Boxing organisations and belts

What is your solution to these problems in the sport we all love?

Ideas you think would not only work but are realistic, not just shutting 3 organisations down and having 1 belt holder at each weight, though this would be the best, it just isn't going to happen over night. What steps can boxing make???

Just do what I do. Acknowledge the Ring Title champion as THE champion

Time sharing.

The four major organisations agree that, for a five year period, one will sanction fights from heavy down to supermiddle, one will take middle down to lightwelter, etc., etc. This applies to all fights at the weights, from prelims up to title fights.

At the end of five years each organisation takes a different set of weight divisions but inherits the rankings of the previous organisation.

This way, the fat cats stay fat and we get one champ per division.

HumanWindmill wrote:Time sharing.

The four major organisations agree that, for a five year period, one will sanction fights from heavy down to supermiddle, one will take middle down to lightwelter, etc., etc. This applies to all fights at the weights, from prelims up to title fights.

At the end of five years each organisation takes a different set of weight divisions but inherits the rankings of the previous organisation.

This way, the fat cats stay fat and we get one champ per division.

Why would they agree to split their earnings?

Steffan wrote:Just do what I do. Acknowledge the Ring Title champion as THE champion

Even this does not always work. In theory a fighter can be the ring champ by beating the man then fight tomato cans. Having said that it is the best option at the moment.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Time sharing.

The four major organisations agree that, for a five year period, one will sanction fights from heavy down to supermiddle, one will take middle down to lightwelter, etc., etc. This applies to all fights at the weights, from prelims up to title fights.

At the end of five years each organisation takes a different set of weight divisions but inherits the rankings of the previous organisation.

This way, the fat cats stay fat and we get one champ per division.

Why would they agree to split their earnings?

They wouldn't need to.

Each sanctioning body would draw all sanctioning fees for fights fought across their domain. At the moment, each has a quarter share.

If you are assuming that fewer title fights will result in loss of revenue I'd argue that the opposite might be true. Meaningful fights for a single title, with many other fights between leading contenders, might very well put boxing back in the mainstream and generate more money.

Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

HumanWindmill wrote:They wouldn't need to.

Each sanctioning body would draw all sanctioning fees for fights fought across their domain. At the moment, each has a quarter share.

No they don't. If two sanction a single fight they get 2x fees. Also they are sanctioning 4x the amount of title fights.

If one only gets Super Middleweight up they lose out on all fees they would have got at lower weights.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:They wouldn't need to.

Each sanctioning body would draw all sanctioning fees for fights fought across their domain. At the moment, each has a quarter share.

No they don't. If two sanction a single fight they get 2x fees. Also they are sanctioning 4x the amount of title fights.

If one only gets Super Middleweight up they lose out on all fees they would have got at lower weights.

And how often does that happen ?

It would also help if we could get rid of all these Diamond Belts, WBC International Belts...etc, and limit the WBA to just one belt per division.

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

I actually LOL'd

jay-z wrote:

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

I actually LOL'd

You like The Ring belts?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:They wouldn't need to.

Each sanctioning body would draw all sanctioning fees for fights fought across their domain. At the moment, each has a quarter share.

No they don't. If two sanction a single fight they get 2x fees. Also they are sanctioning 4x the amount of title fights.

If one only gets Super Middleweight up they lose out on all fees they would have got at lower weights.

And how often does that happen ?

More often than never.

But doesn't take away from the fact there are more title fights than their would be with only one belt per division, so they would be splitting their revenue.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:They wouldn't need to.

Each sanctioning body would draw all sanctioning fees for fights fought across their domain. At the moment, each has a quarter share.

No they don't. If two sanction a single fight they get 2x fees. Also they are sanctioning 4x the amount of title fights.

If one only gets Super Middleweight up they lose out on all fees they would have got at lower weights.

And how often does that happen ?

More often than never.

But doesn't take away from the fact there are more title fights than their would be with only one belt per division, so they would be splitting their revenue.

I already covered that point but, hey, it's just an idea.

Perhaps you have a better one ?

HumanWindmill wrote:I already covered that point but, hey, it's just an idea.

Perhaps you have a better one ?

No, but I've read hundreds of these threads and never seen a workable solution yet.

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

Current Ring champions include:

Wladimir Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins
Sergio Martinez
Juan Manuel Marquez
plus The winner of Froch v Ward

Fair better than the WBO (Warren Boxing Association) title or the WBA champ/WBA super champ/WBA superduper champ I would say

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I already covered that point but, hey, it's just an idea.

Perhaps you have a better one ?

No, but I've read hundreds of these threads and never seen a workable solution yet.

Very good reason to keep looking for solutions, I would have thought, though I suppose it depends on whether a person would prefer to build up or tear down.

Atila wrote:

jay-z wrote:

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

I actually LOL'd

You like The Ring belts?

not at all mate..

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I already covered that point but, hey, it's just an idea.

Perhaps you have a better one ?

No, but I've read hundreds of these threads and never seen a workable solution yet.

Very good reason to keep looking for solutions, I would have thought, though I suppose it depends on whether a person would prefer to build up or tear down.

No need to get an attitude, I just critiqued the idea, it wasn't personal. I've learnt to accept it's here to stay and focus on the fights not the titles.

See...... I knew it, besides everyone knowing the organisations and belts are messed up, I knew we all wouldn't be on the same page.

Boxing can't move forward if we aren't all in agreement, from the fans to organisations...

Personally im not that bothered about the different titles. I would just rather go back to the old weight system. Thats how the best fights would come about

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I already covered that point but, hey, it's just an idea.

Perhaps you have a better one ?

No, but I've read hundreds of these threads and never seen a workable solution yet.

Very good reason to keep looking for solutions, I would have thought, though I suppose it depends on whether a person would prefer to build up or tear down.

No need to get an attitude, I just critiqued the idea, it wasn't personal. I've learnt to accept it's here to stay and focus on the fights not the titles.

What attitude ? It was a general point.

You feeling especially obnoxious and aggressive ? If so, it might serve you better to check a person's motive for writing what he does before jumping in with both feet. The point is that fight fans have been complaining for thirty odd years about proliferation of belts, but we all spend time whining instead of coming up with constructive ideas and lobbying TV companies, etc.

Looked to me like you were annoyed at me for saying I didn't think the idea was feasible. Money rules, if the fighters are willing to pay to be able to say they are fighting for a title they will exist. Have a good evening.

Hence we go back to my point. Boxing will never get rid of the organisations now. Too much politics and legality. The weights though we could scrap I reckon without too much agro from the moneymen

Steffan wrote:

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

Current Ring champions include:

Wladimir Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins
Sergio Martinez
Juan Manuel Marquez
plus The winner of Froch v Ward

Fair better than the WBO (Warren Boxing Association) title or the WBA champ/WBA super champ/WBA superduper champ I would say

I can see the advantages of having the Ring belt to some fighters. They never have to make a mandatory, can fight who they want and can fight as infrequently as they want because they'll never be stripped.

Scottrf wrote:Looked to me like you were annoyed at me for saying I didn't think the idea was feasible. Money rules, if the fighters are willing to pay to be able to say they are fighting for a title they will exist. Have a good evening.

That's your way of saying you were wrong, is it ?

Have a good evening.

Atila wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

Current Ring champions include:

Wladimir Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins
Sergio Martinez
Juan Manuel Marquez
plus The winner of Froch v Ward

Fair better than the WBO (Warren Boxing Association) title or the WBA champ/WBA super champ/WBA superduper champ I would say

I can see the advantages of having the Ring belt to some fighters. They never have to make a mandatory, can fight who they want and can fight as infrequently as they want because they'll never be stripped.

Ok then 'Mr I hate the Ring title' what alternative do you propose?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Looked to me like you were annoyed at me for saying I didn't think the idea was feasible. Money rules, if the fighters are willing to pay to be able to say they are fighting for a title they will exist. Have a good evening.

That's your way of saying you were wrong, is it ?

Have a good evening.

That's my way of not getting into an argument. I don't think I was wrong.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Looked to me like you were annoyed at me for saying I didn't think the idea was feasible. Money rules, if the fighters are willing to pay to be able to say they are fighting for a title they will exist. Have a good evening.

That's your way of saying you were wrong, is it ?

Have a good evening.

That's my way of not getting into an argument. I don't think I was wrong.

So it's more likely that I'm lying than it is that you misjudged what I wrote ?

I see.

You don't have to be lying for us to disagree on what constitutes an attitude. I think you were getting at me for criticising your idea rather than coming up with my own. I like your posts Windy and don't want to argue over something so unimportant.

Scottrf wrote:You don't have to be lying for us to disagree on what constitutes an attitude. I think you were getting at me for criticising your idea rather than coming up with my own. I like your posts Windy and don't want to argue over something so unimportant.

Neither do I.

I find your idea a very interesting one, Windy, and certainly can't come up with anything better at this moment in time.

Any chance of an Arab billionaire buying them all out, amalgamating them and making us all happy?

Steffan wrote:

Atila wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

Current Ring champions include:

Wladimir Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins
Sergio Martinez
Juan Manuel Marquez
plus The winner of Froch v Ward

Fair better than the WBO (Warren Boxing Association) title or the WBA champ/WBA super champ/WBA superduper champ I would say

I can see the advantages of having the Ring belt to some fighters. They never have to make a mandatory, can fight who they want and can fight as infrequently as they want because they'll never be stripped.

