One Champ Only?

I seriously think that with this large inactivity of current "champions"
(most of them fight once per year) having single world title would be
very disappointing for boxing fans.

I think the way as it is now (4 mayor belts) is OK but it requires some kind of
agreement between the organizations that their champions should be forced
to unification fights every year.

 

yep

 

One!!!!

 

It's not working out right now and I think they should definitely have less belts. 4 is way too dam much. Hell, if you eliminate 2 of the titles, you are going to get better fights because the top guys would be faced to fight each other more often.

 

One belt is the correct answer for any REAL fight fan.

 

The term "world champion" in boxing carries no weight. One belt would make the term significant. Every fight would either be a fight towards fighting the champ or the champ actually putting it on the line. That's the way it should be.

 

one belt, obviously. You know if nsac and nysac only allowed one organisation in their states the whole issue would be solved almost over night.

 

Sometimes its working, sometimes its not.

For example at LHW it does not work completely, there are 4 ABC titles
and additional "ring" belt which is on the table for all coming up from bantamweight.
I guess PAC will be very soon LHW "ring" champion while Erderi will
die at the age of 87 still fighting as WBO champion.

It is working however at 135lb where the best guys fight eachother and the
fights are additionally promoted with their ABC belts.

So the problem is not having too much belts, its to force the best guys to fight each other.

 

I think it's all in the hands of the promoters. The sanctioning bodies will penalise a fighter for not taking a mandatory even if he's been comprehensively beaten before and there is no market for that fight. If they relaxed the rules and the promoters focus on fan demand we'd see more of the unifications and big fights we all want.

The danger of course is the low reward high risk fighters being kept out of the loop so safeguards would be needed.

1 belt could work but the belt-holders activity and choices would always be questioned. I vote for a points system which is universal in any given division. We could see how many points a fighter had and whomever had the points gets the shot. We'd see who has to fight who to get ahead in the rankings.

 

I go back and forth on this issue...

If there is only one belt then bunch of guys scramble for the top mandatory spot and the champion fights 1-2 times a year. Unfortunately nobody knows who these up-comers are because you have no idea who to pay attention to until they hold the belt. Having multiple belts helps to highlight deserving fighters and makes unification bouts which are more exciting then just random highly ranked guys fighting each other.

There's also the reason the secondary title organizations were formed in the first place. Corruption! One title was formed in order to facilitate a specific promoter *cough* King *cough* while other titles were formed because worthy challengers were kept out of the top rankings by the original corrupt organizations who would refuse to rank them highly enough to become mandatories or kept them out of mandatory tournaments.

So in the end you can either hope fighters fight each other, one belt or many there will always be guys who avoid fighting other guys.

 

With only 1 champ there would be fewer 12 round fights. Do you really need a sanctioning org. to tell you who the best is?

 

There will be only one!!!!!!!

 

for the health of the fighters i'm not entirely sure that's such a bad thing.

 

I think boxing just needs to be re-organized completely. Tell me if anyone agrees with this:

I think every year there should be a tournament at the end of the year to determine the world champion. All fights before the championship would be to determine rankings and get fighters into the tournament. That means year round fighters can fight whoever they want and at the pace they want, but at the end of the year they better have fought somebody good to warrant a go at the championship. The guy who wins should get the most money.

I believe this provides incentive for the best to fight each other, and makes it fair. How many times does it happen that the worse fighter demands 70-30 and fights don't get made. It would also establish a real world champion and let everyone have a go at it. It would also allow for more fluidity among the top ranks because fighters can't cherry pick.