Boxing News taking a big stance

A glimpse of this can be found in the "Charter" section on the website. To give you a rundown, however, the Chair members propose changes for the week and then all of the members discuss and vote on the changes. The Chairs take everyone's input into account and make the changes that reflect the will of all who participate. For instance, if a Chair proposes moving fighter x to position y but most favor moving him up one notch, the latter will be implemented.

To address your second point, I can assure you "we" did not want Fury and Wilder to fight for the Heavyweight Championship. There was no collaborative effort to make it happen. It was simply the case that Joshua lost his place in line by being knocked out by a substitute and most felt that his redemption against Ruiz was not quite enough to get him into the #2 position. Believe me, there were people who felt Joshua should supplant Wilder at #2. As an aside, I would add that The Ring voters also saw Fury and Wilder as #1 and #2.

 

I understand your point of view, however you have failed to grasp mine. There is very little money in boxing and as little as 10% of professional fighters earn enough to make a living from the sport. While getting punched in the head for YOUR entertainment.

 

I appreciate the response.
Though as I recall at the time the Ring also got stick for that in their comments section and mailbag...

Btw I don't really have an issue with Joshua not supplanting Wilder at #2 if it is a vote done by a democratic committee, and follows a logical argument. Then it is a respectable outcome. However what in fact happened by your own archival records is that not only was Wilder not supplanted at #2, but he was in fact elevated to #1 status.

I can only conclude that it was Wilder's much maligned defense of his title in the belated rematch against Luiz Ortiz (an in-house rematch that no one really asked for due to the rate of decay of Ortiz) in November 2019 that resulted him becoming the #1 Heavyweight in the world.

On the face of it, losing every round along the way to getting a dubious stoppage of 40+ year old never was, doesn't scream make that man #1.
So what gives?

Is there a structural bias within the membership toward the American heavyweight circuit?

 

Did you know that Roy Jones was NEVER the lineal LHW champion? Dariusz Michalzewski became lineal when he defeated Virgil Hill in 1997, then got stripped of WBA and IBF belts. Jones picked up those belts with his WBC and become "undisputed champion". DM continued to hold lineal title until 2005 when he got bested by Julio Ceasar Gonzalez (remember him?), the title then passed to Zsolt Erdei until he retired in 2011. If you recognize only the lineal champ then Antonio Tarver, Jones and Chad Dawson were never champions, only pretenders.

 

Does that representation of Americans not holding more than 51% hold true for working affiliations?
What is the size of the American voting block? (The charter reminded me of the EU)

Edit: a tertiary count of the members page:
Total members: 52
Largest represented country = the U.S. (21)
2nd largest represented = Britain (8)
3rd largest = Australia (3)

Largest represented continental affiliation = Americans (29)
2nd largest = Europeans -inc Britain + Russia (13)

Those affiliated with America through work or location = 31 members of the total 52.

Is that the total membership? As it looks like there is an obvious structural bias.

tbrb.org/members

Is there an approach to the voting that alleviates the potential issue?

 

Whether it makes any difference I doubt, but any pressure on the bodies to shape up is good in my book.

 

Indeed there have been champs as you describe however prior to the 60s, however many could claim a title but for most parts only one champion was recognised, never heard of anyone legitimately seeing the coloured champion as the world title owner (not suggesting that owner of that belt was perhaps not at times the best, but that's another argument for another day).g

The recognized champion groups you describe does highlight another issue, that is how US centric things were with BBoC throwing their two penny worth into the mix.

I think as i say many of above claim to be champs pre 60s, but even at the time generally there was one recognised title holder recognised by one body be that the NBA or whatever, now we have the generally recognised best in weight division spread in different sanctioning bodies, plus as you say the title was often followed by term "recognised by.............." which sure does not show any universal recognition

I can see financial benefit to boxers if many world titles are available in a division, but as a boxing fan from historical perspective until there is more than one earth, then i want just one world champion in each division, however alas it will not be as the dollar, pound etc talks in these matters.

I claim the "i coulda been a contender" World Heavyweight title, i shall expect my name to be in the annals of boxing history, in fact sod it, i announce my retirement, that makes me the undefeated lineal ICBAC title holder.

 

No more Aztec belt? Sad.

 

As far as the broader issue of belts and rankings and the various governing bodies, I'd like to see a more formal football (soccer) type league table with leagues for each weight class and one champion at the head, and you gain ranking points by taking on the guys above you.

You lose, you are deducted points and drop down the table, beat a guy 3 or 4 places above and you take their place.

I haven't thought it through in a thorough manner, but the hope would be to end up with the top guys being effectively forced into fighting each other - that, or else they start dropping down the table if they fight gimmes and tick overs.

The champion would have to prove himself against the top contenders every time.

There'd be no ducking, no politics.

You aren't willing to face the guys around you then you suffer.

Further down the table means less interest from fans, t.v, less money, less exposure etc...

You, hopefully, end up with an undisputed champion at any given moment as they will have earnt their way up the rankings table and would have defended their title against all the best contenders.

 

The lineal title is a great ideal but virtually non existent in the real world.

 

I stopped reading at the 'crap matchup' point.

 

Very true about the Brits back in the 90's with the WBO, sad thing is history seems to have rewarded it as you pretty much alluded to. Although very good fighters with the odd great victory, those fighters are now viewed as 'legends' through very 'rose tinted' glasses. Today the UK fighters can legitimately compete with US fighters but back then they were inferior, for the most part, thus the WBO was born.

 

The worst thing now for fans is that all these belts have changed the mentality of most of the top fighters. Rightly or wrongly, the mentality of wanting to fight the best is dissipating and the fans and the sport are the biggest losers and ultimately the fighters themselves.