.... or there would be so much politics involved that getting a title shot would be nearly impossible. What needs to happen is a single regulatory body that sanctions fights and controls rankings...and salary caps. Guys like Arum, Golden Boy, Sauerland need to go they way of the dinosaur. They clog up the sport with politics, payoffs and **** that keep the good fights from happening. THEN you could have a single champion in each class and have good fights.
You would also have good fighters being frozen out of title shots. Used to happen back in the day. Imagine if the only champions fight 2 to 3 times a year max. How does that give challengers in the top 10 a shot? It really doesn't. I agree there are too many belts, but a couple extra belts is good for boxer exposure and to encourage high profile match-ups.
Ideally a single entity(i.e. the UFC system) would handle the title belts with purity in determining who receives the next title shot. That will never ever happen regardless of the amount of titles.
Not really sure it's so much as having one title as it is that boxing (in the states) is no longer on network TV. It used to be on CBS and ABC, which gives so much more exposure. Boxing has always had at least 2 major titles since the 1920s, although they usually (not always) were unified. Boxing was popular then and also in the 60s and 70s when they became the WBA and WBC. Boxing did well with 2 titles, now there's a "Big 4", like it's accounting.
