Would you prefer one belt per weight division?

Thats a bs excuse.

A fighter wouldn't get frozen out.

They would just have to concede to the champion to make the fight happen.

 

yes

 

It would be better if it was just the Original 3. WBA, WBC, AND IBF.

 

I can't really think of a single benefit to having so many belts.

Seems like it clearly just results in fighters ducking each other so they can go after an easier belt.

 

Soon every boxer will have a belt.

 

Wishful thinking... but it would make the best fight the best. People wouldn't frown on losses so much either...

 

Meh, the best HW belt is the prestigious IDQ (Inactive Drama Queen) belt currently held by Fury, with the winner of Haye and Wilder to be the mandatory. It's usually fought for over twitter and social media rather than in the ring.

 

But fair matchmaking won't exist as long as fighters are paid for their celebrity more than their success. In every other individual sport from tennis to cycling to snooker there's a set matchmaking structure with rankings and prize money based on level of success. Why can't fans like you understand that because that doesn't exist in boxing we get so many **** matchups? If we did have that the fighters who sell more tickets would get paid less than they might in the current system to allow talented but less marquee fighters opportunities to get fights and garner higher purses. But that's a good thing. Roger Federer doesn't whine that despite bringing in more fans and TV viewers he'll make less losing a quarter final match than the player who won the semi-final. It's necessary if matches are going to be credible and the sport's going to have any logic as a whole. That's what boxing needs if we're going to consistently have fair, sensible matches and if boxing's going to have long-term health. Basically a league instead of promoters. And that would have to involve a single governing body running boxing from top to bottom. If you think anything less is acceptable you have to accept **** fights like Danny Garcia-Salka, and great fights often only being great names and illusions coming at the wrong time.

 

Tennis is somewhat different because because of the toll boxing can take on participants they really only want to fight a limited amount of times each year, so the matchmaking does work to try to make the most of those fewer opportunities.

Completely agree that there needs to be a more credible consistent structure in place to ensure that meaningful fights are made often enough and that rankings actually reflect fighters level more so than their promotional backing. One thing I can say is that I'm sick of reading threads about Haye and Wilder ... credit to them for what they've done but they really need to play their hands now or just leave the game to others.

 

It's both.

3 major belts isn't an issue
4 major belts is problematic
5 major belts (one computerized results ranked), 1 with a regular and super title,
one with interim, regular and emeritus, is a very big issue.

I'd say 3 with no caveats...... then the champions of the 3 round robin. Anything
beyond that gets loopy.

 

I agree but as you said, we dont have central governing body and thus we can not implement such a system.
(This sport is so ****ing frustrating...)

 

If only.
I love the fight game and probably always will, but i'm becoming increasingly disillusioned.
I'm sick of average or even worse than average fighters strutting around being able to call themselves world champions, it's a complete and utter farce.
Oh for there only to be one recognized champion and a list of contenders ranked 1 to 10 in each division and the champion being made to fight his mandatory.
There's always been a modicum of ducking and sidestepping in the game even back in the halcyon days but now it's an epidemic.

 

hagler had to have 50 fights agreeing to fight in his opponents backyard and fought about 6 or 7 fights against opponents in the top 10 and still could not get a title shot until he was mandatory v antuerfermo and minter.

herol graham from memory was a unbeaten mandatory light middle contender for ages but was frozen out and was in the who needs him club and was forced to move up in weight to try and get a title shot.

the then unherealded marquez was hameds mandatory for over 2 years / and never got a sniff as he did not bring any money at the time / marquez had to waste 2 years of his prime time without ever getting the fight v hamed / and this with 4 belts available.

if the 70s and early to mid 80s you either had to be a don king fighter or fight a don king fighter or there was no way you were ever fighting for the heavyweight title and if you did get a belt you had to fight don king mandatorys non stop.

 

The first example you quoted is a terrific example of what I mean. imagine if after all that Hagler said he'd only fight Antuofermo for 40% minimum.

The others are examples of why multiple belts are a problem, those fighters were able to pursue other directions rather than continually chase the champion. That **** is what needs to stop.

 

Obviously boxers in a 'league' system would only compete 4 or so times a year so it would be different than the systems of other sports, and would probably be pretty tricky. But if one governing body's scheduling everything they should be able to find something that works well enough and it would be the same for everyone. I want to believe that things are so bad with fighters ducking and promoters protecting them that there's an opportunity for an alternative.