Boxing News taking a big stance

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Jul 6, 2021.

  1. Reg

    Reg Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,442
    3,916
    Feb 5, 2016
    If fans know who is the real champion then why do minor belts matter? If that were the case then the only people making more money from more belts are the sanctioning bodies collecting the fees.
     
  2. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,296
    9,411
    Jun 25, 2014
    I agree.

    Contrary to popular belief, boxers tend to settle matters in the ring. The guys who want to prove themselves step up. Those who don't, don't.

    99 percent of the time, the problem comes from ratings bodies who strip fighters or don't recognize fighters for stupid reasons like self-imposed "policies" about how often and who people should fight.

    And when boxers do square off in the ring, more often than not, it's the officials - the referees or the judges (and not the fighters) - who screw things up with a bad call or a bad scorecard.

    When it comes to ratings bodies, I prefer as little input as possible. (LOL)

    I wouldn't mind if they went back to "Logical" contenders ... like the National Boxing Association used to do way back when (like 70 years ago) ... and just list three or four boxers who would "logically" be a good choice for the champ to fight. And don't worry about who is #1 or who is #3.

    Recognize a champ, and say here are three or four logical guys to fight. Change the logical contenders up when necessary. The other boxers in the division who are hungry will fight each other to try to get to be a logical contender. Because nobody really cares who the seventh or eighth best fighter in a division is, anyway. Throw them all in a hat. You only need to identify a handful of logical opponents for a champ to face.

    Do that, and we'd probably get more guys on the way up fighting each other - like Ajagba and Sanchez - to try to get into that Logical Contender grouping.

    You don't need stiff 1-10 ratings and demands that a champ fight this ONE guy or else you're removing him as champ. There's no need to make this so difficult. That's just people trying to enforce too much control. And it leads to people wondering what the hell the ratings orgs were thinking when they enforce some arbitrary policy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2021
  3. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    12,763
    11,211
    Jan 8, 2017
    Absolutely cracking idea. The situation with the belts was bad 30years ago but now!!!
     
    Wizbit1013 and lufcrazy like this.
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    68,334
    8,986
    Sep 15, 2009
    I much prefer UFC to boxing. But I do still hope boxing can follow in its footsteps.

    I'm only repeating what you have also said, let's leave the business side to those in the know, which we aren't. All we can do is hope for better matchmaking and less belts.
     
    pow likes this.
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    68,334
    8,986
    Sep 15, 2009
    You are asking me to answer a question I don't know the answer to (LOL). A question about an event that didn't even happen (LOL)

    I'm not going round in circles, I literally said to you, we'll never know. That doesn't just include me, it also includes you.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    94,287
    15,048
    Mar 21, 2007
    It's not nonsense. Again, you seem a little hysterical? You MIGHT be right that he would still be ranked two, but at the very least it is specualtion, and again you speak with certitude. This kind of butthurt is very tiring on the internet.

    Regardless, it's fantasy, Manny didn't "fight a scrub" and so Manny isn't number two, almost every ranking I can see has or had him at three and you're just going to have to make your peace with it i'm afraid. You're wrong.

    If so, almost everyone who ranks fighters has or had Manny at 3 in the world.

    You yourself find this "pathetic" and i'm sure there's no convincing you otherwise.
     
    Wizbit1013 likes this.
  7. Maidanas Gun Tattoo

    Maidanas Gun Tattoo Active Member Full Member

    539
    555
    Sep 29, 2017
    This is actually an argument for no belts.
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    94,287
    15,048
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah, inactivity means not fighting - not being a fighter.

    So if you fight someone awful, you're not inactive, just meeting poor competition.

    But guys tend not to get actively demoted for fighting poor competition - it's just that they'll be overtaken by fighters who fight better opposition in time.

    Because fighters fight twice a year (less recently) this can take some time.
     
    Finkel likes this.
  9. pow

    pow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,679
    2,849
    Apr 26, 2014
    You should skim through all of my posts before responding, minor belts make fights more attractive to broadcasters and fans which brings in more money for the fighters. Fighters are also making more money, not only the governing bodies.
     
  10. pow

    pow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,679
    2,849
    Apr 26, 2014
    I think the point is that the belts do not really matter it's who you fight and when. Tyson Fury only holds one heavyweight belt but is still regarded universally as the best in the division. Belts are relevant only for marketing.
     
  11. Maidanas Gun Tattoo

    Maidanas Gun Tattoo Active Member Full Member

    539
    555
    Sep 29, 2017
    The point is, the term “champion” is diluted with so many belts. It has no meaning in boxing with 10 championship belts per division. How many baseball champions are there every year in MLB? How many basketball champions every year I the NBA? 1. Boxing needs to do that.
     
