Anybody else not want one champion per division ???

Don't get me wrong but I hate the situation now....But ideally i'd rather have 2 not 1 champ per division..

My favorite era was the 80's...I was lucky enough to be able to watch almost a world title fight every week whether it be on cable or subscription.....Curry one week, Camacho the next week, Sanchez, Chavez, Chandler, Mancini etc etc...

for most of the 80's there were two titles the IBF was in it's infancy later on..

It was great with two champions the champs still had to fight the cream and with the far east basically owning super bantam downwards and being off stream in the main...you got to see more world title fights and they meant something...

With two champions a division you can still have the trailblazing champion someone who owns their division...we all knew sanchez was the man and not Pedroza although pedroza was a respected champion....

The problem with one champ per division is if they all fight relatively close together you could be three months without a fight of note..

With two champs and not the crazy position we have now...world titles would mean something again.......

Anybody else not want one champion per division again..

I see what you mean, Truss, but I believe it's a matter of perception.

Back in the day, a fight between the top two contenders was big news and required no title to sell it. Likewise, the situation whereby all the great lightheavies of the '50s were engaged in an almost constant round robin.

I know I'm an old stick - in - the - mud, but I'd give my eye teeth, ( if I still had them, ) to see one champ per division again, even though the ' lineal ' concept has always been flawed.

It also makes unification fights more interesting. Now with 4 belts it looks like semi finalists and then finals to find the supreme champion. In that case why not have 8 champs and have quater finals, semi and then a finals.

Sorry Truss. Not for me. One champ per division. If you want more belts, have the WBC/A/O IBF etc hold divisional championship with their belt holder not recognised as champ.

Personaly i like the idea of theyre being one champion of the world. It would mean a whole lot more to be "the" champion of the world as opposed to being one of the champions in your division. Also this way ducking fights would not be an issue, you couldnt have a champion say i wont fight this guy when i can fight someone else. You would have the no.1 contender getting a crack at the one and only champion! i know it is wishful thinking and there may be some issues with this but i feel right now with so many diffrent belts avaliable it really devalues holding one.

Whilst there is a lot of dewy eyed nostalgai about the one belt per division era that does not really stand up to analysis as good fighters could still be shut out due to their lack of mob ties or colour I am still with Windy in saying I much prefer to have one champion per division. For me it simply gives lustre to holding a number one contender status and also gives a boost to traditional belts such as European and Commonwealth which used to carry real kudos.

Also think for outsiders to the sport having more than one creates credibility. In nigh on most other sports you can name who is the best as there is a clear and transparent way of establishing it. World champion for me should mean just what it suggests, that the holder of that title can legitimately claim to be the best in the world.

Given fighters these days fight less often than in previous eras, tying the belt up with one person could potentially mean less meaningful fights. However, I think that the one belt situation could actually create more meaningful fights, as each fight would garner interest on its particular merits rather than leaning on its status as a 'world title' fight. For instance Jimmy Mclarnin was one of the most popular fighters of his era (and had some of the best fights by all accounts), but only had 5 title fights in his career.

Imagine a situation where the WBA fights the WMC champ and so on. The winner fights the World Champ. That way you constantly get interesting fights with fighters wanting to be No 1 contender to fight for the bely which will give them the opportunity to fight for the world title.

Sitting the counter argument is without meaningless intercontinental belts and such like around we would get to a point where the number two and three fighters in a division would still be cracking fighters and so a fight between the two would have real meaning particularly if it meant the winner was guaranteed a deserved title shot.

Think as fans we have become somewhat conditioned to buy into the idea that a fight does not mean anything unless some bauble is on the line, when the truth is the quality of the match up should dictate its drawing power and our excitement. How many of us can honestly say we were more excited about Calzaghe vs Manfredo than we are about Groves Degale.

