Reverting back to original 8 weight classes

First topic message reminder :

It's no secret id be delighted if the Junior/Super divisions were abolished. With 36 hour pre weigh ins I see no necessity. Some questions

Which modern world title holder would benefit most if these were scrapped, for instance would Andre Ward reign supreme as a light heavy ?

Which fighter would suffer the most ? For instance where would Canelo fit in , too big for a welter and a mere contender as a middle ?

Which division would benefit the most, imagine how stacked they'd be ?

Which fighter could you see being most successful in jumping weight and being man ?

8 divisions 1 world champ how would it look ? Amazing, I can dream.

Cheers Rodders

hazharrison wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:Ok so how about two belts lets call them Belt A & Belt B ....

When fighting you can only go for one of them and have to decide which route...should you choose to change route then you have to start over in the rankings..

Each fighter must fight a minimum of two fights per year, at least one of these has to be against the guy ranked either directly ahead or behind you. Points are allocated to each position and you move up and down on the basis of the amount of points you receive over the course of the year....

Every two years the Champions must fight each other to decide who is the best in the division...they do not actually win both belts (that would then make the rankings irrelevant) but they are regarded as the true number 1 in the division...

And so splitting the division in half. That's garbage. There's only one world. There should be only one world champion.

Imagine what an achievement that would be.

Worked alright in the 60s/70s/80s.........

1) All systems past and present were/are corrupt. The more organisations, weights and belts you have the more corruption you have. A move to one organization would mean less corruptiom, though it would still exist.

2) Initially the transistion period from 'more to less' would be a bit hectic as everyone, from promoters to fighters, would have re-establish a new role/position.

3) Thereafter big fights involving champions, or not, would be made. Promoters would push to get fighters into prime position to challenge for the title in a unified ranking system, meaning fights between rival promotional companies, aswell as 'in-stable bouts', would occur with regularity.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

FIFA are awful, nobody is arguing that. However not too sure you would find too much support with the idea that the best way to solve their ills is by creating a second governing body.

Does show though you can get away with anything......Look at this Qatar world cup........

World Cups are awarded on a variety of criteria. They're not simply awarded to the most 'deserving' host nation. There's no parallel to be drawn there. Even if it is an example of corruption, it's got nothing to do with the sporting contest itself. FIFA don't rig World Cups so that Brazil get a bye to the final, or so that Spain get an easy run through the competition.

hazharrison wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:Ok so how about two belts lets call them Belt A & Belt B ....

When fighting you can only go for one of them and have to decide which route...should you choose to change route then you have to start over in the rankings..

Each fighter must fight a minimum of two fights per year, at least one of these has to be against the guy ranked either directly ahead or behind you. Points are allocated to each position and you move up and down on the basis of the amount of points you receive over the course of the year....

Every two years the Champions must fight each other to decide who is the best in the division...they do not actually win both belts (that would then make the rankings irrelevant) but they are regarded as the true number 1 in the division...

And so splitting the division in half. That's garbage. There's only one world. There should be only one world champion.

Imagine what an achievement that would be.

I think O's idea isn't a bad means to and end tho...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

FIFA are awful, nobody is arguing that. However not too sure you would find too much support with the idea that the best way to solve their ills is by creating a second governing body.

Does show though you can get away with anything......Look at this Qatar world cup........

World Cups are awarded on a variety of criteria. They're not simply awarded to the most 'deserving' host nation. There's no parallel to be drawn there. Even if it is an example of corruption, it's got nothing to do with the sporting contest itself. FIFA don't rig World Cups so that Brazil get a bye to the final, or so that Spain get an easy run through the competition.

I never mentioned the contest itself.......Not saying Boxing matches are fixed or football matches...

I'm saying If you can fix venues......You can fix rankings in Boxing...and If there is only one title....Someone can be out in the dark for a longtime.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

FIFA are awful, nobody is arguing that. However not too sure you would find too much support with the idea that the best way to solve their ills is by creating a second governing body.

Does show though you can get away with anything......Look at this Qatar world cup........

