In the years I have been here, I have made it obvious that terms like 'all time great' and 'undisputed' in context are lazy and literally make no sense. A fighter with that term is at least very good, thus put a bit of thought into a compliment rather than a cliche. And I do occasionally, pull people up on it.
yes it has. If there was one belt Crawford or Spence would have to fight each other to get the belt. A guy who wants 2 or 3 titles in a division has the beat the best, and with one belt that would not be easy at all. I remember when Hearns fought Andries to get his 3rd title. I was surprised later to hear how few 3 time champions there were in 1987. It was a rare things still. Now a guy like Broner has 4? No way.
Absolutely! Even MORE ridiculous is the top ten 'contenders' in each of the bodies! Several years ago I checked the 'top 10' in each body; I only saw 6!! Yes 6!! that were listed on ALL their lists? So we now have 44 top 10 contenders??? The frigging UFC is now miles ahead of boxing in terms of popularity, in no small way, as a result of this crap! I remember my dad taking me to the barber shop in 1960 and there was a ring magazine on the table to read before it was your turn. We all knew who the top 10 were for the most part. Geez...it's why ESB is the only place for me to go now to enjoy engaging boxing dialogue...
YES Of Course... and the Solution Is EASY!!! Regional Champions within Countries National Champions of Countries Regional International Champions, ie British, Europe, N. America, Pacific, Asia, Africa and so on... Top 10 Regionally Contenders Top 10 - 25 World contenders ONE (1), _ucken World Champion per Division. this way ALL Belts Mean Something and are both Credible and Advancing Merit towards Higher honours... corruption will still abound in this sport, but at least People/Fans would KNOW Who the Real Best men are!!!
Fres Oquendo 46 years old has not fought for over 5 years,since he lost to Chagaev.He is currently ranked number 15 by the WBA! Who in their right mind would give such an organization a shred of credibility?
Even if we just got rid of 1 title and had 3,it would make a massive difference and fighters would be having a hard time dodging. I think 2 would be perfect as we'd have great fights between contenders, A more legitimate ranking system, less padded resumes` and fights happening more often. Imagine some of the Main event and under cards you could scrap together if it worked like this, I'm sure boxing would have increased popularity.
"I coulda been a contender' - being a contender used to mean something. I don't have a problem with all the belts. My problem is with how they're treated. The dictionary defines "champion" as "a person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition, especially in sports." If you're the World Champion, then you've defeated or surpassed all rivals in the world. These organizations may call their top fighters "champion", but by definition they're only champion within that organization, not the entire world. That's the difference between most champs now and champions of previous eras. What boxing should do, in my opinion, is create a series of regional titles: world champion, champion of a continent, champion of a nation, champion of a region or state, champion of a city. If I were champion of a whole country, I'd be proud. With any luck I could get a shot at the continental title, or maybe even get a fight against the champion of the whole world! As it stands now, the plethora of world and international titles is asinine and very confusing.
I think the burocrats who created all these boxing organizations are in it for the money. They do not really care about the sport per se
Of course. How could it possibly be otherwise? If I ran the show: original weight classes only, one belt in each class and mandatory contender rules made much tighter and much more strictly enforced.
I feel this was about the sweet spot for championships - in the 1970s when the WBC and WBA had rival champions but that was it. Sure, some unification fights never happened but usually it was either clear enough through lineage who the real champ was or just through a gulf in talent between the two fighters (e.g. Alexis Arguello over Samuel Serrano at super featherweight in the late 70s - no real calling for a unification as it was pretty damn clear that Arguello was the champ). The IBF forming in 1983, with hindsight, was probably the worst thing that could have happened, although it probably would have happened sooner or later with another organisation. I feel now that the only way to legitimise a world championship now is to unify the belts. Even a partial unification helps in that regard. I don’t think I would want to see a return to 8 weight divisions, but I would return to two world titles per division in a heartbeat.
Broner’s world titles at multiple weights is exhibit A for this argument. I don’t even know whether he would have won a single world title 40 years ago.
I don't either. Let's say near 1981. Broner against Camacho at 130? Or against Mancini or Arguello? Pryor or Cervantes at 140. Hearns or Leonard or Cuevas or Duran at 147. Too much handpicking now. Mayweather did a lot of that, and he was a top fighter, but he still did benefit from a weak era and timing.
Anytime between 1978 and 1981, Broner would struggle. Even against some of the weaker titlists, he'd have his work cut out between 130 and 147. He has never even had to fight outside the US for one of those world titles. Fighting Alfedo Escalera or Samuel Serrano in Puerto Rico? I wouldn't pick him.
precisely what I said SweetScience and along the way PROPER Elimination fights at all the levels, to enable the Best fighters forward... no automatic placements or easy paths. also with such Governance, fighters won't be fighting for World Titles with less than 35-40 fights and then some...
