Anybody else not want one champion per division ???

First topic message reminder :

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 will openly admit JT that as an avid follower of the history of the sport and finding the old timers more interesting than the current lot it sticks in my throat to see guys like Cotto described as a three weight world champion or Mayweather as a five weight world champion. It suggests it was achieved on a level playing field to the likes of Fitzsimmons, Canzoneri, Ross and Armstrong who to me are the only triple world champions, so I do try to ignore the multitude of belts as much as I can.

That's all it is though, an annoying itch. It's no big deal. We all know who the real champs are.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:That's all it is though, an annoying itch. It's no big deal. We all know who the real champs are.

WE do, but the casual spectator doesn't, and that's what the promoters exploit when selling the fights.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:That's all it is though, an annoying itch. It's no big deal. We all know who the real champs are.

Well the thread asked if ' anybody else, etc., etc. ' My interpretation of that is that you can say you are fine with several champs per weight division and I can say I'm not fine with it.

Would you agree ?

We simply don't though, in a few weights there is an undeniable top dog but in others you have in some cases 3 or 4 claimants most notably Light Middleweight which is a mess of a division at the moment.

Decided to make it easy for you Windy, wouldn't let me have 'The Ghost With A Hammer In His Hand', was too long... sad times

Imperial Ghosty wrote:We simply don't though, in a few weights there is an undeniable top dog but in others you have in some cases 3 or 4 claimants most notably Light Middleweight which is a mess of a division at the moment.

Decided to make it easy for you Windy, wouldn't let me have 'The Ghost With A Hammer In His Hand', was too long... sad times

Not surprised, Ghosty.

There would be nearly so many words in that user name as there are boxing champions per division.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:That's all it is though, an annoying itch. It's no big deal. We all know who the real champs are.

WE do, but the casual spectator doesn't, and that's what the promoters exploit when selling the fights.

You'er right, the titles are shiney trinkets there to attract casual fans. That's good though isn't it?

I don't look at things from a monetary perspective, who earns what is of no consequence to me

We have the Wlad/Haye fight coming up which is for four of the five belts but arguably the guy not involved in that fight Vitali has a stronger claim to being the top heavyweight

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:That's all it is though, an annoying itch. It's no big deal. We all know who the real champs are.

WE do, but the casual spectator doesn't, and that's what the promoters exploit when selling the fights.

You'er right, the titles are shiney trinkets there to attract casual fans. That's good though isn't it?

It works, but it's tantamount to lying, calling someone a world champion when someone else in their division is 'more' of a world champion (Haye, Khan, Cleverly, Soto, etc).

I mean, I can understand interim champions, just about, but WBA regular and super champions? Come on!! It's a joke.

BALTIMORA wrote:I mean, I can understand interim champions, just about, but WBA regular and super champions? Come on!! It's a joke.

I agree that the idea in principal seemed good. But, these organisations are just using 'interim' to milk more money.

That's what I mean. Interim at least implies something that's got a purpose. Having regular and super champions is like saying 'second place winner'. Pointless.