Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?

[Fenster]

I don't think the Ring belt matters at all in this day and age (in the past it was the corruption which ruined it). All the major networks use their own ratings and the four alphabets are well and truly established in the minds of modern fans.

For instance - Joe Calzaghe never gets recognised as lightheavyweight world champion by many well respected British comms/pundits/writers. Why? In their opinion The Ring isn't a "real" title? Calzaghe beat Hopkins who had beat Tarver who had beat Roy for The Ring belt. Nathan Cleverly was upgraded to WBO champ after beating Nadjib Mohammedi. Yet Clevery is considered a "real" lightheavy champion. Hilarious.

It wasn't long ago the WBO was considered a bogus title, now modern day "historians" (boxrec experts) are publishing articles all over the internet questioning Lennox Lewis claim to be undisputed because he never won the WBO title. You have Showtime commentators blaring out on air Lennox was never undisputed. Madness.

[Master]

If Groves has the Ring belt then he should be the others fighters have to beat to be considered the best in the division. If they do not challenge him then they are just 'also rans' and should be treated as such.

The ring belt does carry some credibility.