When the Alphabet Soup Commissions Get Silly with titles..

To be honest, I don't know who holds what title these days. Titles count for almost nothing now, and I don't even know what belts Floyd holds.

It was bad enough when we had the WBC, WBA and later the IBF, but it's gotten out of control with the WBO gaining traction over the last 20 odd years, and the introduction of emeritus champs, super champs, interim champs. I don't even know what these titles represent.

Then there is the other minor sanctioning bodies as well. Just madness. Anyone want to start a boxing sanctioning body?

 

I agree. I remember when we started with 2 HW champs from the WBC/WBA in the late 70's or early 80's. I was upset. I thought it demeaned the HW title and heralded the end of Boxing...at least as the respected sport it once was. Now we have 3 champs in each division? Who is the real champ? C'mon now...this is ridiculous! WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF/ABC etc..Looks go back to the way it used to be, one champion per division. One fighter that all the others try to beat to become the champion. It's watered down today and that's not good. Money ruins everything and it's mostly about money. Prestige? What's that?

 

I agree that it should be one champ per division and would go a step further by having fewer weight classes (e.g., no straw weight [105], super flyweight [115] and super bantam[122]. Championships will be determined in the ring, not in some wealthy fat cat's office. Mandatory matches for all Top Ten candidates.

 

I'm totally for one World champ per weight. It might sound like sour grapes from me because my old fella just missed out on winning a title back in the 60's but all these titles has devalued the meaning of "world" champ. These days and you've only got to look at the general and British forums to read some of the **** that comes out. Some of the casual fans consider any prospect who doesn't win a title to be a fraud, failure or even bum. Even fighters who do win "world" titles but then get beat by another champ are considered hype jobs. I'm quite disillusioned by it all. It's also devalued national titles where fighters skip those to chase all the other various trinkets that are flying about.

 

The reality is, since the creation of a Light Heavyweight division in the early part of the 20th Century, but for a short period in the late 1940's there have never been just eight champions in eight divisions.

Yes things were 'better', or rather a bit easier to work out as to who was the best, but with racial and promotional prejudice just to begin with, boxing history has always 'stunk' a bit when crowning 'World Champions'.

If having an alphabet belt gets a fighter a bit more money, then overall surely it is a good thing? But when I think of a 'World Champion', I now use the phrase 'Generally Recognized World Champion'. That way you can remove 80% of alphabet title holders from the picture, and although a useful tool you do not worry about the strict and sometimes contradictory rules of 'lineage'.

Although not perfect, that is the way I keep sane, whilst trying to figure out who has the strongest claim to being called a 'World Champion'.

 

15 rounders is a great idea - the fact that we don't have them anymore is likely the reason why there are so many over aged champs (if I may dare use such a term) nowadays. While fighters today aren't conditioned for that type of challenge, it would be great if states would allow them the option of going the full distance. I wonder how many would agree to such a stipulation.

 

They need to straighten out this mess, but it will never happen, because the people involved are too shady and ridiculous.Looking back, the IBF never should have been created in the first place.:good