4-Point Plan To Improve Boxing

The one belt thing is a bit of a mixed bag.

In theory it sounds great, but there's plenty of drawbacks to.

A lot of Americans tend to rally behind that idea because their audiences are so used to seeing title fights that they mean nothing over there. I think its a different kettle of fish elsewhere. For instance, some tremendous nights of Boxing wouldn't have happened if not for the alphabet titles. Think of the triumphs of Ricky Burns and Bernard Dunne or even David Haye and Carl Froch. Would they have had those big sell out nights if titles weren't on the line? the answer is no. Saying they are without value is just being reductive. If you took those type of events out of boxing it would be difficult to sustain a pro game in a lot of places.

I do agree that having a universally recognized number one is important. I think something of a compromise is needed whereby there is a clear number one, but the other titles still maintain worth at a notch just below that.

 

If there was just one belt then the domestic and regional belts (i.e. Euro, Commonwealth, Asio-Pacific, etc) would have much more meaning like they did in the old days.

Also breaking into the top 10 and fighting legitimate contenders would also have more meaning and could be successfully marketed as so.

 

That's the interesting point that you bring up Duagre. Of course for boxers and their promoters, having plenty of alphabelt titles is great. There's more chance of them winning one and it's easier to sell a fight with the phrase 'world champion' in them. Nothing against the likes of Ricky Burns because as you say it was a great night and one championship could potentially take these away but in terms of Ricky Burns being the 'world champion', it's actually more close to fraud than truth.

That said, that's the way boxing's been for over a hundred years and it ain't gonna change any time soon.

One of the biggest problems boxing will always have regardless of whether there's only one championship or not is that certain fights won't get made for whatever reason and there will be disputes over who's the true number one. Another championship would be created and in 10-15 years time another and another. At the moment 4 seems to be the limit but we all know the IBO is (or at least was) trying to become a so-called major sanctioning body and in this decade there will definitely be at least one or two more claiming to be a championship.

The simplest and best solultion would be to buy out the WBC (anyone got a few billion dollars I could borrow?). Or at least have the WBC run properly. It's still the most respected of the bodies and has the best reputation to change boxing worldwide (with links to the EBU etc). The problem they have, like all others, is that they won't rank another alphabelt title holder. If they started doing that and ranking everyone fairly, and boxing sources around the world used these ratings as gospel, then the whole world would have a pretty good idea of who's the genuine champion and who's not. At the end of the day it comes down to money. If I was a multi-billionaire like some of these guys buying football clubs, I'd try my best to get in the boxing scene and sort things like this out.

 

when casuals fans ask me about the belts i tell them winning the wbc,wbo,ibf,wba is like winning the premier league,la liga,Ligue 1,Bundesliga and winning the ring belt is like winning the champions league

 

^ that's a good way of putting it.


I think the problem is that even as Boxing fans we can't reach consensus on the ring belt. Some like it, others don't. It seems nobody can decide what the real world title is. Until we can clearly define what title symbolizes you are world number 1, and until that is universally agreed upon, any attempt to have an undisputed champion is futile. Too much confusion

 

:rofl

 

my reason for backing it are it doesn't charge a fee,they explain their rankings and give info on their ranking committee,they have no pointless mandos,don't strip a fighter unless the fighter agrees and i can't really argue with their choice of champion.

 

:-( You are a dickhead.

 

All decent points, apart from............

:scaredas::nono

 

I agree. could make it more interesting though something like you can only fight for the number 1 pot if holding 1 of those belys other than some bum ranked wbo no 9 getting a totally unworthy shot as we see happening all the time

 

Agree Victor. Excellent point

and 102
There is certainly a lot of potential good in the ring system. The one problem I think is that they have been at this for a fair while and we still only have 6 champions crowned. It seems that we are no closer than at any stage prior to having a champion in each division. Everytime one title is won somebody vacates another one. It can be frustrating. I think for it to be a success there needs to be a lot of reinforcement of the message. This is the ring world title. It means you are the best. We need that in every division so people see it frequently and can come to terms with it.

 

i prefer vacate belts to unworthy champs.i think the ring belt will get stronger many fighters claim they want it

 

Good read OP.

Agree on all points, think the days of regular boxing on terrestrial TV are long gone now.