Boxing News new championship policy. No longer recognising official belt holders

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by porkypara, Jul 9, 2021.

  1. porkypara

    porkypara Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,576
    142
    Apr 3, 2009
  2. Noel857

    Noel857 I Am Duran Full Member

    1,170
    1,210
    Mar 24, 2019
    Good to see but won`t make a blind bit of difference
     
    pow likes this.
  3. nurological

    nurological Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,739
    6,289
    May 25, 2012
    More media outlets need to do this.
     
    Gatekeeper likes this.
  4. aaaaa

    aaaaa Member Full Member

    225
    436
    Dec 19, 2020
    Won’t make any difference when you’ve got clowns like Gervonta Davis walking round calling himself a 3 weight champion.
     
    Wizbit1013 likes this.
  5. wreckthehouse

    wreckthehouse New Member Full Member

    83
    94
    Jul 25, 2019
    Matt Christie has always liked Eddie Hearn hasn't he.

    Nice timing, at a point when Hearn is trying to undermine sanctioning bodies and create a PBC style set up at the D zone. Que AJ dumping the worthless WBO belt now instead of fighting Usyk.
     
  6. chrisfinch

    chrisfinch Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,900
    242
    Mar 21, 2009
    Fair play to them, but can’t see it making a difference. HBO avoided mentioning sanctioning bodies for years when only them and Showtime were covering fights of that level in the States and that coincided with the rise of interim titles and things like diamond champions.

    If a broadcaster as influential as HBO was for many years couldn’t effect change through their stance, Boxing News have got no chance. Good on them though.
     
  7. Joe.Boxer

    Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

    6,578
    240
    Jan 8, 2011
    20 years too late.
     
    pow and Glenn McKrory like this.
  8. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,214
    1,654
    Oct 22, 2006
    Twenty years?!


    In the first Ring magazine (February 1922) they have an article bemoaning that there are too many sanctioning organisations!
     
  9. pow

    pow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,587
    2,749
    Apr 26, 2014
    How else do you expect to fund the sport and make it attractive to broadcasters. Professional boxing is prize fighting and therefore there needs to be a prize. Boxing news, TBRB very few of these guys are actually fighters who have real life experience in the sport they are mostly stuffy Graeth A. Davies types.

    This is not a solution to boxings problems it will make things worse.
     
  10. high tower

    high tower Active Member Full Member

    784
    333
    Mar 27, 2008
    strange point of view. I see them as parasites who have got themselves into a position where they can exploit boxing. Who’s going to tune into a fight because there’s a diamond belt on the line , they want to see a good evenly matched fight.

    also getting punched around the head for a living doesn’t make you’re opinion any more worthwhile than lifelong boxing journalists.
     
    Noel857 likes this.
  11. pow

    pow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,587
    2,749
    Apr 26, 2014
    By no means am I saying that sanctioning bodies are a good thing for the sport I think they are all corrupt including the BBBoC but what is your suggestion for an alternative? It's all very well having utopian pipe dreams but how are you going to sustain the sport in it's current form using a one champion system. There is only one current sustainable model and that is to franchise off the sport into separate organisations as seen in MMA. Under this system you still have more than one champion only in different organisations that will NEVER fight each other. It would be the equivalent of Queensbury, Matchroom, and Hennesey all having there own roster and champion and never mixing between the two unless a fighter is out of contract.

    The fact is small belts bring in money to boxers who would otherwise be fighting for expenses. They make fights more attractive to broadcasters and most importantly to casuals who drive numbers for advertising, endorsements and other secondary revenues. How are you going to replace this money when you have 2000 boxers competing for one prize. You create a huge unsurpassable divide between those at the top and everyone else below.

    Casuals. (see Dillian Whyte.)

    Journalists are parasites too. Why would you trust a journalist over a lifelong boxing scholar.
     
  12. destruction

    destruction Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,589
    8,171
    Mar 26, 2009
    We were saying 4-5 years ago that there were too many joke World titles and this was destroying the sport.

    Things have only got worse since then.

    Boxing news is taking the right stance here
     
    Gatekeeper likes this.
  13. Boxing Gloves

    Boxing Gloves Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,599
    502
    Jul 19, 2004
    There are too many belts, we can talk about "oh well it gives the fighters more money" I'm all for them getting more money however the fans are the ones paying for the tickets and the ppvs and the current set up does nothing to draw in new fans, it's too complicated and toxic.

    Look at the popularity of UFC with a one belt system, yes I know they don't get paid as well as boxers but that is more down to corruption from Dana White.

    Personally I'm all for regional and national belts and one world title.

    How anyone can justify the WBA having 3 heavyweight champions because it gives fighters more money is beyond me.

    All this does is make it harder for the best to fight the best.
     
    Gatekeeper and Glenn McKrory like this.
  14. nurological

    nurological Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,739
    6,289
    May 25, 2012
    Casuals don't tune in because some nonsense belt is on the line. They do tune in for ****e but, mostly, they know when its a recognised belt.
     
  15. pow

    pow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,587
    2,749
    Apr 26, 2014
    The UFC is a one champion system however the best do not fight the best in MMA as they are spread over several organisations. What you have is the best in the UFC fighting the best in the UFC. Recently in boxing we have seen Terence Crawford, Usyk and Josh Taylor all become undisputed champion and just come out of an era where Klitschko had 3 of the 4 belts for 7 years and Anthony Joshua has held 3 of the 4 belts for 4 years. The thing is, when Klitschko was champion people were complaining he had a monopoly on the division! The point of creating these interim, gold, regular belts is in order to keep the fighters happy who are paying there sanctioning fees, the sport is simply to big to sustain under a one championship system where the very top guys are fighting twice a year on average.