I think the idea of traditional belts getting a boost from the one belt system is a great thing! Being the champion of the whole of Europe should be a respected position for a world level fighter.

sittingringside wrote:I think the idea of traditional belts getting a boost from the one belt system is a great thing! Being the champion of the whole of Europe should be a respected position for a world level fighter.

Amen to that, genuinely breaks my heart to see fighters more interested in picking up a WBO intercontinental belt than a Lonsdale belt or European belt. As well as havign years of tradition the Lonsdale belt is far and away the most beautiful belt out there. Rhodes and Moore had them on Friday fight night last week you could see the pride both of them had in the belts. Can you see anyone feeling the same about a WBF world title belt in 50 years

My favorite era was the 80's...I was lucky enough to be able to watch almost a world title fight every week whether it be on cable or subscription.....Curry one week, Camacho the next week, Sanchez, Chavez, Chandler, Mancini etc etc...
-------------------
Can't have left much time for Miami Vice Truss?

Used to watch Miami vice....dreadful style and haircuts then...

Somethings have improved...

Thanks for the responses I expected I'd be outnumbered.....

But I do like the idea of two champs...instead of one..

Probably because that's what I grew up with.

Could settle for having two belts but there really was no need for the IBF and WBO titles to be recognised, every country should follow the example of Japan who only recognize the WBA and WBC.

I have to agree that one champion would always be best. There is only one fastest man in the world at any one time and similarly there should be one man per division who has the right to call himself world champion.

My argument is that you can still have the number 1 man at the weight...Everybody regarded curry as the Man over Mcrory...

But you can still have world title fights like Mccrory vs Jones...

Holmes was always number 1 and he never unified...

Means meaningful title fights are more plentiful..

I understand that you have more world title fights which has obvious attractions, but I think if you only have one world title then non-championship fights would have to be made on merit of their strength as a matchup.

I always pinpoint the Michalewski and Jones jr. situation at Light Heavyweight where whilst Jones jr. was regarded as the man he won the titles that DM was stripped of so his claim was just as strong if not stronger as being the man. The lineage of the Light Heavyweight title is thought to have started again after Hill beat Maske and of course DM beat Hill the fight before Jones did it, in that situation who do class as being the man?

The problem is unless there is some formal process in place that obliges champions to unify at reasonable periods you can still have confusion. Atom's example with Jones and Darius is excellent. Few would argue Roy was the man but without the two fighting there is still that doubt and in the absence of formal measures compelling them to fight neither side showed too much inclination to clear up the doubt.

I don't see the need to unify unless there is a call for it.....

Most of us realise Jones jr was special and was the Man without him slapping Darius around...

Sanchez didn't need Eusebio so why does Roy need him..

Technically speaking Dariusz was the man before Jones stepped up to the weight though so in reality Jones could never be the man without beating him

They didn't need eachother, but the best possible situation would surely be them fighting to settle any lingering doubts? I agree that both were recognisably better than their peers, but there is always room for reasonable doubt.

Technically speaking I'm more British than American now....

I do understand Truss's point and have some sympathy, but overall feel that it still cheapens it by having two (or more) World Champions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Technically speaking I'm more British than American now....

If a dog in born is a stable...

That's the issue though Truss, it's only personal opinion that has Jones as the man, I for one have always considered Dariusz to be the man at Light Heavyweight at the time.

If a dog is born in a stable..

Does he make hay???

With one World Champion what's to stop us having the situation we have now where corruption in the Boxing bodies means they still keep installing their favourites as number one contenders whilst decent fighters don't get a look in?

Good point...fighters have been frozen out in the past..

God help us if the one title is the WBC and the champ is mexican.

Still think The Ring should desperately push their Ring Title belt a helluva lot more than they're currently doing.

They've got "#1" ranked fighters in some divisions but no actual champion. Simple thing to do is decide who is the Ring Title Champ of the division and give them the belt. They then expand their top 10 to a top 50 or something as well with the rankings done by a committee who get together once a week.

They then push every other boxing media outlet and website to bang the drums for every boxer to drop their belts and get on board with The Rings system.

Compared to the current joke of "silver interim champion in waiting but 3rd in line" belts flying around it'd certainly be my solution.

All i need now is to be made CEO of The Ring and given a $10m advertising budget and we're there.

For every boxer to drop their belts....

Jeez what planet are you living on...World titles are selling points for these fighters..the difference between $15,000 and $100,000 for some of the more vague champions..

Coxy never thought of you as naive....besides the Promoters would never have it..They need the WBo etc if their stables are of poor quality..

I can understand the argument for 2 belts per division...possibly but that's how all this mess started i.e. just another organisation and look at the turd we have now?

Either one way or another IMO so just 1 organisation and belt please!

To be honest Tv needs to play a more active role in this. In every country even one as large as the states it tends to be one or two Tv companies that finance the sport and so if they choose to make a stand promoters will have to fall in line. You only have to look over here. Is widely known Sky told all their promoters they were no longer interested in promoting and showing IBO, WBF and WBU fights masquerading as world titles and they wanted fighters contesting domestic and Euro belts and almost overnight this happened as Sky still call the shots and promoters cannot risk enoding up on the outside with them.

Is not a particuarly hard thing to enforce, would only need someone to take a stand and the promoters will fall in line, as they need the TV companies more than the TV companies need any individual promoter.

Truss

Why is it so naive? Naturally i made it as simplistic as possible so you could understand.

How many fights get promoted off the back of "OH MY GOD HE'S FIGHTING FOR THE WBC BELT!!!!!"

Names make fights nowadays - not belts. If you think a belt counts towards two tossmonkeys then you're the naive one. Haye v Wlad is going to be massive because they're they 2 biggest names in the division, no-one gives two tossflowerpots that they've got whatever belts it is on the line.

Fans pay for fights they want to see. They don't pay for what belts are on the line - do they? Thanks for coming, trot on

We did have two belts for a long time though Valero before the IBF...

Why are you being insulting Coxy????....You seem to be a bitter man these days...

You honestly believe people are going to chuck away there one bargaining asset for a plce in the Ring rankings...

A publication owned by someone with a stable of fighters who won't be biased..

Respond if you wish but in a more even tone..

I think the situation is pretty good as it is.

There are now so many belts that no boxing fan gives a damn about any of them anymore. This is so much better than 5+ years back when belts were seen important enough so that a champ could avoid the best and make a decent career as long as he had the belt.

I can' t understand why people get so upset by the matter.

The proliferation of sanctioning bodies reduces the influence of the old corrupt bodies = Good times.

No but not all sports fans are aware of the situation...

No doubt cleverly winning the WBO would be viewed as a great accomplishment in Wales and help him sellout in cardiff or wherever he fights there....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why are you being insulting Coxy????....You seem to be a bitter man these days...

You honestly believe people are going to chuck away there one bargaining asset for a plce in the Ring rankings...

A publication owned by someone with a stable of fighters who won't be biased..

Respond if you wish but in a more even tone..

I'm merely re-enacting a reply from the good old book of Truss replies

And what would earn more money - a climb in the top 10 rankings or a meaningless mandatory? And The Ring have zero controlling interest from GBP by the way.

And again, you keep ruddy placing an emphasis on belts... Why?! If Donaire were to move up and face say Chris John would the latter have a big bargaining chip because he's a champ? Of course he wouldn't, he's a nobody in America and would be lucky to get 70-30.

Get your head out of the 1980s as usual buddy, no-one gives two monkeytosspots about belts today. I'm sorry, i know the era you're stuck in was different but sadly the modern era has changed.

I am very much one belt man I must say. It makes the sense. One recognised champion at each weight.

Boxing would improve wholesale if this happened. I would also like to see the more traditional kind of titles like the British, Commonwealth, European and American titles mean something again.

