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. Big Ukrainian

    Big Ukrainian Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,582
    6,314
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 10, 2007
    Yeah, guys like Jorge Arce...
     
  2. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,069
    1,689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 20, 2010
    A bad thing for hardcore nerds like us, who find our way to a forum like this - but something that has likely helped boost interest worldwide, as 99% of boxing fans have no idea what is going on!

    Average fans know nothing about lineal championships, or who the top guys are in the different divisions... because that's not what is important to them. They don't follow boxing like that. All they want is a local hero to root for, and with more titles, more fans can be made to believe they are watching something special (even if they aren't)... which puts bums in seats, or make them watch their idols on TV.

    So, as much as we hate it, these multible "world", regional, intercontinental or whatever strange titles they make up, no doubt help create interest, that would otherwise not be there.
     
    choklab and sweetsci like this.
  3. Bujia

    Bujia Member Full Member

    397
    559
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 2, 2020
    That’s a long term solution to a short term problem. If you even want to call it a problem. Creating entirely new belts for the purpose of drawing in new viewers that ultimately aren’t even in it for the long haul. Changing the landscape of the sport and continuing to devalue the meaning of the word “champion”. Further losing credibility with your actual fan base.

    All so some regional “fans” can tune in to root for their high school buddy and then likely never pay attention again?

    Pass. Hard pass.
     
    greynotsoold likes this.
  4. Oddone

    Oddone The Philosopher Full Member

    674
    1,071
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 18, 2019
    Short answer, is of course, no. However no one wants to talk about the longer answer which is Nooooooooooooooooo.
     
  5. scartissue

    scartissue Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,803
    3,333
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 2, 2006
    Totally agree. Multiple titles are for the now, but undermines the entire structure of boxing. It's like putting up a nice pretty building but scoffing at building a foundation first. It ain't gonna last, guys. When diehards like us have a hard time knowing who's who, what chance does a casual fan have? And when you make a sport too difficult to follow, interest wanes. Aside from the ridiculous amount of world titles out there, there are also, the Continental Americas belt and the Silver belt and the International belt and the Inter-Continental belt. My God! Please melt them down into slag for all their meaningless worth. Last week I was watching some of this great old Gilette friday night fights. I watched Florentino Fernandez v Rory Calhoun, Joey Giambra v Yama Bahama, Hurricane Carter v Jose Gonzalez and **** Tiger v Henry Hank. Even the casual fans knew these fighters. They rose to the top of a sport that could be followed. These fights didn't need some additional hardware to make them attractive to the public. And do you know what we called these fights? 10 rounders!
     
    sweetsci and Bujia like this.
  6. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,447
    3,862
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Yeah, sadly this is the truth.

    And yet it would cost nothing to change it.
     
  7. Skins

    Skins Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,975
    1,092
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 20, 2011
    It's good for the fighters, not for the fans though.
     
  8. ecto55

    ecto55 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,063
    712
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 28, 2009
    One title = only one or two title-fights per year per weight class. If the title holder is extremely popular or influential, i.e. they have disproportionate 'pull', then you could have a Jack Demspey type reign of five or six title defenses in as many years and little anyone can do about it. That's an extreme example, but it has occurred recently with a overly dominant champion too - Kostya Tszyu only had a couple of defenses in three years sat one stage due to injury.

    Coupled with the loss of 15 3's and 12 3's now being reserved for championship and regional bouts, I think we'd be looking at a lot less boxing - especially quality boxing over the longer distance.

    The rub will be in how to make a champion fight more regularly, so like Ali or Toney did, with non-title fights interspersed through, but many wont...especially if they give agency over to their managers who will act in their (the managers) own interest in maintaining a grip on a title. I think you'd be replacing admittedly one flawed system for another, potentially more flawed system that in today's fleeting attention, quick-moving world just wouldn't fit.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2020