA in the 60s.
WBC gained prominence in the 60's when the WBA inexplicably stripped Ali, and the WBC continued to recognized him as champ.
The IBF gained prominence in the 80's when the WBC inexplicably stripped Holmes, and the IBF continued to recognized him as champ.
-
Re: Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?
I am a fan of the Ring Magazine Championship. I can't think of a single instance where the Ring Champion is not also the #1 man in the division.
Wlad
Pascal
Martinez
Marquez
Segura
Wonjongkam
No alphabet gang can match that quality. And there is not stripping, the above fighters have to loose their belts in the Ring.
