One or the other

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Jel, Feb 17, 2020.


Which one do you choose?

  1. 17 weight classes with one champ per division

    95.5%
  2. Original 8 weight classes with all the modern belts

    4.5%
  1. Jel

    Jel Reserving the right to be inconsistent Full Member

    3,274
    4,324
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 20, 2017
    You have a choice between one of the following:
    All the modern weight classes but only one world title per division OR the original 8 weight classes with split world titles.

    Which do you choose?
     
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  2. Titan1

    Titan1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,456
    487
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 18, 2004
    former.
     
    KasimirKid likes this.
  3. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails Full Member

    6,812
    10,579
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Jul 25, 2015
    One title per weight class, for me.
     
  4. Glass City Cobra

    Glass City Cobra Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,481
    3,328
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 6, 2017
    Having 4 "champions" in each weight class is like having 4 separate NFL or NBA championships. You wouldn't do it in any other sport. Yet the supposedly manliest of sports has allowed such a nonsensical idea to emerge. The promoters encourage it and the fans embrace it! It's like we're living in a black mirror episode.
     
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    39,777
    2,209
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 3, 2007
    You can have as many weight classes as you want... but only one man in each division gets to call himself “ Champ”... it’s actually embarrassing when a non boxing fan asks me who the heavyweight champion of the world is..... what do I say ???
     
  6. Seamus

    Seamus Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    41,269
    10,329
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 11, 2005
    I thought weight classes were an artificial construct created to keep the small fighter down?
     
    PhillyPhan69 likes this.
  7. Fergy

    Fergy Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,979
    5,433
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 8, 2017
    You'll be there all day Mr Magoo!
    Trying to explain how there's a certain number of heavyweight champ s, but only one s the real champ, but sometimes two champs have to fight to produce one champ???
    I've tried explaining to my wife but somehow she doesn't get it!!
     
    Flash24 likes this.
  8. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    34,310
    9,519
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    And with reasonably busy champions.

    I look back to the days of my youth and two world titles, the WBC and WBA and think jeez it wasn't actually that bad was it LOL
     
  9. Jel

    Jel Reserving the right to be inconsistent Full Member

    3,274
    4,324
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 20, 2017
    I dream of just two world titles per division!
     
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  10. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    34,310
    9,519
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005

    Hahaha!!

    You know on the good side we got to see some good fights. Good challengers got title shots pretty quickly on the whole. Chandler and Pintor pumping the bantams, Spinks/Mustafa/Braxton/Saad the light heavies etc. Some fun lightweight action too for titles.

    Split titles also gave Duran the chance at resurrection. Instead of having to face Hearns he fought the B side titleist and won impressively which directly led to his fight with Marvin Hagler.
     
    Jel likes this.
  11. META5

    META5 Active Member Full Member

    568
    194
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 28, 2005
    8 weight divisions and 15 round same day weigh in fights.

    Anything else is a game of politricks and unfair advantages in my eyes.
     
    JC40 and scartissue like this.
  12. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,600
    2,554
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    Having one title per division, under a single, governing-body, would be immeasurably better than any scenario, in which a collection of self-appointed and self-interested consortia carve up the sport.
     
  13. JackSilver

    JackSilver Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,369
    2,151
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Jun 24, 2017
    Yeah and so what was your answer?
     
  14. scartissue

    scartissue Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,315
    2,365
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 2, 2006
    Nope, just created to line the pockets of the Alphabet boys with their sanctioning fees.
     
  15. scartissue

    scartissue Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,315
    2,365
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 2, 2006
    We got to see good fights before the split titles too. We watched **** Tiger v Henry Hank, Floyd Patterson v Jerry Quarry, Armando Muniz v Ernie Lopez, etc. But back then we called them 10 rounders. One champ bred competition amongst the contenders. Today, you just wait to be called for your title shot. Back then, if you sit on your laurels, you would slip out of the top 10 due to inactivity. Such was the competition. Your mention of Jeff Chandler reminded me of something that also bugged me about the Alphabet boys. The WBA was thrusting all their politics at these champs in the guise of inferior challengers who met the financial/political requirements. And during Chandler's reign he fought Oscar Muniz in a non-title. It was only a non-title because Muniz, despite a record something like 35-3 against good competition, couldn't even buy a rating (well, I'm sure he could if he knew the right bag-men in the WBA). Yet, Miguel Iriarte of Panama - one of the favored countries of the WBA - was their #1 contender. Chandler was pissed at this challenge as Iriarte was forced down their throats. Chandler later said he was amazed because Iriarte actually didn't even know how to fight. Incidentally, Muniz beat Chandler in that non-title 10 rounder, which really proved what a mockery those WBA ratings were, and got himself a title shot on his worth.

    Sorry guys, I'm on my soapbox. To answer the question, I guess I would take less champs, which would be less Alphabets involved. Although not a fan of all those weight classes which were solely created to money-spin, if this was the only option I would go for this scenario - with a proviso (you knew there was going to be one). I would insist that all champs put their titles on the line at least 3 times a year. No more of this fighting once or twice a year. If you are a champ then you are obligated to put that title on the line. And believe me, one would start seeing a resurgence in competition.
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement