Are Multiple World Champions Actually a Good Thing?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by sweetsci, Jul 31, 2020.


Are Multiple World Champions Actually a Good Thing?

  1. No. There should only be one world champion.

  2. Yes, but keep it to two belts only.

  3. Yes. The way it is provides more opportunities for boxers.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. sweetsci

    sweetsci Active Member Full Member

    1,307
    815
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 22, 2008
    I've always thought there should only be one World Champion per weight division in boxing. By definition, "World Champion" means there's only one. Theoretically, though not always the case in boxing, the champion in the best in the division. You can't have two "bests".

    But I was looking at a 1959 Ring magazine recently and an issue that was happening at the time was inactive world champions. Ray Robinson and Floyd Patterson were cited. Due to their relative inactivity, deserving contenders were not getting a chance to challenge for the title.

    Ring editor Nat Fleischer suggested a uniform (by the NBA, EBU, and various regional commissions like the NYAC) ruling that champions must defend their title at least twice a year (Fleischer didn't say anything about the worthiness of challengers, i.e. one of those defenses must be against the #1 contender, however). He suggested that a champion who refuses to comply not just be stripped of the title, but lose their boxing license worldwide, opining that the threat of losing their livelihood would spur inactive champions into action.

    These days, if a "world champion" is inactive, challengers usually have three other options. Organizations strip champions of titles at the drop of a hat, or at least crown interim champions. There are plenty of opportunities to fight for a world title.

    As the thread title asks, is this actually a good thing? Should we have multiple champions, but perhaps just keep it to two (like the days of just the WBA and WBC) and have periodic unification bouts?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
    choklab and Jel like this.
  2. Flash24

    Flash24 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,121
    2,813
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 22, 2015
    No it isn't in my opinion. Makes it easy for some semi talented fighters
    to win multiple championships across multiple weight classes . Giving
    them the appearance of being something special when in reality
    they've only manipulated a very flawed championship system.
     
  3. scartissue

    scartissue Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,803
    3,333
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 2, 2006
    Multiple champions were created to make money - not for the fighters - but for the alphabet organizations. By creating their own champ they gain sanctioning fees with every title bout. And when multiple champs weren't enough, they created a new weight class. Again, everything was to line their pockets. It didn't matter to them that there was 4 champs (at least) looking for work and picking apart the top 10 to the point where they were putting clubfighters against the champ, because they were still getting their sanctioning fee. When guys like us have a hard time trying to remember a champ, I think back to the point when people on the street who were casual fans in between baseball games could tell you something about a fighter. So no, they are not good for boxing and neither are at least 6 weight classes.
     
  4. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti A Being of Inexplicable Inclinations Full Member

    5,890
    5,965
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 28, 2017
    It just gives more reason for the top fighters in a division not to fight
     
    Glass City Cobra, vast, BCS8 and 6 others like this.
  5. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,712
    9,642
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 20, 2006
    Should we have 2 super bowl champs? 2 NBA champs? 2 Stanley cup champs?

    why stop there let’s have 2 presidents. 2 prime ministers. 2 mvp’s...2 fights and fighters of the year.

    not sure I get the whole more than 1 champ...either you is or you ain’t
     
  6. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,447
    3,862
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    I think the ABC Governing belts should be there, I just think they should be called something else Rather than world championships.

    They are not world championships. They are in themselves trophies rather than actual championships unless the top fighter in a weight class actually has one of them. It’s really only a place in the rankings unless they beat the top guy.

    Boxing fans generally have an idea who the real champion of most weight classes actually are. And there generally is really only one at each class. A guy who beat the guy who beat the guy. It really isn’t difficult if only the media consulted people who follow boxing rather than accept what a governing body or a promoter is pushing.

    most forums or magazines will list the top dude in each weight class. Boxrec rankings for instance is one example or any magazine.

    And this is what really should be promoted more rather than the trophies associated with the so called governing bodies. They don’t care Who the best guy with the best credentials is at each weight class. They just provide a trophy. I think the mainstream media need to focus on who the experts and fans recognise as real champions rather than note who has a strap. And they should only ever reserve the word “champion” for the majority expert view of who the champion is.

    it’s not difficult.

    A multiple champion only becomes a multiple champion if he first beats a legitimate champion rather than Just a belt holder. Most of these guys are only contenders who went through a few weights.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
    Glass City Cobra likes this.
  7. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    I have no problem with multiple title holders.


    If I fighter makes more money because of a 'belt', good for them.


    If it attracts more fans because their person is a champ or challenging for a title, great.


    I do not buy this, 'it is stops big fights'. If the fight is viable, the free market will make it.


    And the argument that it stops finding out who is the best, is often irrelevant. The casual fan generally does not care, and us hardcore get to do what we like best... Debate the merits of each fighter, and come to a conclusion.
     
  8. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    You get more than one title. There are national American Football champs; and the Champions League Basketball in Europe is a big deal. Ice Hockey too has big national tournaments outside of North America.


    And Football (Soccer) is forever debating who is the best.

    Some Countries do have Presidents and Prime Ministers, that can for good as well as bad help the state. And there are examples of two MVPs or fights/fighters of the year.

    Boxing gets boring when everything is black or white, it needs the friction/tension to sell the sport.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
  9. Cojimar 1946

    Cojimar 1946 Active Member Full Member

    1,016
    436
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 23, 2014
    The only way to settle who is best is to have them face each other. I can't imagine hardcore fans being satisfied with arguing over who would win.
     
    PhillyPhan69 likes this.
  10. Cojimar 1946

    Cojimar 1946 Active Member Full Member

    1,016
    436
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 23, 2014
    Also the free market has manifestly failed to result in many big fights getting made.

    Look at Moorer for example. He missed out on nearly all the top heavyweights of his era even though fighting them would have generated considerable revenue.
     
  11. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    A satisfied hardcore fan, is not trying hard enough!
     
  12. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,736
    3,175
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 10, 2013
    No. Stupid question.
     
    sweetsci and 70sFan865 like this.
  13. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    Really? I think Lewis fighting Bruno in front of 60k is easier and a better money maker. Moorer did not really catch on with the casual fan the way he should have. But that was poor promotion. The casual fan did not really care for Moorer Vs Lewis or Bowe, because if they did, it probably happens.
     
  14. Cojimar 1946

    Cojimar 1946 Active Member Full Member

    1,016
    436
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 23, 2014
    I can't imagine casual fans would prefer seeing Moorer fight mismatch after mismatch against overmatched opponents than take on ranked opponents. Even if Moorer wasn't popular with casual fans, it stands to logic they would be more interested in seeing him in competitive fights.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,470
    7,042
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    It's an awful, disgusting thing. Oftentimes a fighter will receive a shot at a world title against the first ranked fighter he's ever met. The fact that there can be up to ten heavyweight world champions is absolutely ruining this sport.

    Worse, the way a contender gets a title shot is via his manager's relationship with the ABC in question. Fighters who get onto the "on ramp" with ridiculous, bizarre, regional titles - paying, all the while for the privilege - are the ones who get the title shots. Want a shot at the WBC? You better have been paying them for a number of years for the right to fight for piddling little regional titles that mean almost nothing.

    The ABCs are the worst thing ever to happen to this sport by 100 miles. I hate them.
     
    Bujia, sweetsci and lufcrazy like this.