You have a choice between one of the following: All the modern weight classes but only one world title per division OR the original 8 weight classes with split world titles. Which do you choose?
Having 4 "champions" in each weight class is like having 4 separate NFL or NBA championships. You wouldn't do it in any other sport. Yet the supposedly manliest of sports has allowed such a nonsensical idea to emerge. The promoters encourage it and the fans embrace it! It's like we're living in a black mirror episode.
You can have as many weight classes as you want... but only one man in each division gets to call himself “ Champ”... it’s actually embarrassing when a non boxing fan asks me who the heavyweight champion of the world is..... what do I say ???
You'll be there all day Mr Magoo! Trying to explain how there's a certain number of heavyweight champ s, but only one s the real champ, but sometimes two champs have to fight to produce one champ??? I've tried explaining to my wife but somehow she doesn't get it!!
And with reasonably busy champions. I look back to the days of my youth and two world titles, the WBC and WBA and think jeez it wasn't actually that bad was it LOL
Hahaha!! You know on the good side we got to see some good fights. Good challengers got title shots pretty quickly on the whole. Chandler and Pintor pumping the bantams, Spinks/Mustafa/Braxton/Saad the light heavies etc. Some fun lightweight action too for titles. Split titles also gave Duran the chance at resurrection. Instead of having to face Hearns he fought the B side titleist and won impressively which directly led to his fight with Marvin Hagler.
8 weight divisions and 15 round same day weigh in fights. Anything else is a game of politricks and unfair advantages in my eyes.
Having one title per division, under a single, governing-body, would be immeasurably better than any scenario, in which a collection of self-appointed and self-interested consortia carve up the sport.
We got to see good fights before the split titles too. We watched Dick Tiger v Henry Hank, Floyd Patterson v Jerry Quarry, Armando Muniz v Ernie Lopez, etc. But back then we called them 10 rounders. One champ bred competition amongst the contenders. Today, you just wait to be called for your title shot. Back then, if you sit on your laurels, you would slip out of the top 10 due to inactivity. Such was the competition. Your mention of Jeff Chandler reminded me of something that also bugged me about the Alphabet boys. The WBA was thrusting all their politics at these champs in the guise of inferior challengers who met the financial/political requirements. And during Chandler's reign he fought Oscar Muniz in a non-title. It was only a non-title because Muniz, despite a record something like 35-3 against good competition, couldn't even buy a rating (well, I'm sure he could if he knew the right bag-men in the WBA). Yet, Miguel Iriarte of Panama - one of the favored countries of the WBA - was their #1 contender. Chandler was pissed at this challenge as Iriarte was forced down their throats. Chandler later said he was amazed because Iriarte actually didn't even know how to fight. Incidentally, Muniz beat Chandler in that non-title 10 rounder, which really proved what a mockery those WBA ratings were, and got himself a title shot on his worth. Sorry guys, I'm on my soapbox. To answer the question, I guess I would take less champs, which would be less Alphabets involved. Although not a fan of all those weight classes which were solely created to money-spin, if this was the only option I would go for this scenario - with a proviso (you knew there was going to be one). I would insist that all champs put their titles on the line at least 3 times a year. No more of this fighting once or twice a year. If you are a champ then you are obligated to put that title on the line. And believe me, one would start seeing a resurgence in competition.
