Which is more important lineal title or alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) title?

[IamInuit]

Their was no same shit different pile option so I was unable to vote.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[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.

[bcollins]

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.

[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.

[ElTerribleMorales]

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

[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

Haha -no, he isn't Tyson Fury

I meant Morales vs MAB

[armyash]

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.

[iamasadlittleboy]

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.

[Mr140]

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.

[generalbulldog]

The lineal title isn't perfect but it's better than having someone like John Ruiz walking around calling himself a 2x HW champ.