National titles: will they return to prominence?

probably not,

good fighters get invested in, taken to Boxing Hubs quite quickly, are protected and after a few fights, not always against top fighters either, can be propelled into ABC Title shots or contention, so 'if' a fighter finds himself among the Top, there he remains for an ABC Title and/or a Title Tilt.

so there is No National pedigree stepping up to a few years or so, 3-5, competing to Eliminators and National Titles with at least 25, 30 or 35 fights, no money to build and secure such National pedigree...

and No Need to bother, so I doubt they will ever hold any clout as they once did.

 

I liked it better in the days when being national champ was often good enough to get you in the ratings and secure a title shot … or in some cases an eliminator type fight (say a Japanese guy vs a Korean for the Orient-Pacific title).

Nowadays you pay the WBA/BC/BO/IBF to fight for their Intercontinental Silver Hemispheric Galactic title (that no one ever defends) and you get ranked for the payoff (sanctioning fee) by beating another decent fighter, but there’s nothing to the actual belt or title itself.

 

I believe that in Japan, You are still not allowed to challange for world title (on home soil, I remember Tomoki Kameda going around this rule by fighting for his first world title in the Philippines, against Namibian), without first winning Japanese or OPBF title.
There are places where national title is prestigious, other where it's not. Don't think it depends on popularity of boxing, it's moreso about characteristics of local boxing scene and tradition.
In Italy, You always have national title being fought for a defended - while in Germany, You rarely see that. South African title seems to be valued locally, Mexican not so much...

 

It's exactly what @thistle said in regards to not having to bother with them in order to get a title shot. Also like @Saintpat said about the OPBF title which usually guaranteed a title shot. Fighters today don't even bother with them and that has to do with lack of competition and an easy road to one of the 4 major straps. I remember when I first subscribed to Boxing News and really enjoyed the historical piece called "The Professionals" by Ron Olver. Ron had a way of writing that got you right there in the dressing room or the gym and his pieces on these great old pre-war and post war fighters whose lofty ambitions weren't about a world title but duking it out all over the country, fighting every couple of weeks or sometimes days, in the grand hopes of one day fighting for the British title. That was everything to them. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the same publication I was noticing modern fighters not even bothering with British or British Commonwealth titles but going straight for that brass ring because it was easier to do so with the competition available.

 

With 4 belts per division no . USA , NABF are meaningless at this point. Sad ,they were really stepping stones for many fighters

 

I hope so assuming you mean regional as national is for a single country. A lot of people act confused when continential champs get title shots or the fact they got them back in the day.


Also the IBF is the USBA so people DO care about the USBA they just don't know it

The reason they were big is that the NABF champ was usually the 2nd best HW champ etc. And in the early days the IBU and BBBC were actually major alphabet bodies that took a step back.

If undisputed becomes more common these belts wll become more respected because if a belt is undisputed the holder of one of these belts will be the 2nd best champ. Right now the best regional champ might only be the 5th best champ. So if theres less "world" champions the value of non world champions will go up.

But what was sad was I brought up a fighter winning the NABF/USBA double and I was told "you are the first person to ever care about the NABF/USBA double". That made me sad. And that is a good reflection of how people view those belts on someones resume even fighters who fought at times they mattered.

Another thing is when Americans dominated boxing NABF/USBA really stood out as stepping stones among regional belts while now the regional belts are closer to equals. So perhaps if we have Pax Britannia the Commonwealth belt and BBBC will gain importance again.

 

Yeah, Ron did one on my Ol' Grandad in 1983, I think it was and yeah, the British Title was 2cd only to the World Title and National Titles in Boxing Leading Nations were still recognised & noted accolades.

Boxing will never, ever, go back to such grand & 'earned' days.

 

Its a peet peeve of mine that people value the British title over Commonwealth.

Also NABF isn't national because non Americans can fight for it. Wlad Klitschko won it remember?

 

those titles certainly became more recognised, I'm not sure the NABF title was around in the early half of the Century, but as too the British, England/Britain 'was' Boxing's Leading Nation and then it lost it's seat to the U.S, so up until roughly the 1960s, they were Boxing's 2 Leading Nations...

France, Australia and then soon Mexico had good shouts as competitors to that, in fact Charley Rose mentioned seeking 'Prospects' and fighters in Mexico & S. America by the 50s or some timeline like that.

But for a period it was those 2 Nations.

 

No. With so many world belts out there, regional and national titles don’t even mean anything

 

Honestly in some cases the Lonsdale outright is a far more impressive accomplishment than say a WBO title. (or any interim nonsense)

 

I absolutely love the concept of the Lonsdale belt and the way it emphasizes someone not just winning but defending and holding onto the Brit championship.

It’s a lifetime achievement to hold one, and one of those things where maybe a guy is domestic level and not going to be a world or even EBU champ, but he can take pride in being a BBBC champ and still have something for which to strive.

 

I love it too, yeah. Kind of wish us Yanks had something equivalent to it.