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. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    Yes I am sure they would. But with Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson around in the period, there were lot more matches they wanted to see first. Hence while Holyfield is fighting Tyson and Bowe; Lewis is fighting national treasure Bomber Bruno, Moorer is left with Foreman...
     
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    But if you are fighter and are getting 100k because it is a title fight and has TV, rather than 50k because it is not...
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,471
    7,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    You think that there is more money in boxing because there are eight world champions in a given weight?

    That's fascinating in how absurdly wrong it is.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,447
    3,862
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    I hear you.

    I just think these titles should be called trophies within the ranks rather than “world” championships.

    The fans, magazines and places like boxrec should be the only people allowed to name The champions. And this should be supported by the mainstream media.

    Outside of this, on TV they should say “This contender has the WBC trophy” or that this fight is sanctioned by this body.

    the world “champion” should only be reserved for real champions recognised within magazines and fans.
     
    sweetsci and TBooze like this.
  5. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    I think TV likes to have the 'world title' banner added to their shows. That is limited if there are not eight title holders in a given weight division.


    Yes, it does water things down, but I do think it helps fighters not at the very top make a better living. Not that I am naive to think promoters, TV Execs and Alphabet cronies do not get their trotters in the money pot, and this does not help the sport


    But I would argue one champ means too much power for that fighters promotion, and that could be even worse.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,471
    7,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    The very specific reason that boxing is dropping off the radar in the United States is the plethora of champions. The very specific reason why the UFC - the very definition of a single banner sport, somehow, I mean it's ridiculous but it is true - is undercutting boxing so brutally is that nobody knows who the champions are. One television channel produces the "world" champion and you change the channel and a different organisation produces a totally different one.

    And never the twain shall meet.

    Yeah, fighter X might get another 50k for fight Y. But the sport as a whole is hemorrhaging millions. Millions. Specifically because there are currently around seventy world champions in boxing.

    That's 70. 70 world champions.

    :lol:

    I follow the modern sport religiously and couldn't name half of them.
     
  7. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    I would have no issue with most of that. But I think history shows when you give media outlets/anyone that sort of power in boxing, things do not work out well.


    If I am a promoter and Boxrec and/or The Ring get to call who is and who is not champ, I am seeing how much it costs to buy them out, or if there is an opportunity to persuade and reward those making the decisions that my fighter deserves a shot at the champ.
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    65,727
    6,460
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Follow the Ufc model.

    One champion, if they become inactive fight for an interim belt, force the two to fight next or strip one of them.

    Fool proof.

    Problem with multiple belts, look at Teofolimo Lopez, turning down 1.5 million to fight the number 1 LW in the world.

    What kinda bull**** it that?
     
    Glass City Cobra and sweetsci like this.
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,471
    7,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    The problem is, UFC is just the WBC - but worse. They don't let their fighters fight the WBA fighters at all.

    But somehow they've convinced the world that they have a one division one champion model. Which is utter genius really.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    65,727
    6,460
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    The thing is though, if you convince the whole world, it has the same end game.

    Why fight for the WBA belt for nowhere near the money or the recognition, when everyone KNOWS the only belt worth having is the WBC.

    To be the best you have to have the WBC belt, no ifs no buts. No other title holder is taken seriously, no other title holder is considered the number 1 in the world.

    It has, imo the same end goal as what we want. It's just that 1 organisation gets a lot more money than the others.
     
    McGrain likes this.
  11. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    I believe I understand your point, but what you suggest is like comparing apples with bananas. The UFC is one strand of MMA, there are multiple champs in MMA in each division.


    Maybe mainstream boxing in the US would benefit from being under one organisation, but I doubt it happens. And if it did, I just know I would hate boxing's Dana White! ;)

    [EDIT] I see you have already made the point, I must type faster!
     
  12. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,784
    1,019
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    Why fight for the WBA belt? Well I get 30k for fighting this opponent as an eliminator for the WBC title, or 50k for fighting for a lesser belt...

    If I then prove myself the main contender to the more prestigious belt, I get the shot anyway, as the WBC wants to keep the tab of most prestigious organisation, I am just 20k up going into the bout.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,471
    7,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    Just for the record I prefer ONE...but yeah, their MMA isn't as good.

    ****ing ****, all of it, i'm sad.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    65,727
    6,460
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Yeah but the problem is, that doesn't work, you still need to work your way up the WBC rankings to get the shot.

    The WBA belt counts for nothing in this scenario.

    Like the WBU in boxin .
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,471
    7,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    See, that's all bull****. Gatti-Mayweather would be worth millions and millions and millions without a belt. No belt. Morales proved this.

    The only people these belts enrich is the ABCs themselves and minor champions who can't get a following without. If you become the#1 contender, the #2 contender to a legit champion (the only champion) you will get that money anyway - that is, a "champion" making money of an ABC could make more money becoming a legitimate contender to a champ.

    But that takes work. Requires one to match top fighters. Stuff like that. But why not take the shortcut? It's pitiful stuff.