World Cups are awarded on a variety of criteria. They're not simply awarded to the most 'deserving' host nation. There's no parallel to be drawn there. Even if it is an example of corruption, it's got nothing to do with the sporting contest itself. FIFA don't rig World Cups so that Brazil get a bye to the final, or so that Spain get an easy run through the competition.

I never mentioned the contest itself.......Not saying Boxing matches are fixed or football matches...

I'm saying If you can fix venues......You can fix rankings in Boxing...and If there is only one title....Someone can be out in the dark for a longtime.

Fixing rankings is more difficult. Generally because there has to be some objective system.

I appreciate that might seem a naive sentiment, given boxing's record of offering shots to guys who haven't earned them. Surely, though, a single body would have to be more transparent and consistent in its ranking?

Fixing boxing rankings a not a phenomena associated solely with a unified boxing organisation. Each boxing body (WBA, WBC etc) is independent of the other and each is responsible for their own rankings, therefore you have umpteen rigged top 10's rather than one rigged top 10. Thats assuming rigging is a given.

No one said it was....geez..

Simple solution would be to raise £30bn in VC, buy every boxer out of his current contract... Take the cream of staff from the now defunct promotion companies... Tell the fighters there will only be one belt per division and one rating system.

Sorted.

Now, who's going to come with me to Silicone Valley to carry my luggage whilst I raise the money?

If you hadn't donated all those millions to charity Izzi you could have done it yourself already

Be intriguing where guys like Amir Khan/Danny Garcia would chose to ply their trade, with the likelihood of some burdensome matchups before positioning themself into a title picture at welter. Would/Could Khan shed pounds to make lightweight ?

Cheers Rodders

Izzi wrote:Simple solution would be to raise £30bn in VC, buy every boxer out of his current contract... Take the cream of staff from the now defunct promotion companies... Tell the fighters there will only be one belt per division and one rating system.

Sorted.

Now, who's going to come with me to Silicone Valley to carry my luggage whilst I raise the money?

You're the forum gazillionaire Izzi, can't you chip in??

If the networks turned round tomorrow and said we are only recognising these two bodies then you could clean up Boxing asap...

Remember the WBU, WBF and I think the IBC........Netorks like HBo and others said no..enough is enough......

3fingers wrote:1) All systems past and present were/are corrupt. The more organisations, weights and belts you have the more corruption you have. A move to one organization would mean less corruptiom, though it would still exist.

2) Initially the transistion period from 'more to less' would be a bit hectic as everyone, from promoters to fighters, would have re-establish a new role/position.

3) Thereafter big fights involving champions, or not, would be made. Promoters would push to get fighters into prime position to challenge for the title in a unified ranking system, meaning fights between rival promotional companies, aswell as 'in-stable bouts', would occur with regularity.

1) You think boxing would be better if the WBC, for example, controlled it in it's entirety? Corruption would be taken to a whole new level. What would sanctioning fees be? 90%. And if the fighters don't like it what can they do?

2) The 'transition' period would lead to a load of top Boxers, trainers and promoters leaving the sport in the knowledge that they'd never be able to make any money.

3) We wouldn't have "Big fights involving champions", we would have constant 'champion vs unheralded challenger' again and again. We'd be left with UFC essentially, and no-one wants that.

Wasn't Audley the WBF 'world champ' at one point.....??

Back in the 70s Marvin Hagler was the Champion of Sean O'Grady Sr... AAU world middleweight title....

Needless to say Jr was lightweight champion.........

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
1)  You think boxing would be better if the WBC, for example, controlled it in it's entirety? Corruption would be taken to a whole new level. What would sanctioning fees be? 90%. And if the fighters don't like it what can they do?

Incorporate them in the US rather than Mexico or Venuzuela, then they will be subject to actual laws and monopolies commissions. Also can be done for price fixing and any number of other laws that cannot be circumvented by cosy little under the table arrangements.

The IBF had Jack callaghan at number 1 for Matthew Hilton to feed on..........

Also had Berbick post Tyson.........As Iron Mike's mandatory..........

They are US based............

but I see your point ...

Even if a one belt system wasnt perfect, its miles better than the crap system now. People should stop whingeing about paper champions etc if they are going to advocate the system that produces them.

I agree...

catchweight wrote:Even if a one belt system wasnt perfect, its miles better than the crap system now.

That cuts to the chase for me. Just because there are flaws with a one belt system it does not in any way shape or form mean we should not aspire to it. I refuse to believe and would take some serious convincing that a system that even the most ardent of fans cannot follow can be anything other than damaging to the sport.

I agree again...........No one likes the system now..

I'd just prefer two belts and some jr divisions........

I dont believe that all these world titles are great selling points for casual fans either. In my experience its the casual fans that generally dont have a clue or care about the titles. Its the more serious fans that bother following the system and giving it legitimacy. The reasons there are so many world titles is because the tin pot organisations that run them collect up on the fees they charge for holding them. If Froch had no world title his fight with Groves would still be huge. Haye against random freakshow opponent for no title is the same. Good fights, exciting fighters etc will sell themselves without needing a phony bargain basement world title.

I dont know where the idea that with only one belt no top fighters would fight each other comes from either. If anything they are forced to fight each other to determine who the next best challenger is. Having 5 or 6 world titles only makes it easier to be selective not harder.

catchweight wrote:I dont believe that all these world titles are great selling points for casual fans either. In my experience its the casual fans that generally dont have a clue or care about the titles. Its the more serious fans that bother following the system and giving it legitimacy. The reasons there are so many world titles is because the tin pot organisations that run them collect up on the fees they charge for holding them. If Froch had no world title his fight with Groves would still be huge. Haye against random freakshow opponent for no title is the same. Good fights, exciting fighters etc will sell themselves without needing a phony bargain basement world title.

I dont know where the idea that with only one belt no top fighters would fight each other comes from either. If anything they are forced to fight each other to determine who the next best challenger is. Having 5 or 6 world titles only makes it easier to be selective not harder.

Spot on.

Totally agree Cw mate , look at Chisora V Haye filled a football stadium, with two fighters coming off losses. Decent matchups will sell and no one cares if the WBC silver belt is on the line .

Cheers Rodders

Decent matchup.........

Only because they brawled at a press conference..

Haye-Chisora..........Better examples than that Mate....It was a supposed bad blood fight...

Most TV stations want a belt on offer.

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
1)  You think boxing would be better if the WBC, for example, controlled it in it's entirety? Corruption would be taken to a whole new level. What would sanctioning fees be? 90%. And if the fighters don't like it what can they do?

Incorporate them in the US rather than Mexico or Venuzuela, then they will be subject to actual laws and monopolies commissions. Also can be done for price fixing and any number of other laws that cannot be circumvented by cosy little under the table arrangements.

Wonder if anyone has mentioned this to GBP.

"I commend UFC for what they have done in such a short period of time.  They are the only real player in their category, the mixed martial arts world. They have been able to organize themselves, have all the TV dates, a pay-per-view every month. They are doing the right thing, and it’s time for boxing to do the right thing, as long as we don’t have those obstacles named Don King and Bob Arum.

We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates. Then you can have your own agenda and have a schedule for the fans and the sport. You can do a monthly pay-per-view, a bi-weekly HBO fight. You can have the best fighters fight each other. When you have five or six promoters, it’s very difficult." (Oscar De La Hoya.  September 2010)

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  (Lord Acton.  1887)

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Most TV stations want a belt on offer.

It's only a matter of reeducation though Truss. Tv companies over here frequently sold fights based on Euro belts or Commonwealth belts in the 50s and 60's. If you remove countless world titles all of a sudden these belts regain much of their lustre. As I said earlier the likes of London, Cooper and even Charnley in the lower weights sold well without titles on the line.

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
1)  You think boxing would be better if the WBC, for example, controlled it in it's entirety? Corruption would be taken to a whole new level. What would sanctioning fees be? 90%. And if the fighters don't like it what can they do?

Incorporate them in the US rather than Mexico or Venuzuela, then they will be subject to actual laws and monopolies commissions. Also can be done for price fixing and any number of other laws that cannot be circumvented by cosy little under the table arrangements.

You mean like the UFC. If there was a relevant monopolies commission in the US then they'd never let it happen in the first place. If you want less corruption and greater fairness in boxing reducing competition is not the way to go about it.

I don't see how we could come to a one belt system from where we are now unfortunately. Just as an example say Floyd is the Welterweight champion of the one governing body. For whatever reason he doesn't want to fight his number 1 ranked contender Bradley, maybe it's a TV deal issue where one fights on HBO one on showtime or one is promoted by Goldenboy and one is promoted by Satan and so no deal can be arranged. Would the governing body strip Floyd and promote Bradley to champion, remove Bradley from his number 1 ranking. Even if there's a standard purse split between champion and challenger you could have a number 1 ranked guy like Manny who sells well not agreeing to the short end of a purse if Bradley was champion so he would go off and fight someone else with no shortage of TV companies offering to show it and start proclaiming him the real champion.

It could only work if world boxing as a whole was run by the one governing body and TV/promotional rights were agreed on a basis like the premier league where they are sold as a group thing and then distributed between the clubs (fighters in this case) not like La Liga or Serie A where clubs negotiate their own deals. We can't get there from where we're at now though unfortunately.

So your argument is because you're not confident one governing body could be run that is free of corruption it is far better to have four which are all riddled with corruption. Maybe we could introduce another couple of governing bodies, imagine how brilliant things would be then.

Bellchees, the easy solution is nobody signs an exclusivity deal with a TV network. They sign for a fight and TV companies bid for it, same as venues do. Encourages fighters to take attractive fights and ensures they get the best deal for their services.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:
1)  You think boxing would be better if the WBC, for example, controlled it in it's entirety? Corruption would be taken to a whole new level. What would sanctioning fees be? 90%. And if the fighters don't like it what can they do?

Incorporate them in the US rather than Mexico or Venuzuela, then they will be subject to actual laws and monopolies commissions. Also can be done for price fixing and any number of other laws that cannot be circumvented by cosy little under the table arrangements.

Wonder if anyone has mentioned this to GBP.

"I commend UFC for what they have done in such a short period of time.  They are the only real player in their category, the mixed martial arts world. They have been able to organize themselves, have all the TV dates, a pay-per-view every month. They are doing the right thing, and it’s time for boxing to do the right thing, as long as we don’t have those obstacles named Don King and Bob Arum.

We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates. Then you can have your own agenda and have a schedule for the fans and the sport. You can do a monthly pay-per-view, a bi-weekly HBO fight. You can have the best fighters fight each other. When you have five or six promoters, it’s very difficult." (Oscar De La Hoya.  September 2010)

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  (Lord Acton.  1887)

Say what you want about corruption, but the UFC gives as close as you can get to the 'best fighting the best' on a regular basis. The champions fight all their top contenders, and prospects are matched harder. It puts less of a premium on undefeated records, reduces protection of fighters, and gives fans more of the fights they want. Sure there are problems with this - fighter pay being one or the potential abuse of position at some point in the future - but MMA fans undoubtedly get more of the fights they want than boxing fans do. I wonder if it would be the same if Golden Boy had a similar type of de facto monopoly.

Rowley wrote:Bellchees, the easy solution is nobody signs an exclusivity deal with a TV network. They sign for a fight and TV companies bid for it, same as venues do. Encourages fighters to take attractive fights and ensures they get the best deal for their services.

That could work presuming everything was starting over but it's just not something that could be reached from how things stand.

Rowley wrote:So your argument is because you're not confident one governing body could be run that is free of corruption it is far better to have four which are all riddled with corruption. Maybe we could introduce another couple of governing bodies, imagine how brilliant things would be then.

