This may be a daft question.....

[oakleyno1]

id say definetly the WBC then wba and ibf are fairly equal, WBO is the least prestegious, if joe c had held the WBC from the start his record might well look alotg better imo, people just dont want the wbo belt

ring belt for me trumps all though

[kingfrnk]

WBC belt out of them four

The RING belt is what really matters to fight fans though

yea its wbc, wba, ibf, then wbo. and i dont see why the ring belt should matter so much.

[killersheep]

WBC belt out of them four

The RING belt is what really matters to fight fans though

yea its wbc, wba, ibf, then wbo. and i dont see why the ring belt should matter so much.

The ring belt has the most definitive system. The alphabets can remove a title with no reason, the ring title must be won in the ring literally.

[Kel]

WBC belt out of them four

The RING belt is what really matters to fight fans though

yea its wbc, wba, ibf, then wbo. and i dont see why the ring belt should matter so much.

The ring belt has the most definitive system. The alphabets can remove a title with no reason, the ring title must be won in the ring literally.

What he saidYou have to BEAT the champ to BE the champ.

[Galaxy]

The Ring championship.

Its the only belt won & lost in the ring!!!

[KKisser]

The WBC is the one that has the most clout, but I tend to look at the alphabet titles as pieces of a pie, the more of those four a fighter has, the more claim they have to being the champ of a division. Ultimately the ring title trumps them all, and the WBA has made it more confusing by adding the superchamp status, which makes me have less of a regard for that organization.

so if pac or campbell for example unifies the lightweight division, jmm's is still division top dog and his ring title gets more respect because he beat casa? just asking.

[Galaxy]

The WBC is the one that has the most clout, but I tend to look at the alphabet titles as pieces of a pie, the more of those four a fighter has, the more claim they have to being the champ of a division. Ultimately the ring title trumps them all, and the WBA has made it more confusing by adding the superchamp status, which makes me have less of a regard for that organization.

so if pac or campbell for example unifies the lightweight division, jmm's is still division top dog and his ring title gets more respect because he beat casa? just asking.

Yes! Marquez would still be the linear champ! He would not have lost his title in the ring so why would anyone want to discredit his achievement?

[KKisser]

The WBC is the one that has the most clout, but I tend to look at the alphabet titles as pieces of a pie, the more of those four a fighter has, the more claim they have to being the champ of a division. Ultimately the ring title trumps them all, and the WBA has made it more confusing by adding the superchamp status, which makes me have less of a regard for that organization.

so if pac or campbell for example unifies the lightweight division, jmm's is still division top dog and his ring title gets more respect because he beat casa? just asking.

Yes! Marquez would still be the linear champ! He would not have lost his title in the ring so why would anyone want to discredit his achievement?

not to discredit anybody but i only feel that the undisputed champion should be the linear title holder.

[mrodub]

I know it is unrealistic but i think boxing was a better sport when there was one champ in each division because the best had to fight the best no politics no debate one champion truly undisputed

[porkypara]

They are all worth jack shit.

Buut I would say the wbc is the most recognised world wide.


Also the wba has lowered the bar even more by creating its so called super champions.


The Ring belt is the mark of a true champion today.