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..

The boxrec rankings have such glaring errors all over the place I can't take them seriously, Pavlik in the top ten at Super Middleweight is a good starting place

Where do you think Pavlik should be?

He shouldn't be ranked at Super Middleweight at all considering he's never fought there

To be honest it really doesn't matter these days..I mean the WBA installed Chavez at no1 before he fought Rosario...

He'd never fought there either..

Lot's of strange things to do with rankings..

But you are morally right Atom

He has, but that's besides the point.

Pavlik is a bit of an exception having fought varyingly at 160/168 and 175 over the last few years. Coming in at 170 last fight and stating clearly that his future lies at 168 it is common sense to rank him at SM. I think that makes more sense than just foretting about him as the Ring have done.

From memory I don't remember him ever having a fight a Super Middleweight may be wrong but as far as i'm concerned you have to fight at the weight to be ranked there, doing well in one weight shouldn't guarantee you a ranking in higher weights too.

The Mighty Atom wrote:He shouldn't be ranked at Super Middleweight at all considering he's never fought there

Why is Froch your top LHW then?

I thought boxrec rankings were based on results?

As clearly stated Scott I ignored the junior classes and feel Froch is the best fighter across the two weights and taking into account he beat the recognized number one also

It's not really ignoring the division, its grouping them.

Super middleweight is a subdivision of Light heavyweight, without it's existence the fighters there would most probably be fighting at 175lbs would they not?

These are the quandaries that Boxrec face.

Say for example if Froch moved up to 175, you think he should start as number 1059 in the rankings and basically have to start his career over again? No, we know if Froch moved up he should be considered top 10 immediately. Putting Pavlik in the top 10 at SM is a credit to boxrec as common sense tells us that is about where he should be.

At which point you don't know if he'd be the best because he's never fought there.

After fighting at Light Heavyweight he should be ranked there but not before, so your telling me you think that Pavlik should be ranked fourth at Super Middleweight?

The Mighty Atom wrote:As clearly stated Scott I ignored the junior classes and feel Froch is the best fighter across the two weights and taking into account he beat the recognized number one also

I'd go with boxrec over Ring Mag and say that Bernie Hopkins is the top LH.

Give me back the days of 3 champions and not all this Silver, Diamond, Interim belt nonsense that is ruining the sport.

I'm not a fan of only 8 weight classes but see the need to get rid of some of the lighter weights, as they only have a few pounds between them.

I'm amazed that no sanctioning alphabet body has created a Super Heavyweight division.

The idea of the topic that their be two champions is good and its always nice to build up a Unification fight.

Scottrf wrote:At which point you don't know if he'd be the best because he's never fought there.

I don't know but I think he is the best fighter between 160.1<175lbs which is a bit different to including him in a top ten ranking at the weight which I would not

The Mighty Atom wrote:After fighting at Light Heavyweight he should be ranked there but not before, so your telling me you think that Pavlik should be ranked fourth at Super Middleweight?

Who deserves to be ranked ahead of him? Johnson maybe?

Surely Froch would have to start at the bottom at LH if his achievments at SM were to be ignored.

Belts sell fights, we all know who the best fight fighters. And if there is only 1 belt you can still have a situation where the best don't fight the best.

These are two very different discussions, if Froch signalled his intention to start fighting at Light Heavyweight I would not rank him there until after his first fight but that's not to say I don't think he beats Pascal there.

I don't see how Pavlik could be rated that highly considering his recent form of losing comfortable decisions to Hopkins and Martinez and then looking awful against Lopez, would not have him ranked at Super Middleweight based on that.

D4thincarnation wrote:Belts sell fights, we all know who the best fight fighters. And if there is only 1 belt you can still have a situation where the best don't fight the best.

Names sells fights, if there is only belt then that means everyone in the division is gunning for the same person, it's not fool proof but back in the day the best generally fought the best.

The Mighty Atom wrote:These are two very different discussions, if Froch signalled his intention to start fighting at Light Heavyweight I would not rank him there until after his first fight but that's not to say I don't think he beats Pascal there.

I don't see how Pavlik could be rated that highly considering his recent form of losing comfortable decisions to Hopkins and Martinez and then looking awful against Lopez, would not have him ranked at Super Middleweight based on that.

But you don't think ranking in lower divisions should carry up. Surely Froch would have to start out like any novice LH. Froch would be 40 before he got a crack at Pascal.

It is common practice for fighters to come in a few pounds over the limit in tune-up fights. If you started ranking fighters who do that as being in the division above the whole system would be a mess.

He wouldn't start like a novice I never said that but I don't think you should get an automatic ranking based on achievements at lower weight classes.

Who do you think would be a good first opponent for Froch at 175?