I'd be inclined to think that one corrupt body would be more conducive to putting on good fights than the multiple competing corrupt bodies we have now i.e. as in the UFC/MMA comparison above.

Is it perfect? No. Would it improve fan experience as a whole? I think probably yes.

Rowley wrote:So your argument is because you're not confident one governing body could be run that is free of corruption it is far better to have four which are all riddled with corruption. Maybe we could introduce another couple of governing bodies, imagine how brilliant things would be then.

If one governing body had total control do you not think they'd use it to their advantage financially?

If you want boxing to become 'sports-entertainment' like UFC then fair enough. I just like it the way it is and couldn't care how many belts there are as long as we keep getting quality fights.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:So your argument is because you're not confident one governing body could be run that is free of corruption it is far better to have four which are all riddled with corruption. Maybe we could introduce another couple of governing bodies, imagine how brilliant things would be then.

If one governing body had total control do you not think they'd use it to their advantage financially?

If you want boxing to become 'sports-entertainment' like UFC then fair enough. I just like it the way it is and couldn't care how many belts there are as long as we keep getting quality fights.

Did you enjoy Mayweather vs Manny? The Wta seems to manage to run tennis without the need for another three rivals.

Boxtthis wrote:

Rowley wrote:So your argument is because you're not confident one governing body could be run that is free of corruption it is far better to have four which are all riddled with corruption. Maybe we could introduce another couple of governing bodies, imagine how brilliant things would be then.

I'd be inclined to think that one corrupt body would be more conducive to putting on good fights than the multiple competing corrupt bodies we have now i.e. as in the UFC/MMA comparison above.

Is it perfect? No. Would it improve fan experience as a whole? I think probably yes.

It's never the sanctioning bodies that stop big fights, it's the TV networks and promoters. Perhaps all boxers should fight under one promoter, Don King maybe, and on one network?

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:So your argument is because you're not confident one governing body could be run that is free of corruption it is far better to have four which are all riddled with corruption. Maybe we could introduce another couple of governing bodies, imagine how brilliant things would be then.

If one governing body had total control do you not think they'd use it to their advantage financially?

If you want boxing to become 'sports-entertainment' like UFC then fair enough. I just like it the way it is and couldn't care how many belts there are as long as we keep getting quality fights.

Did you enjoy Mayweather vs Manny? The Wta seems to manage to run tennis without the need for another three rivals.

That was down to rival promoters, not sanctioning bodies. Jose Suiliman and the others would have crawled across broken glass with his flies down to get that happening.

Tennis...hmmm you mean where there are 4 'major' champions every year?

The point about Manny and Floyd is had there been one governing body one them would have been champion and the other would have been mandatory. The one who was champion would have had two choices, fight the other or be stripped. If they choose the former the fight happens. If they choose the latter any debate about who does or does not want the fight is readily and easily resolved.

In fairness rowley has a point...When Holmes turned down Greg Page (Never held against him btw)..The IBF gave him a strap and he carried on cherrypicking...

I agree multiple belts offers that option...

One or two not so easy..

The IBF became the big problem.......

Has to be remembered also.The IBF was nothing before Larry.

Rowley wrote:The point about Manny and Floyd is had there been one governing body one them would have been champion and the other would have been mandatory. The one who was champion would have had two choices, fight the other or be stripped. If they choose the former the fight happens. If they choose the latter any debate about who does or does not want the fight is readily and easily resolved.

If Pacquiao stepped up in weight he wouldn't be Floyd's mandatory though would he. He'd have to face a host of no-name contenders first for relative peanuts in the hope of moving up the ranks to ultimately get a challengers cut of the purse vs Floyd. Wouldn't happen with such little incentive would it. With a one-belt system we'd hardly ever get champions moving up in weight.

It's a mute point anyway as how would the one-belt system work with Mayweather fighting only once a year?

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:The point about Manny and Floyd is had there been one governing body one them would have been champion and the other would have been mandatory. The one who was champion would have had two choices, fight the other or be stripped. If they choose the former the fight happens. If they choose the latter any debate about who does or does not want the fight is readily and easily resolved.