Early on these titles meant alot more and offered a traditional and tangible route to the top. Now in this ridiculous belt saturated world they mean very little. In the days of one world title per weight, holding the domestic or European title was still a mark of prestige. The likes of Carpentiers could engage in losing effort against Demspey but still hold his European title which meant something and was a mark of class. The opposite is true nowadays and these titles are almost indicative of a fighter being below world class and not good enough to mix it on even a multi belt world stage.

The situation now with titles is appalling and dilutes the sport.

What I meant is whenever the second real organisation formed it wasn't intended to eventually pave the way for so many and all the interim, diamond, copper and mud belts they have but it just went that way, I wish it was a sole belt but will never be now and only get worse in my opinion.

Regardless that it was most likely money orientated, I applauded Mayweather when he refused to pay sanctioning fees for his fight against Mosley and therefore waived his claim to be a champ again and announced belts mean nothing now.......well you can't argue with that!

Fighters of old would be turning in their graves with some of the names who are or were champs!

The UFC have easily 90% of the best MMA fighters and all fighters within the UFC have contracts and are simply TOLD who they will fight - love or loathe MMA and/or Dana White it's the right approach IMO.

The dumping the belts argument only works so far. Totally agree if you have reached the status of Manny or Floyd you do not need the belts to define you or generate interest and were them two to fight none of us would give a fig what belt is on the line.

However for guys without their status or CV's it is not so easy. For a guy like Bradley the belt is a way of building his reputation, gaining some headlines and securing fights and will, if he keeps winning get him to the status when holding a belt is not so important.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No but not all sports fans are aware of the situation...

No doubt cleverly winning the WBO would be viewed as a great accomplishment in Wales and help him sellout in cardiff or wherever he fights there....

Maybe back in the bad ol' days but not anymore.

Cleverley's 'world title' fight is being upstaged by a British title fight this weekend. Frank Warren is learning the hard way that boxing has changed, gone are the days where he could stick Eubank/Calzaghe/Hamed/Hatton in with Bums and sell out because there was some bogus title on the line. Look what happened with Khan, look what's happening with Burns and soon to be Cleverley. Cleverley won't be able to sell out his own living room until Fwank puts him in some decent scraps.

rowley wrote:The dumping the belts argument only works so far. Totally agree if you have reached the status of Manny or Floyd you do not need the belts to define you or generate interest and were them two to fight none of us would give a fig what belt is on the line.

However for guys without their status or CV's it is not so easy. For a guy like Bradley the belt is a way of building his reputation, gaining some headlines and securing fights and will, if he keeps winning get him to the status when holding a belt is not so important.

Good viewpoint, however I just detest the way the belts allow the best to avoid each other by fighting their mandatory's which are so often not deserving and never the same for each organisation.

I think what'll take over eventually is something like the BoxRec rankings. Sure it's not perfect yet, and deffo needs some tinkering, but a completely impartial, transparent, mathematical ranking system IMO is the future.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I think what'll take over eventually is something like the BoxRec rankings. Sure it's not perfect yet, and deffo needs some tinkering, but a completely impartial, transparent, mathematical ranking system IMO is the future.

Mathematical does eliminate bias which is the biggest cause of disagreements.

Oh god no the boxrec rankings are an absolute joke

it wouldn't be a problem if fighters fought more often, take the cleverly/brahmer situation, if the one and only world title was caught up in that mess the division would be ground to a halt, if the governing bodys worked together and forced their champions to unify or strip them if either champion requested a unifaction fight then that would solve alot of issues too.

The BoxRec rankings are pretty good now. Certainly better than any of the 'respected' sanctioning bodies. A bit more tweaking still needed but not much.

No the boxrec rankings are awful, the ring magazine has by far and away the best rankings

BoxRec and Ring mags divisional rankings are very similar. Many would disagree with Boxrec's P4P list, as they haven't included the natural bias against HW's in their system.