Thread: Boxing Comissions

Why dosent Hbo or Showtime recognize the names of titles? Like Wbc Ibf etc etc etc. When DLH faught Mayorga, they said Mayorga's title was worthless, that it was just a small token. They never recognize champions when they are, even if they are small titles. They call guys minor title holders. Another Example, When Freitas faught Raheem, they didnt even say the fight was a title fight, and it was for the WBO TITLE!!! they called the fight a small trincket.

Because they are using common sense.

Alphabet crap has its place, but with Winky moving up to Middleweight, it means there is not true World Champion at 154lbs, where de la Hoya and Mayorga fought.

Originally Posted by TaxanBaller

Why dosent Hbo or Showtime recognize the names of titles? Like Wbc Ibf etc etc etc. When DLH faught Mayorga, they said Mayorga's title was worthless, that it was just a small token. They never recognize champions when they are, even if they are small titles. They call guys minor title holders. Another Example, When Freitas faught Raheem, they didnt even say the fight was a title fight, and it was for the WBO TITLE!!! they called the fight a small trincket.

At one time the WBC was recognized by 30% of the world as THE champ...WBA was recognized by the other 70%...those could be flopped...the IBF and WBO are mostly made up titles....

Originally Posted by TaxanBaller

Why dosent Hbo or Showtime recognize the names of titles? Like Wbc Ibf etc etc etc. When DLH faught Mayorga, they said Mayorga's title was worthless, that it was just a small token. They never recognize champions when they are, even if they are small titles. They call guys minor title holders. Another Example, When Freitas faught Raheem, they didnt even say the fight was a title fight, and it was for the WBO TITLE!!! they called the fight a small trincket.

the question should be why is there more than one tittle!

Originally Posted by Preme

Originally Posted by TaxanBaller

Why dosent Hbo or Showtime recognize the names of titles? Like Wbc Ibf etc etc etc. When DLH faught Mayorga, they said Mayorga's title was worthless, that it was just a small token. They never recognize champions when they are, even if they are small titles. They call guys minor title holders. Another Example, When Freitas faught Raheem, they didnt even say the fight was a title fight, and it was for the WBO TITLE!!! they called the fight a small trincket.

the question should be why is there more than one tittle!

Because one champion cannot fight everyone who deserves it. I think it's ok they have more then one champion. Just as sure as they all can fight each other at some point, someone like Collazo may have never got a shot if there wasn't more then one champ. And it also leaves it up to the fans to decide who the champ is.

Originally Posted by Starr

someone like Collazo may have never got a shot if there wasn't more then one champ. And it also leaves it up to the fans to decide who the champ is.

Totaly dissagree there; if there was one champ, 1 ranking system and the commison told say the top 50 who they had to fight, people would be able to work thier way up, they would get thier shot.

there would be no more ducking people, i think people would get a fair shot.

Originally Posted by Starr

Originally Posted by Preme

Originally Posted by TaxanBaller

Why dosent Hbo or Showtime recognize the names of titles? Like Wbc Ibf etc etc etc. When DLH faught Mayorga, they said Mayorga's title was worthless, that it was just a small token. They never recognize champions when they are, even if they are small titles. They call guys minor title holders. Another Example, When Freitas faught Raheem, they didnt even say the fight was a title fight, and it was for the WBO TITLE!!! they called the fight a small trincket.

the question should be why is there more than one tittle!

Because one champion cannot fight everyone who deserves it. I think it's ok they have more then one champion. Just as sure as they all can fight each other at some point, someone like Collazo may have never got a shot if there wasn't more then one champ. And it also leaves it up to the fans to decide who the champ is.

While I hate to admit it Starr, I kind of agree with you. If nothing else having more than one title keeps a kind of checks and balance deal going. And if the champs get tired of having competition they can always fight the other champs to see who is the best like Calzaghe and Lacy did.

Originally Posted by Preme

Originally Posted by Starr

someone like Collazo may have never got a shot if there wasn't more then one champ. And it also leaves it up to the fans to decide who the champ is.

Totaly dissagree there; if there was one champ, 1 ranking system and the commison told say the top 50 who they had to fight, people would be able to work thier way up, they would get thier shot.

there would be no more ducking people, i think people would get a fair shot.

We would also have a lot of court cases, because I know, if I was good enough to be one of them 'top 50' fighters, I would not be dictated to by some Commission.

Myself, my Manager and my Promotor would decide who I fought and I doubt I would be alone...

Originally Posted by Preme

Originally Posted by Starr

someone like Collazo may have never got a shot if there wasn't more then one champ. And it also leaves it up to the fans to decide who the champ is.

Totaly dissagree there; if there was one champ, 1 ranking system and the commison told say the top 50 who they had to fight, people would be able to work thier way up, they would get thier shot.

there would be no more ducking people, i think people would get a fair shot.

Sounds good, but you have to eliminate too many entities to have that. The Don Kings and Oscars will pay too much money for that to happen. So will HBO and Showtime. All of the people associated with boxing that aren't fighters, run the show. It's all about money, and power. Who is the champ? Well that depends on who you ask. Boxing fans know who the champs are, or should be, but in the boxing world, whoever has the money, decides most of the time, who the champ is. Every now and then, we get an actuall championship fight, and thats only because one promoter, or network wants to steal some power from the other. But, there is hope. Tyson-Lewis was created by the fans, but the main reason it happened was because all the power players could still make money, and lots of it. I don't know how to fix things, but lately, there have been alot of good fights, pitting 2 of the top five in each division against each other. As far as having more than one belt, that can work, but there should only be 2, {an east and west conference or something}, not 5-7 belts.

Originally Posted by Britkid

Originally Posted by Preme

Originally Posted by Starr

someone like Collazo may have never got a shot if there wasn't more then one champ. And it also leaves it up to the fans to decide who the champ is.

Totaly dissagree there; if there was one champ, 1 ranking system and the commison told say the top 50 who they had to fight, people would be able to work thier way up, they would get thier shot.

there would be no more ducking people, i think people would get a fair shot.

We would also have a lot of court cases, because I know, if I was good enough to be one of them 'top 50' fighters, I would not be dictated to by some Commission.

Myself, my Manager and my Promotor would decide who I fought and I doubt I would be alone...

True, BK. It is bad enough trying to get the IBF WBC and WBA champs to fight each other let alone 50 guys to agree.