IS 1 champ per division really necessary/important for boxing?(article)

Althoug I've been persuaded around by some of you RING hardcores and your admittedly superb arguments which countered all of my inefficient ones with regards to the issue of 1 champ per division,here is an article that questions the significance of the 1 champ per division idea. A superb read from Steve Kim,1 of my fave writers. Check it out and post your thoughts.

http://www.m axboxing.com/Kim/Kim121407.asp

Just join the M and A together and follow the link peeps.Real interesting thoughts.

of course there should only be one belt in every division son, floyd no doubt is the best at ww cuz

Yeah I read this last night, good article and he does make some very valid points.

My counter argument would be though in place of 4 or 5 meaningless world title belts why not have one world title belt in each division but a host of meaningful other belts.

I mean if it actually meant a great deal to be the Americas champ or the Asian champ etc then they could serve in place of world title belts.

Ultimately though it's too far gone now and nothing could ever change so best leave it the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Yeah I read this last night, good article and he does make some very valid points.

My counter argument would be though in place of 4 or 5 meaningless world title belts why not have one world title belt in each division but a host of meaningful other belts.

I mean if it actually meant a great deal to be the Americas champ or the Asian champ etc then they could serve in place of world title belts.

Ultimately though it's too far gone now and nothing could ever change so best leave it the way it is.

---

I don't really like your system.The American,etc champs would just be the WBO America's champ or the WBC asian champ,same thing no?I though he brought up LOTS of legitimate points,really good writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Althoug I've been persuaded around by some of you RING hardcores and your admittedly superb arguments which countered all of my inefficient ones with regards to the issue of 1 champ per division,here is an article that questions the significance of the 1 champ per division idea. A superb read from Steve Kim,1 of my fave writers. Check it out and post your thoughts.

http://www.m axboxing.com/Kim/Kim121407.asp

Just join the M and A together and follow the link peeps.Real interesting thoughts.

---

Good article, that.

I used to believe that Boxing should scrap the Alphabets and place much heavier emphasis on the Geographical titles. For me i feel that works from grass roots right up to wrold level.... Well, it did but like Bilbo says. Its too far gone now.....

In regards to th earticle, I sort of agree to the extent that multiple belts per division gives the better illusion of more premier fighters per division. And ultimately, that can entail more money being thrown around the sport.

However, i would just like to see far more UNIFICATION attempts than there actually are. Even if it was two major straps. Everyone recognizes the term UNDISPUTED champion. Tell me how many fighters out there at this point can be named as such?

Not enough, if you ask me.

I've always felt that the multiple belts isn't the real problem, it's the poor job commissions do of picking mandatory challengers for those belts that's the problem.

For example, Wlad and Ibragimov each holding heavyweight belts isn't a problem, but Wlad being forced to waste his time last year against a stiff like Tim Austin is a problem.

I agree the match making is a problem ESPECIALLY in these times when a fighter fighting 3 times a year has had an active year! I also agree there should be more unification attempts but for whatever reason,it doesn't happen. It's usually the big headed asses of the organisations that are unwilling to make concessions. I mean we havefighters that get titles stripped for no reason(JMM springs to mind) and far too many BS titls like emeritus,interim titles and the like. And even when there is a unification fight,B Hop v JT springs to mind,the fighter is not allowed to keep the titles because he wouldn't be able to honour all the urses he hasnt pay,mandatories etc. I guess these are some of the downfalls of the multiple titles but the article sure makes awesome points!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Yeah I read this last night, good article and he does make some very valid points.

My counter argument would be though in place of 4 or 5 meaningless world title belts why not have one world title belt in each division but a host of meaningful other belts.

I mean if it actually meant a great deal to be the Americas champ or the Asian champ etc then they could serve in place of world title belts.

Ultimately though it's too far gone now and nothing could ever change so best leave it the way it is.

---

I don't really like your system.The American,etc champs would just be the WBO America's champ or the WBC asian champ,same thing no?I though he brought up LOTS of legitimate points,really good writing.

---

Well like I say my system would never work because those titles exist now and are largely meaningless. For it to have worked the continental and international titles would have had to have had real significance attached to them from the beginning.

So I agree nobody will ever care about be the Pan Asian Champ or anything but if those titles were seen as important then you could get by with only one world title per weight class.

I mean for example imagine if the title of Mexican champ or South American champ was actually seen as a really high honour than you could have had some great Mexican rivalries or South American rivalries etc. If being European champ was a huge honour we could have some great European rivalries.

Unfortunately these titles don't mean a think in real terms and never will so it wouldn't work. I was just lamenting what might have been had things been set up properly in the beginning.