One or the other

I don't have a major problem with the number of weight divisions. You could probably condense them into a dozen and still maintain fighter safety, but if you keep the Classic 8 divisions there is a need for intermediate divisions. 147 to 160 for example is a big jump in one go; Kell Brook was a big welter who took a career shortening beating at middle where he was just too small for Golovkin, who isn't even a big middleweight.

As much as the concept of one champion per division is a noble one, that in itself would be problematic in today's two fight per year schedules. In that sort of environment though I guess regional and national championships become more significant again.

 

One champ per division...seriously what sport has 3-4 champions and expects to be taken seriously. I personally don’t mind the ******* weight divisions and think it balances out a lot of issues. So count me in as a 1 champ per division guy

 

it really has complicated the hell out of the sport. Not to mention diluted the true value of being a champion. In every division there should be ONE world champion, ONE national champion and ONE regional or state champion champion. If we were to add up all the world, National, regional titles there are probably literally hundreds of belts out there. Hell there are even some fighters with losing records who are holding one plastic belt or another..

 

I think my comment makes it rather self explanatory

 

Simple maths dictated my answer.
17x1=17
8x4=32
32>17, but we want less champions in boxing today. So one champ per weight it is!

 

math is truth...I assume maths is fairly similar?

 

Great post mate. That's what I miss the most. Contenders actually fighting each other to improve their ranking. Nowadays fighters beat hand picked opponents, get a 20-0 type record and wait until its their turn to get an undeserved title shot from one of the many alphabet champions. The new way is definitely better for the fighters as in the old days some champions ducked their best contenders and got away with it but as a fan I have to admit to preferring the old way. You dont see fights like the ones you mentioned or fights like Griffith vs Briscoe, Griffith vs Mundine or Briscoe vs Mundine these days. Guys like Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Lyle, Shavers and Jimmy Young all fought each other in what were often memorable bouts. It just doesnt happen anymore. A shame.

Cheers All.

 

Lol, Great as usual JT. But the difference was those fighters usually would end up fighting each other.

 

Hi mate, I reckon there are WAY too many small divisions. Super middleweight and Cruiser weight would be the only extra divisions I would keep. It was always an incredibly difficult jump from 160 to 175 historically. Ditto from light heavy to heavyweight.

Spot on as far as regional titles actually meaning something in the old days. Here in Oz it usually went state title level, Australian title level then Commonwealth champion level. Once proven at commonwealth level a fighter would think about fighting other contenders and trying to get himself a world title shot.

Cheers Mate.

 

I don't think we need more than two divisions below bantam, ie flyweight and one more. The pool of fighters gets very shallow down there, and while it's nice to be fair to everyone there comes a point where they just need to eat a bit more steak and fight at a proper weight.

I still think that progressively working through (using a British fighter as an example) British/Commonwealth/European level is the best way of developing a world class fighter. Even Lennox Lewis took that route, winning a Lonsdale belt along the way and beating world ranked Gary Mason. Compare to say Anthony Yarde, who feasted on inter-continental belt comp and was then thrown in with Kovalev having never gone past 7 rounds. Belts unfortunately are used as gimmicks these days, as opposed to being legitimate achievements in their own right.

 

I don't think there should be any weight class below flyweight. Flyweight should be it. Of course its to create more sanctioning fees for the alphabet groups but when there is 3 pounds between weight classes then it's just greed. Is it really a creation due to the size of the fighter? Let's not forget that Miguel Canto was 5'1", Jimmy Wilde weighed around 100 pounds for many of his fights and that Pascual Perez was 4'11" and I think he was around 108 for his final fight at the age of 38. And all three of those guys are usually considered in top 10 lists at flyweight. So it was never about the fighter. Let's just call it greed.