If Pacquiao stepped up in weight he wouldn't be Floyd's mandatory though would he. He'd have to face a host of no-name contenders first for relative peanuts in the hope of moving up the ranks to ultimately get a challengers cut of the purse vs Floyd. Wouldn't happen with such little incentive would it. With a one-belt system we'd hardly ever get champions moving up in weight.

It's a mute point anyway as how would the one-belt system work with Mayweather fighting only once a year?

Why relative peanuts? He'd be paid exactly as he is now.

You're both missing a fairly important part, Mayweather wouldn't have been the champion when Pacquiao stepped up, he'd retired and vacated his titles. I could imagine that Mosley would have been the champion at which point he would have been targeted by Pacquiao who would have been the number one contender after beating Cotto. Imagine that's how it would have transpired under a one belt system.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:The point about Manny and Floyd is had there been one governing body one them would have been champion and the other would have been mandatory. The one who was champion would have had two choices, fight the other or be stripped. If they choose the former the fight happens. If they choose the latter any debate about who does or does not want the fight is readily and easily resolved.

If Pacquiao stepped up in weight he wouldn't be Floyd's mandatory though would he. He'd have to face a host of no-name contenders first for relative peanuts in the hope of moving up the ranks to ultimately get a challengers cut of the purse vs Floyd. Wouldn't happen with such little incentive would it. With a one-belt system we'd hardly ever get champions moving up in weight.

It's a mute point anyway as how would the one-belt system work with Mayweather fighting only once a year?

Also champions used to move up in weight all the time under a one belt system, it just meant more when they did it, the best around don't need to work their way into a mandatory position. Being THE man at a lower weight means something when you step up, if you're just a contender you then carry on being a contender but ranked lower.

hazharrison wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:The point about Manny and Floyd is had there been one governing body one them would have been champion and the other would have been mandatory. The one who was champion would have had two choices, fight the other or be stripped. If they choose the former the fight happens. If they choose the latter any debate about who does or does not want the fight is readily and easily resolved.

If Pacquiao stepped up in weight he wouldn't be Floyd's mandatory though would he. He'd have to face a host of no-name contenders first for relative peanuts in the hope of moving up the ranks to ultimately get a challengers cut of the purse vs Floyd. Wouldn't happen with such little incentive would it. With a one-belt system we'd hardly ever get champions moving up in weight.

It's a mute point anyway as how would the one-belt system work with Mayweather fighting only once a year?

Why relative peanuts? He'd be paid exactly as he is now.

If Pac was champ at Lightweight he'd be earning a lot more than if he were a lowly ranked Welterweight fighting other lowly ranked welterweights.

Not how it works, as the lightweight champion he'd be able to get a shot against the welterweight champion easily. If you're exciting to watch then that means more than any title belt.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:The point about Manny and Floyd is had there been one governing body one them would have been champion and the other would have been mandatory. The one who was champion would have had two choices, fight the other or be stripped. If they choose the former the fight happens. If they choose the latter any debate about who does or does not want the fight is readily and easily resolved.

If Pacquiao stepped up in weight he wouldn't be Floyd's mandatory though would he. He'd have to face a host of no-name contenders first for relative peanuts in the hope of moving up the ranks to ultimately get a challengers cut of the purse vs Floyd. Wouldn't happen with such little incentive would it. With a one-belt system we'd hardly ever get champions moving up in weight.

It's a mute point anyway as how would the one-belt system work with Mayweather fighting only once a year?

Also champions used to move up in weight all the time under a one belt system, it just meant more when they did it, the best around don't need to work their way into a mandatory position. Being THE man at a lower weight means something when you step up, if you're just a contender you then carry on being a contender but ranked lower.

A corrupt one belt system where money was all that mattered.

So if Pac stepped up to fight Mayweather the top WW contender, who's worked for years to get up the rankings, would just have to wait another year or two to get his shot? It's completely unworkable.

So are you seriously suggesting that the possibility of having 85 world champion across 17 weight divisions is the best option?