Should boxers have to beat the #1 contender to get a shot at the champ?

In a perfect World...yes.

 

Well, seeing how there are at least four heavyweight titles, that should equate to four number one contenders.So yes, you should beat one of them to get a title shot.

 

Definately, we just had an issue on the weekend in the UK where a guy called Gavin Reese who isnt even ranked in the top 15 at 140 got a world title shot against M'Baye. Now he won and credit to the guy but he wouldnt have even got the shot if it wasnt for corrupt governing bodies and powerful promoters. Other more deserving contenders end up getting screwed who are better and would have also won, its a discrace.


In my opinion yuo should atleast be top 3 or 5.

 

Yes, they should definately have to beat the #1 or at least the next highest available contender if the #1 is injured or otherwise unavailable.

 

No, the title holders wouldn't be too busy then. I think that any fight from
top 10 is legitimate. The #1 spot is reserved for mandatory and the
mandatory should be forced at least once per year. Also there should be at
least one more fight for the title from other top ten contender or the
unification or other significant fight with recognized name from different division.

I think it would be great if once per each 5 years there would be
mandatory unification turnament between all title holders.

 

Rees was 26-0, ranked number 1 challenger by the WBO at 130lbs and had a 50% KO ratio. At the time of the fight he was ranked number 11 by the WBA. Now he is the WBA Champion of the World. :nut

Do you consider losers at welterweight Vernon Forrest and Baldomir to be worthy as 154lb WBC title challengers? atsch Cos I don't!!

Do you like IBO and "Ring" champions who hide from the mandatory challengers?

 

Agreed. If you were the #1 contender for all the belts you are going to be really busy. Hence, the next highest available contender would be sensible. Better still, just make it the one belt and you won't have this problem unless of course he is injured but, there will be no dispute as to who is the best.

 

"Should boxers have to beat the #1 contender to get a shot at the champ?"

Don King will have you wacked for even suggesting such a thing! It's boxing business blasphemy!!!

 

Which #1 is the big problem. Which belt? RIng? Crooked ABC? But short answer, abso-****in-lutely!!

 

I strongly dissagree. It would make it even harder to have a unification bout. Belt holders don't get ranked high by the other sactioning bodies. So under your scenario, if the WBC champ wanted to fight the WBA champ in a unification bout, then the WBC champ would have to beat the WBA #1 contender and the WBA champ would have to WBC #1 contender first.

 

i personally am not a fan of allowing champions to fight anyone other than the #1 contender. the champion is just that the best fighter in the division. and should defen against the best of the rest. when that #1 gets knocked off he should have to work his way back. that would eliminate all of the bull**** that goes on today.
contrary to what many think when they say that a champion deserves an easy fight every now and then champions shoud be obligated to fight the number 1 each and every defense. that fighter at #1 EARNED that distinction, and should not haved to wait for an inferior or lower ranked fighter to get a shot first.

just read reg's post. unification should be the only exception.

 

Lennox Lewis wouldn't have fought Mike Tyson. Tyson was #2 and Wlad was #1.

 

Then Apollo Creed wouldn't have given Rocky a title-shot