Rigid rules like that won't work. I can't imagine Loma, Rigo, Usyk, Inoue having to go through 35-40 pro fights, before fighting for a world title!
Yes. It has taken away the meaning of being the World Champion. This content is protected It makes no sense for there to be two World Champions in the same weight class, let alone however many there are now. I remember the WBO being pretty much ridiculed when it came along in the late 80's and thinking to myself that Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank were kidding themselves if they thought they were the best in the world because they wore the WBO belt. What I don't understand is why 'champions' with one organisation are not always ranked as contenders with other organisations. It would make sense and would also eventually necessitate a unification bout and sort out the mess that has been created.
In theory only. If you look closely and the organizations involved and their history & track records, they would still manipulate the ratings. So another belt holder should be ranked either at the top or close to it. I don't see this happening with these organizations, They would have the other champions ranked number 6 or 8 and never number 1 as the mandatory challenger for their champion. So how many additional title fights are we talking about? You still have promoters and the last few decades, the networks influencing ratings.
Yes, that's true. I remember reading that when Frank Bruno won the European Heavyweight Title, it automatically placed him in the top 10 for one of the belts (presumably WBA as he challenged Witherspoon not long afterwards) That the European champion should automatically be included among the top 10 contenders for the World Title is is a ridiculous regulation but it shows that these regulations exist and that other, more sensible, standards could apply. As the WBA, WBC and IBF are, and probably always will be, recognised as the three main organisations, then why not introduce a regulation that, when there is no unified titleholder, their number 1 and number 2 contender slots must be filled by the champions that are recognised by the other authorities?
I think it's part of what has lead to the best fighting the best much less. Much easier to "marinate" a fight between two "champions", then a champion and a contender. "It's" not ""so"" much the "extra" belts """themselves""", as "the" ""culture"" contribute "to". (And it's much easier to preemptively make fun of my use of quotation marks, then have it totally derail this thread with everyone wanting to comment on it)
Competition breeds excellence! The notion that only a 'world championship' contest gets televised was generated by the TV networks, thus putting the good, competitive 10 rounder between 2 world ranked contenders on the back-burner, thus creating an anonymous groundswell of contenders who avoid each other while waiting for their turn at a shot at a 'world title'. If you want to see what competition breeds, watch some of those great old 10 rounders from Madison Square Garden from the '60s. You will see Hurricane Carter against Florentino Fernandez, Jose Gonzalez against Don Fullmer, Joey Archer against Dick Tiger, Dick Tiger against Henry Hank. All of these trying to earn a shot at the world champ. If there were 4 world champs back then, all of these fighters would have picked up some form of belt and the new 'challengers' would have been Mick Leahy, Luis Folledo, Harry Scott and Mike Pusateri. That is what happens when you have 4 champs out there looking for work. A watered down division.
OP : Yeah it's watered downed the sport and contributed significantly to boxing moving to the fringes of public view although another big problem is the inactivity of the top fighters, twice a year is the norm or if you're very lucky three fights a year. The champ and contenders need to be fighting on average four times a year unless of course they get injured.
