Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
The Ring Magizine is working on the belt problem, and ESPN and many big boxing writers are following.
If you read Dan Rafaels article on ESPN.COM you will notice that if you have an alphabet belt you are a "titlest." While people who hold the real, lineal World Championships(Joe C., Floyd M., David H., Kelly P.,) are refered to as "WORLD CHAMPIONS"
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
The problem with that is that the Ring is a magazine that only boxing fans pay attention to. And the Ring Belt is an abstract.
I think what BigLuke is reffering to is a way to attract other sports fans and casual viewers into the sport of boxing. To do that you need something more substantial and tangible.
I have been saying it for a while and I continue to believe in and promote the idea that there should be a tournament every 4 years in every weight class to dertermine who is THE CHAMPION.
I mean look to other sports. Next year the Giants will no longer be the champions. They will be the same as any other team.
I'm not suggesting that the champion should be stripped of his title as soon as he wins it. What I'm saying is it should be put on the line and made available to other contenders.
Imagine if every four years the top 8 guys of each division fought eachother for THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Three fights per division throughout the year and by December every division will have one champion. There are 17 divisions, thats 51 major events in the year. It would be like year long Christmas for a boxing fan. And at the end each division will have their champion.
Every four years they do it again. Like the world cup.
How do we decide who the top 8 guys are? Thats where the Ring can come in. If not, some other official ranking. We would still have some good fights in between as all the fighters try to make the top eight. The point is they have to do it. There is no going around it. If you don't participate, than you are not the champion. Period.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
It's a mess as it is, even the ring is now flawed with Golden Boy seizing ownership.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rookie Fan
The problem with that is that the Ring is a magazine that only boxing fans pay attention to. And the Ring Belt is an abstract.
I think what BigLuke is reffering to is a way to attract other sports fans and casual viewers into the sport of boxing. To do that you need something more substantial and tangible.
I have been saying it for a while and I continue to believe in and promote the idea that there should be a tournament every 4 years in every weight class to dertermine who is THE CHAMPION.
I mean look to other sports. Next year the Giants will no longer be the champions. They will be the same as any other team.
I'm not suggesting that the champion should be stripped of his title as soon as he wins it. What I'm saying is it should be put on the line and made available to other contenders.
Imagine if every four years the top 8 guys of each division fought eachother for THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Three fights per division throughout the year and by December every division will have one champion. There are 17 divisions, thats 51 major events in the year. It would be like year long Christmas for a boxing fan. And at the end each division will have their champion.
Every four years they do it again. Like the world cup.
How do we decide who the top 8 guys are? Thats where the Ring can come in. If not, some other official ranking. We would still have some good fights in between as all the fighters try to make the top eight. The point is they have to do it. There is no going around it. If you don't participate, than you are not the champion. Period.
Yea thats the idea.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rookie Fan
The problem with that is that the Ring is a magazine that only boxing fans pay attention to. And the Ring Belt is an abstract.
I think what BigLuke is reffering to is a way to attract other sports fans and casual viewers into the sport of boxing. To do that you need something more substantial and tangible.
I have been saying it for a while and I continue to believe in and promote the idea that there should be a tournament every 4 years in every weight class to dertermine who is THE CHAMPION.
I mean look to other sports. Next year the Giants will no longer be the champions. They will be the same as any other team.
I'm not suggesting that the champion should be stripped of his title as soon as he wins it. What I'm saying is it should be put on the line and made available to other contenders.
Imagine if every four years the top 8 guys of each division fought eachother for THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Three fights per division throughout the year and by December every division will have one champion. There are 17 divisions, thats 51 major events in the year. It would be like year long Christmas for a boxing fan. And at the end each division will have their champion.
Every four years they do it again. Like the world cup.
How do we decide who the top 8 guys are? Thats where the Ring can come in. If not, some other official ranking. We would still have some good fights in between as all the fighters try to make the top eight. The point is they have to do it. There is no going around it. If you don't participate, than you are not the champion. Period.
The Ring title is given to the best fighter in the division based on accomplishments and can only be one from the man who holds it...There are no sub divisions of it...It has been the REAL world title for a very long time....
I think Hopkins put it best when he said it is the greatest title he has ever held and worth the most of them all...It tells everyone who THE champion of that division is and best part is no sanctioning fees......
We have to see over the next year or two if GBP does anything fore us to start to question it's validity..until then IMO it is the one that counts
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
i like what the ring is trying to do but at the end of the day it's just another belt adding to the confusion.
I person think boxing on free tv would be good. when i say free tv i don't mean HBO or any other cable network. Its gotta come on a channel like NBC ABC CBS FOX or CW.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
To be honest were never going to get rid of the multiple titles problem..the WBO,IBF,WBC and WBA are estabilished now and here to stay.
We shouldn't look to get rid of the problem,but the solution is easy.
Boxers need to stick there necks out to get the unification..Holding all four belt or three of the big belts shows you are the champ of that division.If you wont try to unfiy them.regardless of who your opponent is,There always going to be this problem.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Boxer
i like what the ring is trying to do but at the end of the day it's just another belt adding to the confusion.
I person think boxing on free tv would be good. when i say free tv i don't mean HBO or any other cable network. Its gotta come on a channel like NBC ABC CBS FOX or CW.
Public tv would be great for boxing. Paperviews have made many uninterested. All I'm saying is , is that changes are gonna have to be made, because boxing has been on a steady decline, as far as interest. Pretty soon its gotta hit the bottom. I think having one belt would also help to fix the problem.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
having one belt, one champion will never happen
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
I know I will gain alot off hatred towards this comment but,Me for one I like having 4 different belt holder not 14 different for each division.It gives them something to fight for a chance at gaining all the belts in a box-off.I mean think about it aren't some of you excited about the Klitschko and Ibragimov fight simply do to one of those guys having two belts closer to being a unified champ when they win.I like 4 belts not 14 that's all I saying.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
it would be nice to have 1 belt...
But, i don't really need some organization to tell me whos the best in that division.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
Two belts max.
One for the king and the other for the prince.
The prince gets a shot at the kings title but no man can keep two belts. If the prince beats the king, he takes the kings belt and vacates the belt of the prince. If the prince loses, he also loses the belt but not to the king. He loses the belt so others can fight for it.
:camera:
The problem with this sport, is they have no real order of who should fight who. No real schedule like in baseball or football. Some people get ducked while others get undeserving shots. Boxing tournaments with eliminators would be great for the sport. Each fighter pays a small fee or large fee depending on who they are.
Re: One Belt-ONe Champion
Whilst preaching to the choir, thou art also endangered of whistling into the wind.
And powers that be? C'mon. Let me say it to you like this: Say you have this money-making machine. And it's EXACTLY like 3 other money-making machines save for you calling yours by a different name. Why in the world would you turn that machine off?
That's what these alphabet titles are; licensed money presses. And that's why every time you turn around another one has popped up. Now I'd be fine with the 4 major ones if they ate up the little ones and adopted a tangible, accountable means by which to rank fighters. Also, if they held regular tourneys in their own ranks which determined who had to fight whom to get to the champion and opened the gates on a regular basis to let titlists to fight one another. And once a champ has unified come to a mutual agreement as to whom a champ can take on (let him take his pick amongst each divisions' #1). No more stripping because he fought A's #1 and not B's.
