We love the great fighters of the past, but ffs we don't want them back!

I agree, BUT Fighters Should Fight...

12 Rounds is fine,
17 Divisions is NOT,
neither is 5 Sanctioning Bodies

3 Fights a year building up
20-25 Fights before Proper Contention
Proper Elimination Bouts

1 Title per Division (12 Divisions)

and Champions Fight 2 Times a year, at least 1 - once , ffs

Boxing could be great again, instead of all the Media Hyped LIES and B.S, subpar Divisions and Chumpions...

Fighters could retire in 10 - 12 years with 40 - 60 fights, well paid and well respected, with Careers Validated with Titles Earned, Defended and either losing gallantly in defeat or handed over in retirement.

It's NOT Hard to do really.

 

I don’t agree with all of this but it is a whole helluva lot better than what we’ve got.

 

The best of both worlds:

-Less divisions and belts (1 belt is ideal)

-Keep the 12 round limit

-Have a stipulation where the champ must fight twice a year (permitting breaks for injury/illness), with at least one ranked opponent every year. A #1 contender must be fought at least once every 2 years.

-Young fighters being able to make decent money early on is a good thing, just don't spoil them too much and keep them active so they're developing their skills and not feasting on bums to protect their "0".

-Stopping a fight when someone takes several unanswered punches for 20 seconds is a good thing. We definitely don't need to bring back gorey, gladiator brawls with guys soaked in blood and unable to see through black eyes.

-Certainly the more global, inclusive climate is better than focusing primarily on Murica and Europe. Or drawing color lines.

 

They are making millions, so do not have to fight more often. Fury should take up wrestling,make a tag team with his blow hard Father.

 

Hookers and blow …

 

It would be nice if we saw more fights between the best as well as champions defending their belts a bit more frequently. But other than that I agree. The days of 200 fight careers shouldn’t return

 

My man

 

With day before weigh ins, such size disparities are common now.

 

Which fight(s), below HW, from the day before weigh in era, do you think the competitors were 35lbs apart come fight night?

I done a dair a fair amount of research and don't believe any fighter in history has been recorded weighing 30lbs over the weight limit come fight night, let alone 35lbs.

 

I think that the weight disparity in Ketchel v Johnson was substantial. Greb is reported to have fought substantially larger men, as was Barbados Joe Walcott.
But, in those cases, both men knew that there was going to be a discrepancy. Today, you weigh in and think that you are fighting at a contracted weight then, come fight time, one guy is much bigger.

 

I agree with this post.

I disagree with your previous post, suggesting that 35lbs weight discrepancies are common today due to day before weigh ins. That's just demonstrably incorrect.

 

I wasn't intending to imply that, I'm sorry if I did.

 

No problem and no apology necessary, I just assumed that's what you meant when you quoted Johnson vs Ketchel and said with day before weigh ins, such size discrepancies are common now. They're not, at least not due to day before weigh ins, 35lbs weight discrepancies remain unique to the HW division today.

 

The fighters know what the deal is tho. They both have the same opportunity. Sure, some are a little more dramatic at it but if the opponent is on his game he shouldn't be much under him really. If a guy is commonly giving up a supreme weight advantages he probably needs to move down a division.