I know the official champ is the ring champ but....

In these days and time where there is far more mediocrity than greatness i don't think that the trinkets are all that bad. With divisions full of second tier fighters anyway there has to be some sort of accomplishment right? lets face it Berto is not a ring champ at 147 nor will he ever be a ring champ but at least he has the opportunity to fight for a trinket which for him could be his ceiling. Are we penalizing the not so great just to recognize the few remaining greats. just my thoughts

ABC Straps are meaningless

If Berto was in any other sport he would of been tested by now to see if he belongs at that level

I mean, without looking it up, can you say how he even got it? vacated or stripped from someone, just a dumb thing to back IMO lol

Trinkets are absolutely worthless.

Penalizing who? The ones you admit are mediocre? They SHOULD be penalized for being mediocre.

We should be celebrating those who really are great. I mean we have EIGHTY EIGHT straps at the moment. It is insane.

captainanddew wrote:

Trinkets are absolutely worthless.

I'm beginning to think they are worse than that. Every time someone feels a need to defend them it demonstrates to me they are dangerous for the sport.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Trinkets are absolutely worthless.

I'm beginning to think they are worse than that. Every time someone feels a need to defend them it demonstrates to me they are dangerous for the sport.

my little brother is a huge sports fan-and occasional boxing fan. He saw Rafael on ESPN and asked me why the fat boxing writer is ever allowed on tv. I told him I had no idea. I said his writing isn't much better than his looks.


My brother strolled over to the boxing page, looking for a Rafael article, so that he could critique the articles. It happened to be one of the times Mr. Twinkie was ripping the WBC for all the belt madness. So my brother reads that article, and starts asking how many divisions are there, how many guys have belts, etc..... His mind was blown. He said if you don't win a damn belt you must really suck.

I think the situation is a joke. Interim belts. Belts in emeritus. Super champions.

captainanddew wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Trinkets are absolutely worthless.

I'm beginning to think they are worse than that. Every time someone feels a need to defend them it demonstrates to me they are dangerous for the sport.

my little brother is a huge sports fan-and occasional boxing fan. He saw Rafael on ESPN and asked me why the fat boxing writer is ever allowed on tv. I told him I had no idea. I said his writing isn't much better than his looks.


My brother strolled over to the boxing page, looking for a Rafael article, so that he could critique the articles. It happened to be one of the times Mr. Twinkie was ripping the WBC for all the belt madness. So my brother reads that article, and starts asking how many divisions are there, how many guys have belts, etc..... His mind was blown. He said if you don't win a damn belt you must really suck.

I think the situation is a joke. Interim belts. Belts in emeritus. Super champions.

Just doing a little rought math, 10,000 fighters in the 1940's-19504's divided by eight champs meant there was a belt for every 1250 fighters. That sounds reasonably exclusive to me.

Today? 5000 fighters more or less and 88 belts means a belt for every 57 fighters. That doesn't sound very exclusive at all.

That math says that belts in the 1940's and 1950's were TWENTY TWO TIMES more meaningful than belts today. Not 22% more meaningful, 22 TIMES!!!!

Can anyone think of any other sport that has chosen to so dilute what it calls "champion?"

Yep, almost every fight is for some unknown strap, its like giving out participant trophies lol

using the HW division for example. other than the Klitskos who should be challenging for ring title?

Haye or Adamek

gomez1012 wrote:

Haye or Adamek

based on what?

There used to be 8 belts

know there is 88

it is madness

jz_hova wrote:

gomez1012 wrote:

Haye or Adamek

based on what?

Wins, competition

Haye - Barrett, Ruiz, Valuev
Adamek - Golata, Estrada, Arreola, Grant

Marble had a valid king of the hill analogy on another thread, but I'll try and make a case for the trinket system here.

The issue with the trinket system right now is that the best fighters do not fight the best. Trinket champions get an inflated ego and try to justify not fighting the top fighters because they deserve to fight at home or get more $ because they are "champions".

If the trinket system worked correctly, it could help with public interest. Instead of having the #1, #2, #3, and #4 fighters, you have 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. That makes for more speculation as to whose the best and gives promoters more to work with in marketing the fight. The trinket system essentially elevates the status of those 4 fighters to make their fights more meaningful. And when someone is able to unify belts, the accomplishment is magnified because of the perception that they beat multiple "champions" to do it.

However, "champions" are using their elevated status to take meaningless fights which devalues the straps. And when fighters do the right thing and take on challenges, the sanctioning bodies strip them of their straps. Sometimes they invent new belts just for the hell of it. If there was a genuine effort to put value into multiple belts it could work. So the issue isn't the trinket system, but how people are corrupting it.

Gumby wrote:

Marble had a valid king of the hill analogy on another thread, but I'll try and make a case for the trinket system here.

