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

    24,781
    1,017
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    So you are suggesting the WBC is not prepared to let the best two fighters fight, thus its prestige is now on par in this division with the WBA, which is a gutter belt in this example, and on par with the WBU?!

    So we are, where we are now!
     
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,781
    1,017
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    Yes, but that is and I suspect, always will be boxing. Most fighters want maximum reward for minimum risk, and I do not blame them.


    The exceptions are the Gattis and Mayweathers who as you rightly point out, do not need a title, they are their own brand.


    Also sometimes exceptional fighters are considered boring and lack charisma, thus they need a title to make a better living.
     
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    65,667
    6,410
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    No, I'm suggesting the WBA wouldn't prestigious enough for anyone to consider their trinket holder part of the best 2 in the world.

    Everyone would KNOW the best 10 in the world are the best 10 ranked by the WBC.

    As I said, the other belts would be meaningless like the WBU is today.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,457
    7,001
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well the system you are arguing for - for some reason - enhances that very dramatically.

    So, I guess I understand why you want to see less money in the sport, fewer top fighters meeting in great fights, less mainstream media coverage and a sport in decline.

    I acknowledge your consistency in desiring a weaker, poorer sport.

    Which they can do by hitching their wagon to and bribing an ABC (your preference) or fighting better fighters consistently (my preference).
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
  5. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,781
    1,017
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    But if I am not in the top 10 and the WBA gets me 20k extra for a fight, that the WBC would only consider an eliminator, I am getting my 20k. If the WBC are still the honest brokers here, they would rank me with or without my trinket, if I am good enough. If not, they start to show themselves no better than the other organisations, and if I am not good enough I have made an extra 20k.

    Either way, it helps to have multiple titles.
     
  6. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,781
    1,017
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    I admire your blue sky thinking (how do you do it, after being a fan of this sport for so long?!). But who is going to fight me? I am from a small country, a very small fan base, I am exceptional but boring? Who needs to fight me, better to just ignore me. But if I get an extra 10k because I have an alphabet tricklet and bit of TV, I can have a better life.
     
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    65,667
    6,410
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    No again you misunderstood.

    The WBA don't pay any extra money, because they have no prestige.

    Holding their belt doesn't convince anyone you're top 10 in the world because each of the top 10 WBC guys are rated higher than you.

    Even if you're a long standing WBA champ people will say "yeah but he never proved it in the WBC"

    Meanwhile the WBC guys are fighting each other regularly, selling out PPV fights.

    The only way to get decent money and recognition is to go through the WBC system.
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    89,457
    7,001
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    OK; you've identified an absolutely tiny minority (small country fighters who are boring) who, in being unable to bribe their way to the top, will suffer.

    Everyone else will be better off though.

    That's not even just utilitarian. It's merely good sense.

    And it's not blue-sky thinking. I understand it's impossible. But it's obviously going to come up in discussions with someone who is finding ways to argue in preference for the ABC system.
     
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,447
    3,861
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    That’s the trouble, I think the media has a responsibility to present things according Only to the respected fan outlets like your Boxrec and spokespeople from the various boxing Halls of fames...where the history shows who the real or best fighters are in each division (regardless of Junk alphabet straps). That’s what has to change. The history doesn’t belong to anyone. It’s in the record books.

    But that cannot change linear history or the opinion of independent long time followers of the sport. A promoter can buy a magazine or a web sight but he can’t buy the linear history if there is a universal established system of following the evidence. Maybe that’s what we need? A recognised acknowledgement of a chain of events that shows this guy beat this guy, so he moves up, that guy can’t move up because he hasn’t beat anyone above him. And the world decided that because that’s the rule “in the real world”.

    The problem is a governing body can decide two guys who did nothing can fight for a vacant title. Then the winner gets to be presented as a champion on no real authority. The world did not decide it. They did. The word “World” needs to protected by a trade mark. Somebody independent should have the patent.
     
  10. sweetsci

    sweetsci Active Member Full Member

    1,305
    812
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 22, 2008
    Remember "I coulda been a contender."? I miss the days when being a contender was as prestigious as being a belt holder (or trophy holder; I like that) these days.

    When was the last time we saw a prime-time heavyweight boxing show where no world title belt was at stake in the main event? Bowe-Golota II? It was still a great evening of boxing.
     
  11. sweetsci

    sweetsci Active Member Full Member

    1,305
    812
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 22, 2008
    Too bad that enough people buy into the current system that I had to ask it.
     
    PhillyPhan69 likes this.
  12. vast

    vast Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,868
    1,128
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 27, 2010
    No. It only invites politics to stall making fights.
     
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    65,667
    6,410
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Any Whyte or Chisora PPV
     
    sweetsci likes this.
  14. RockyJim

    RockyJim Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,295
    890
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 26, 2005
    Very well said!!!
     
  15. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,781
    1,017
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    It is interesting that this aspect of the hardcore's psyche is still belligerent. For the best I generally agree. I do not mind playing Devil's Advocate, but there is a fine line to actually trolling when defending something you generally do not believe yourself.


    For the record: I do think fighters make more money when an alphabet trinket is on offer, and I do think that, that is a good thing. But I also ultimately believe one generally recognised champ is better for the sport as it makes it easier for the casual fan to follow and indeed gives us hardcore more clarity.