Hypothetical Discussion: Would Boxing Be Better Without Belts?

Serious question here... What do you think?

 

It would be better if there were only 1 champ per division. You want to give out belts like candy, go right ahead, but there would be a lot more credibility if there was 1 guy who was universally recognized as the champ.

 

exactly, if you have 3-4 'champions' per division, it doesn't really make winning a title that meaningful of an achievement, does it? :think

 

Just go back to less weight classes and ONE belt per division.

 

Agreed. If there was some mechanism to compel the titlists to fight, It wouldnt be so bad. Say, every year, or every 2 years have the alphabet titlists square off. Off course that would just birth a different set of problems, but it would be better than things stand now, which is chaotic.

 

There should be belts on a national level, continental level, and 1 world level belt. And some divisions should just die in a fire.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Without belts doesn't mean without a champ. Theoretically each division would still have a champ.

 

I dont think it would be better without belts but there does seem too much confusion with the belts in my opinion.
I think having 2 world titles is good to create opportunities and to provide exciting unification match ups.

I dont like all this lineal talk as it seems like a made up thing half the time and seems to be a way for one fighter to be champ and not having to face some of the top title holders.

2 belts one unification and all arguements settled

 

Belts, lineal champ, Ring champ, they're all just bargaining tools, all water down by the existence of the others. Get 1 divisional champion, have the official rankings managed in a fair, equitable and credible way, and go to town.

Although I could live with the 2 belt, with mandatory uni in a regular basis.

 

Based on another posters comments on here they made me rethink a bit.
In the UK there are area titles ie Southern, English titles, UK titles. Fighters based in the UK can contest Commonwealth titles and European titles which are good titles also.
Cant see why you couldnt do something like match NABF champs against European champs etc to build up to world rankings, only problem I see with this is many fighters may be very drained after tough British, Comonwealth and European matches before getting to that stage against fighters who may not have had to go through such a regime and who are fresher. Still its a thought if there only being one world title

 

Come on Bailey, drop the agenda for a spell.

 

Dont really disagree, but think the word lineal seems to be a problem in some ways.
I also have struggled with some of the ring ratings which has looked intentional in engineering before to me

 

Lineal is exactly what it is. It just means that the championship was passed directly from 1 fighter to another. It doesn't mean it is the best fighter.

 

No agenda.
Some of the fights that certain fighters have to go through when going down the British, Commonwealth and European route seem immense and I think career shortening.
Look at say HW Chisora who has been around that sort of circuit and consider in 21 fights fought Booth, undefeated ***ton twice, Butlin twice, Swaby, Simpson, Baker, Williams, undefeated Fury, undefeated Helenius, V Klitschko, D Haye, undefeated M Scott and had agreed to face W Klitschko. Im not expecting you to know all of those names but you will know several on that list and that is a draining regime in order to build to another chance and I think it has taken alot out of Derek and that after such a regime he could suffer a defeat to a fighter who is fresher and not had as tough a road