The issue with the trinket system right now is that the best fighters do not fight the best. Trinket champions get an inflated ego and try to justify not fighting the top fighters because they deserve to fight at home or get more $ because they are "champions".

If the trinket system worked correctly, it could help with public interest. Instead of having the #1, #2, #3, and #4 fighters, you have 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. That makes for more speculation as to whose the best and gives promoters more to work with in marketing the fight. The trinket system essentially elevates the status of those 4 fighters to make their fights more meaningful. And when someone is able to unify belts, the accomplishment is magnified because of the perception that they beat multiple "champions" to do it.

However, "champions" are using their elevated status to take meaningless fights which devalues the straps. And when fighters do the right thing and take on challenges, the sanctioning bodies strip them of their straps. Sometimes they invent new belts just for the hell of it. If there was a genuine effort to put value into multiple belts it could work. So the issue isn't the trinket system, but how people are corrupting it.

It's not a bad analogy. It reminds me of two things. First, it used to be that regional titles, the Canadian champion, the Mexican Champion, the British Commonwealth Champion, European Champion and the Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation (OPBF) really were meaningful. They were honors fought over and taken very seriously for two reasons. First in their own right they were taken seriously by the region involved. Secondly, they were often a way of demonstrating one had to be taken as a serious contender by the WORLD champion in that division. The key was they were seen as STEPPING STONES to the world title and NOT the equivalent. Regional titles were useful, valuable and imparted meaningful information.

The other is that in the 1970's-1980's when the WBC and WBA were the only sanctioning bodies things weren't too bad for two reasons. First, educated boxing fans realized that in almost all cases there was a LINEAR champion and that the other guy was a good contender. The second thing was that the WBC and WBA made it a point to put these guys in together on most occasions to settle the matter. In other words there was a one and a two and the goal was a face off.

The problem, as you rightly note, is that fighters and too may fans actually think these belts today are valuable, equivalents or impart real information. It just isn't so. Yet they behave as if it is.

gomez1012 wrote:

Yep, almost every fight is for some unknown strap, its like giving out participant trophies lol

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

This sport isn't about making people feel good about themselves. It's very nature is to be as exclusive as possible. We are trying to find out who is the baddest man on the planet.

HIghlander had it right. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!

gomez1012 wrote:

jz_hova wrote:

gomez1012 wrote:

Haye or Adamek

based on what?

Wins, competition

Haye - Barrett, Ruiz, Valuev
Adamek - Golata, Estrada, Arreola, Grant

for both guys you have to take it further, and take into account their pre-HW fights.
Adamek beat some very good fighters at 175(Briggs fights, lost to Dawson but was weight drained and had Dawson down). He beat some good fighters at cruiserweight, including Cunningham in an absolutely great fight. He moved up and has beaten a very faded ex-top 10 guy (Golota), a top 30 guy who can box a little(Estrada), a top 10 guy (Arreola), and Grant (who probably could beat all but 7-8 of the current HWs if he were motivated).

Haye-was the man at cruiser. Moved up and hasn't done as much as anyone would like but he did beat Barrett rather handily; Valuev (yeah with 13 shots a round). He beat an old Ruiz, but Ruiz is never beaten that badly.

gomez1012 wrote:

ABC Straps are meaningless

If Berto was in any other sport he would of been tested by now to see if he belongs at that level

I mean, without looking it up, can you say how he even got it? vacated or stripped from someone, just a dumb thing to back IMO lol

That one's easy....it was Floyd's belt that he gave up to fight Oscar. Berto was scheduled to fight an eliminator for the belt, when Flotd vacated, they made that fight for the title. So, once again, we can blame Floyd for screwing up.

This is why JZ shoulda stayed on the other board.

I like to compare Boxing to the NBA. Whoever holds an ABC belt is just a divisional champ while the Ring champ is the world champion.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

I like to compare Boxing to the NBA. Whoever holds an ABC belt is just a divisional champ while the Ring champ is the world champion.

Except teams like the Clippers would be getting a strap for being the crap squad they are

I might agree if the organizations behind the trinkets weren't run by corrupt bastards.

The IBO seems the only decent organization out there but it's not treated as one of the majort titles.

Ali wrote:

I might agree if the organizations behind the trinkets weren't run by corrupt bastards.

The IBO seems the only decent organization out there but it's not treated as one of the majort titles.

How so? Their rankings stink.

SlickMoneyXL wrote:

Ali wrote:

I might agree if the organizations behind the trinkets weren't run by corrupt bastards.

The IBO seems the only decent organization out there but it's not treated as one of the majort titles.

How so? Their rankings stink.

I don't think I've ever seen the IBO force bogus mandatories or threaten to strip any of their champions. Look at Wladimir, they realize he's the man at heavyweight and allow him to do business without forcing to face unworthy opponents.

Wlad is their only legit champion. Lovemore N'dou and Manfredo as champs? I'll pass on the IBO.