  12. pow

    pow Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,679
    2,849
    Apr 26, 2014
    In Soccer teams compete for multiple trophy's each year, some more prestigious than others. In Boxing, a fighter is considered undisputed or 'universally recognised' if he has won all 4 major belts or if he has 'cleaned out' a division of all major challengers. You are proposing a franchise model for boxing which is a very dangerous road to go down, will result in multiple organisations and eventually have one kingpin who controls everything.
     
  13. Banana-Rama

    Banana-Rama Member Full Member

    442
    297
    Nov 28, 2015
    ''The only fighters Boxing News will classify as world champions will be those who have actually proven themselves to be the best in the world, regardless of the belts they own.''

    So will Boxing News classify someone as a world champion after they get handed the win via robbery? After all, they haven't proven themselves to be the best in the world have they.
     
  14. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,296
    9,411
    Jun 25, 2014
    I do think it is ludicrous Pacquio isn't rated at all at welterweight in the ratings YOU apparently helped put together.

    Luckily there are at least three other ratings orgs who recognize what is actually happening when he fights Spence next month.

    Trying to defend your ratings by saying other orgs only have Pacquio at #3 ... doesn't absolve your ratings from not rating him AT ALL.

    Especially when you want everyone to see yours as the most legit. It is a colossal blunder on the part of your ratings board.

    And, after speaking with you, it is clear you guys really don't know what you are doing if you can't recognize a fight like this as a world title fight.

    Maybe, in 34 years, or however long it has been since you guys recognized a bantamweight champion, two random welters will sign to fight who you clumsily managed to have at #1 and #2, and you'll finally recognize a Welterweight champ, regardless of how good they actually are.

    But I doubt anyone will be paying attention by then.

    Anyway, I am looking forward to the World Welterweight Title fight next month ... The biggest welterweight title fight in years ... involving a guy who you don't rate at all.

    Good luck with that.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    94,287
    15,048
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah, you've told me. Ten ****ing times. You don't think fighters should be stripped for inactivity. I understand. I understand that you don't think fighters should be stripped for inactivity. That is understood now. I disagree with you.

    You don't seem to understand, don't seem to be able to absorb, that this could never have been a 1v2 contest. He is ranked at three. That ranking is sensible and reasonable, irrefutably.

    I don't have to "absolve" them. They're enormously popular, have been on television, have been published all over the internet, including by this website, and will now appear every week in the most popular European based boxing publication. Why on earth do you think I'm trying to absolve anything in your eyes? You come off as hysterical and feminine, sort of like you've been felt up by your ex-boyfriend.

    Don't be so ridiculous, that's so silly. "Collosal blunder"..."utterly pathetic"...you either don't understand the words you are using or are in the grip of some sort of emotional fit.

    TBR strips fighters for inactivity. You forcefully disagree with this to the point of behaving like i ****ed your wife. I understand. I think you're wrong. It's not a "collosal blunder".

    EVEN IF PACQUIAO HADN'T BEEN REMOVED FROM THE RANKINGS FOR TWO YEARS OF INACTIVITY HE WOULDN'T BE FIGHTING FOR THE LINEAL TITLE AS THE NUMBER THREE CONTENDER. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

    Yeah, I mean you're so married to yourself as right, as the final authority in these matters, I could see why having one disagreement with a rankings organisation could have you dismiss them forever.

    My heart is broken.

    It is impossible for me to express how little I care about what you personally think of guys like Springs Toledo, Jose Corpas, Jake Donavan, Oliver Fennell, Erik Raskin, and about forty other guys who are on the board who have demonstrated themselves not only to be considerably less panic-stricken and hysterical than you, but also seem to know considerably more about fighting.

    What you've described is exactly how a good championship policy works, yes. The whole of boxing used to be bent towards naming the best fighter in each division is. If that is somehow problematic and objectionable for you, that's fine, you're wildly wrong, and I can't help you with that.

    EVEN IF PACQUIAO HADN'T BEEN REMOVED FROM THE RANKINGS FOR TWO YEARS OF INACTIVITY HE WOULDN'T BE FIGHTING FOR THE LINEAL TITLE AS THE NUMBER THREE CONTENDER. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

    Certainly I won't be. I'll be in my seventies. The board? Hard to know. If it exists in 34 years (so specific LOL), that would qualify as an absolutely tremendous success. It's definitely challenging to keep something with no means of generating income staffed entirely by volunteers going and it really might fail - to your bizarre and enormous satisfaction, i'm sure.

    We do move into our second decade next year though, so you never know!

    That fight does not determine who the best fighter in the world is. Bud Crawford is better than Manny Pacquiao, and you will be hard put to find people who disagree.

    Sorry.

    You are wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2021
    Jpreisser likes this.