I was listening to Tony Sims talking about Darren Barker on toe 2 toe earlier and it had me thinking. He was talking about how much it meant to him and Darren, the journey, ect. Now dont get me wrong I really like Darren he seems a good guy and is a solid fighter, however do you think when he goes home he really thinks he's deserving to be a world champion when there's arguably two better middleweight in martinez and GG. I'm only using Darren as a quick example but there's plenty of others. Many people talk of how multi champs at a weight is bad with so called super champs and what not, but what do you think the fighters think?
It's the way boxing's gone nowadays. There should really be only one world champion per weight division, but times have changed. You can't really have that in this day and age... take Mayweather and Vitali for example, they fight once in a blue moon !
But then couldn't you just strip them. Either fight and prove your the best or let someone else. Say 3 times a year minimum. I know it's probably ideal world stuff and you gotta allow for injuries and things but why not
As fans we know who is the true champion of each division. The prestige of wearing a belt worn by great champions of the past must be a tremendous source of pride. A belt means bigger paydays and bigger opportunities. I'm sure Darren would be the first to admit he isn't the best in the world but he can now confidently argue that he is ONE of the best in the world. At middleweight of course.
Its a sad fact but you could argue that all our british world title holders aren't the best in their divisions
It's not a "nowadays" problem. There have been multiple "World Champions" since the birth of boxing. Occasionally they merged to a single "the man at the weight" but that was just down to individual talent and good match-making - not it being a better, golden age. Good article here (and the entire blog is very good if you've not come across it before): http://slipthejab.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/320/
I think thats been the case since there was more than one champion,with a few notable exceptions.But I can remember when Floyd Patterson was undisputed heavyweight champion.Defended his titles for a long time against undeserving challengers,one of whom was having his first pro fight.Afew deserving boxers were overlooked,until Johannson,then Liston. I like the fact that boxers like Barker win titles.Also people like Burns.I agree with you about them not being the best,but were able to see some good matches because of it,at the top level.If there were no titles involved,I don't think the opposition would be as good.
