To Ignore, Or Not To Ignore, The Alphabet Title Gang In Boxing

So ignore the Mother, because the children are OK?

The WBC once lost a court case that should of bankrupted them, due to their corruption (Rocchigiani)...

The IBF was so corrupt their then leader and founder Honest Bob Lee did time...

The WBF's have at one time or another considered Johnny Nelson, a near 50 year old Aussie Joe and Audley Harrison Heavyweight Champions of the World...

 

Don't look at the belt, look at the match-up.

Morales/Mattyhsse is a good fight. Magee/Barboza was a **** fight.

 

Forget about mandatories, in the majority of cases fighters would like to prove themselves vs the best and if this means there wasn't a belt on the line, they would still chase them fighters rather than being forced into fighting them. There a lot worse mandatories than good mandatories imo so in general I think they can hold back the big fights because boxers are unwilling to lose that status as 'world champion' by vacating.

Rob, you have to admit that if there was just one belt per weight, the sport would be a lot, lot more intriguing. You would have to consistently fight the best just to have a shot at the title. Imagine someone like Nicky Cook for example, if there had only been 1 belt he would never in a million years get another chance after his injury lay off. He'd likely be rankede between 100-150 in what is primarily a weak division.

I have to say I do like unification fights and seeing fighters wanting to prove themselves as no.1 in a division but unifictions don't always do this. Wlad/Haye is a an example of how they should work, Bradley/Khan would have been another. But at welterweight for example, I'm sure everyone respects Ortiz more for defending vs Mayweather than for chasing another title vs the likes of Senchenko & Zaveck.

Pretty long winded post which basically can be summed up by saying I don't support the numerous ABC belts and feel they cause more pointless, one sided fights in the sport than creating exciting fights we wouldn't have seen otherwise.

 

if the ring introduced mandos it would work. but look at poonsowat wongjongham. wins the ring title but fights **** for a year.

 

No it wouldn't. They'd end up having to strip champs and be no better that the rest of the alphabet clowns. They are a magazine doing the best they can under the circumstances.

 

Of course we should ignore the abc titles, but even "proper" boxing fans are all too quick to get sucked in when one of their favourite fighters wins one of these bogus titles.

How many people on here jumped on the "Well done Brian Magee for winning a World title" type thread? It seems we're happy to recognise the belts when it suits us...

 

Not me, in fact I started a whinging thread about the quality of his opponent....;O)

 

Although I think the rankings at 140 should read Bradley first, Khan second the situation isn't to do with the "man who beat the man".

Bradley was ranked number 1, he wasn't the Ring champ, neither Khan nor Bradley is "the man" yet according to The Ring, they are just ranking the fighters as they see it. To be champ you have to beat "the man", to be ranked number 1 you don't, you just have to be considered the better fighter/ have a better record in the opinion of those doing the ranking.

 

And that's the problem with The Ring's system though. It's hypocritical. If to become champion, you have to beat the man then surely to be higher ranked than someone, you should have to beat them?

 

But then what's this fascination with having a lineal champion if the rankings aren't lineal as well?

 

Thats never been the case. The fighter is ranked on ability, who he has beat and how. Rankings have never been lineal in that respect.

If the number 4 contender loses in an upset to a journeyman, does the jouneyman become the #4? No chance, the contender moves down, the journeyman moves up and the number 5 contender gets the number 4 slot.

 

But that's what I mean, that's why it's flawed. At the moment it's "to be champion, you have to beat the champion" yet "to be #1 all you have to do is beat slightly better opposition than #2.."