Ok then 'Mr I hate the Ring title' what alternative do you propose?

We can go around and around on this Steffan but I just don't like the idea of a sport being run by a magazine, I think it's unrealistic. If tomorrow De La Hoya sold the magazine to Colonel Gaddafi, would you be happy with a dictator running boxing?

For me change will only come if it is driven by the TV companies, you only have to look at Sky over here, some time ago they told promoters they had enough of the IBO, WBU, WBF intercontinental guff they were serving up and it ended pretty much overnight. It is not until HBO and Showtime do similar that we will see any end to this nonsense, waiting for the governing bodies to get their own house in order or work collaboratively is akin to expecting turkies to vote for christmas.

What happens in the unlikely event this happens is anyone's guess, do they pitch in with one of the current governing bodies and say they will not recognise or show any of the others, do they start a new body and scrap the others, who knows. However something needs to be done because the system is out of control and shows every indiction of getting worse if the current penchant for interim, emeritus and champions in recess' is indicative of how things will be moving forward.

Fists of Fury wrote:
Any chance of an Arab billionaire buying them all out, amalgamating them and making us all happy?

There it is !

rowley wrote:For me change will only come if it is driven by the TV companies, you only have to look at Sky over here, some time ago they told promoters they had enough of the IBO, WBU, WBF intercontinental guff they were serving up and it ended pretty much overnight. It is not until HBO and Showtime do similar that we will see any end to this nonsense, waiting for the governing bodies to get their own house in order or work collaboratively is akin to expecting turkies to vote for christmas.

Yep, can't be driven by the organisations themselves, but if the TV companies forced it perhaps it could. But when they get to call a fight a 'World Title' and it might push up their numbers, is it in their best interests either? The superstar boxers could support it, but fringe contenders who get a chance to fight for a title wouldn't.

Atila wrote:We can go around and around on this Steffan but I just don't like the idea of a sport being run by a magazine, I think it's unrealistic. If tomorrow De La Hoya sold the magazine to Colonel Gaddafi, would you be happy with a dictator running boxing?

Ok fair enough. But I dont think the Ring Magazine is quite the dictatorship you make it out to be in my opinion. I wasnt saying it should be in charge of boxing but I generally accept the Ring holder as the man. Thats just me though. I think Gaddafi is too busy fighting all the UN nations that sold him the arms in the first place to be running boxing though. Prehaps we could get Mugabe to have a look at shaping things up

Nothing can be done. The belts sell the fights to the general public but do nothing but annoy proper boxing fans. Boxing doesn't care about us because we will buy the fights and watch them because we are hardcore fans.

Personally I would like to see the number of weights trimmed down maybe even back down to 8.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:
Any chance of an Arab billionaire buying them all out, amalgamating them and making us all happy?

There it is !

Worryingly, it is probably the best chance we have of our wishes being granted.

Does anyone have Sheikh Mansour's contact details?

Fists of Fury wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:
Any chance of an Arab billionaire buying them all out, amalgamating them and making us all happy?

There it is !

Worryingly, it is probably the best chance we have of our wishes being granted.

Does anyone have Sheikh Mansour's contact details?

Surprised you haven't done a Q & A with him.

I'm away, fellas, so I'll leave you all to solve this one in the sure and certain knowledge that I'll awaken to a brand new dawn for boxing tomorrow.

Have a good one, everyone.

Night mate.

Nos da Windy

Steffan wrote:

Atila wrote:We can go around and around on this Steffan but I just don't like the idea of a sport being run by a magazine, I think it's unrealistic. If tomorrow De La Hoya sold the magazine to Colonel Gaddafi, would you be happy with a dictator running boxing?

Ok fair enough. But I dont think the Ring Magazine is quite the dictatorship you make it out to be in my opinion. I wasnt saying it should be in charge of boxing but I generally accept the Ring holder as the man. Thats just me though. I think Gaddafi is too busy fighting all the UN nations that sold him the arms in the first place to be running boxing though. Prehaps we could get Mugabe to have a look at shaping things up

Wasn't Idi Amin a boxer? If he was, he would have been a perfect dictator for boxing. I could imagine him and Don King getting into an argument, King getting loud and screaming but then quieting down when Amin threatened to eat his liver.

Steffan wrote:

Atila wrote:Ignore The Ring and its stupid rankings and belts, it's just a magazine belonging to a fighter.

Current Ring champions include:

Wladimir Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins
Sergio Martinez
Juan Manuel Marquez
plus The winner of Froch v Ward

Fair better than the WBO (Warren Boxing Association) title or the WBA champ/WBA super champ/WBA superduper champ I would say

That'd be the WBA Stef. But other than that, you're right. WBC are as bad though.