More belts are good, it builds fighters up and then you get great unification match ups

Yeah because we get so many unification fights dont we D4, a belt isn't something you build a fighter up with, it's meant to be the pinnacle of the sport.

I'd stick Froch in with Dawson personally, gets himself a high ranking there and then but doesn't bypass everyone in the division straight to a title fight.

What has Froch done to deserve a fight with Dawson??

Deserving a fight with someone is far different to gaining a ranking based on nothing but past glories

The Mighty Atom wrote:Yeah because we get so many unification fights dont we D4, a belt isn't something you build a fighter up with, it's meant to be the pinnacle of the sport.

I'd stick Froch in with Dawson personally, gets himself a high ranking there and then but doesn't bypass everyone in the division straight to a title fight.

Unified champ is the pinacle these days and you have to work a lot hard to get that than just beat one guy back in the old day.

Why should a fighter completely unproven at a new weight get a shot at one of the best?

Then again is was far harder to get a title shot in the first place back in the old days, imagine someone of Tunney or Charles' ability today not getting a shot at a light heavyweight title, wouldn't happen, they had to move up to heavyweight to earn a title shot despite beating everyone at their weight. How is that easier than being gifted a shot at one of many champions at one of the many weights?

D4thincarnation wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Yeah because we get so many unification fights dont we D4, a belt isn't something you build a fighter up with, it's meant to be the pinnacle of the sport.

I'd stick Froch in with Dawson personally, gets himself a high ranking there and then but doesn't bypass everyone in the division straight to a title fight.

Unified champ is the pinacle these days and you have to work a lot hard to get that than just beat one guy back in the old day.

Not sure I agree with that, D4.

Back in the day a fighter normally had to go to Hell and back to get a shot at the title. There were an awful lot of hungry fighters on the way up, and very few won their titles without a blemish or two on their records.

A single world title was all well and good when boxing was almost exclusively American. Now that boxing is global having just 20 or so wolrd title fights a year is just not enough. If we say that 1/3 of champs are American they may only get 6 or 7 title fights per year in the US = not practical.

It's more global in the sense that there isn't such an american dominance but most of the sports big names fight almost exclusively in America, if you don't crack America you don't make the big big money.

Still works for some other sports, Juke.

Really don't see why there should be more than one champion per division. You simply can't have more than one 'best in the division'.

HumanWindmill wrote:Still works for some other sports, Juke.

No other sports are just one huge world championship though. Boxing is very unique in that way.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Still works for some other sports, Juke.

No other sports are just one huge world championship though. Boxing is very unique in that way.

Athletics ?

Should we get rid of the Olympics or the World Championships so there's no confusion over who the real champions are?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Should we get rid of the Olympics or the World Championships so there's no confusion over who the real champions are?

There isn't any confusion. World championships produce world champions.

They're never in the same year though, you never have two or more people at the same time claiming to be the best in the world which we have in boxing.

You win the world championship your the best at that time and if you win the olympics your the best then, if they happened at the same time you may have a point but they don't.

Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Why should it need to be every four years ? Why not one champion per division, and that champion defends two or three times per year while the others scrap it out for the right to face him ?

That's how it worked in the past, and fight fans were perfectly happy.

Boxing is unique in it's application so comparisons with other sports don't really work

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Why should it need to be every four years ? Why not one champion per division, and that champion defends two or three times per year while the others scrap it out for the right to face him ?

That's how it worked in the past, and fight fans were perfectly happy.

Exactly. It wasn't changed because it didn't work, it was changed pure and simply out of greed.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Why should it need to be every four years ? Why not one champion per division, and that champion defends two or three times per year while the others scrap it out for the right to face him ?

That's how it worked in the past, and fight fans were perfectly happy.

Unifications that never happen are a good thing, so is the confusion over who the top guy actually is far better than one universally recognized champion don't you know Windy

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Why should it need to be every four years ? Why not one champion per division, and that champion defends two or three times per year while the others scrap it out for the right to face him ?

That's how it worked in the past, and fight fans were perfectly happy.

Why don't we all just ignore the bogus titles?

Silly me, Ghosty. ( Must get used to calling you ' Atom.' ) Of course it is.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Why should it need to be every four years ? Why not one champion per division, and that champion defends two or three times per year while the others scrap it out for the right to face him ?

That's how it worked in the past, and fight fans were perfectly happy.

Why don't we all just ignore the bogus titles?

Same reason we don't ignore an itch in the backside. It shouldn't be there.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Problem solved then. One big Boxing World Championships every 4 years.

Why should it need to be every four years ? Why not one champion per division, and that champion defends two or three times per year while the others scrap it out for the right to face him ?

That's how it worked in the past, and fight fans were perfectly happy.

Why don't we all just ignore the bogus titles?

Same reason we don't ignore an itch in the backside. It shouldn't be there.

Because they make your ass itch?