all the weights all the belts
I hear people say there are so many belts and so many weights there arent any real champions anymore, but is it such a bad thing?
if we consider 4 belts as the worth having belts
(i dont think anyone who knows anything about boxing would really consider some of the world championsip belt holders as real world champions, not that I am knocking winning one as an achievement, i just dont think a WBU (for instance) world champion can really say he is a full world champion )
so, is having 4 belts such a bad thing?
Re: all the weights all the belts
Maybe not but when you get to 14 belts for a divsion it is a bit ridiculous. I would go with 3 personally WBA,WBC,IBF.
Re: all the weights all the belts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
I hear people say there are so many belts and so many weights there arent any real champions anymore, but is it such a bad thing?
if we consider 4 belts as the worth having belts
(i dont think anyone who knows anything about boxing would really consider some of the world championsip belt holders as real world champions, not that I am knocking winning one as an achievement, i just dont think a WBU (for instance) world champion can really say he is a full world champion )
so, is having 4 belts such a bad thing?
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for us hardcore fans, but it really confuses the casual or prospective fans and it makes the sport look a bit farcical. It's painful trying to explain who the legitimate divisional champion is (if there even is one) and the role of the belts and the sanctioning body to someone who is not a huge fan. The people I talk to about it often just shake their heads and say how confusing it is compared to MMA.
Re: all the weights all the belts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
I hear people say there are so many belts and so many weights there arent any real champions anymore, but is it such a bad thing?
if we consider 4 belts as the worth having belts
(i dont think anyone who knows anything about boxing would really consider some of the world championsip belt holders as real world champions, not that I am knocking winning one as an achievement, i just dont think a WBU (for instance) world champion can really say he is a full world champion )
so, is having 4 belts such a bad thing?
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for us hardcore fans, but it really confuses the casual or prospective fans and it makes the sport look a bit farcical. It's painful trying to explain who the legitimate divisional champion is (if there even is one) and the role of the belts and the sanctioning body to someone who is not a huge fan. The people I talk to about it often just shake their heads and say how confusing it is compared to MMA.
Ding ding ding ding! You've just hit the daily double.
The better question should be is having 1 belt per division a good thing? Or how about having 1 belt per division with only 12 weight classes in total?
Re: all the weights all the belts
i think we've got to include the WBO belts as well! there have been many great WBO champions that you just can't dismiss that organization! right now, i can live with 4 legit belts but i would like for there to be more unification bouts. the thing i don't like and should be erased are the WBA's super world title or whatever it's called and also those stupid WBC silver belts and others. those interim belts also need to go as well. as far as regional belts are concerned, keep the NABO and the other minor regional belt (forgot the name).
Re: all the weights all the belts
You guys are also forgetting the Ring Magazine lineal champion belts.;D
BTW the IBO is fast starting to be another major title belt. I expect in 10 years time it will be added to the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO as legitimate belts.
Isn't that cool, we get to have 5 champions per division in a few more years!
Re: all the weights all the belts
I hate the fact there are so many belts but money rules. A lot of casual fans will never know who is the best fighter in the weight class but for those of us who know a bit more it's equally frustrating seeing the best fighters avoid each other while each claiming to be the best.
I don't understand why people get annoyed with there being so many weight divisions the way i see it if people are fighting people in their weight class it's fair regardless of how many divisions there are. I think for people who were boxing fans before there were so many divisions have a problem as people don't usually like change but for me there has always been a lot of divisions so it's all i know.
Re: all the weights all the belts
i dont neccessarily think fighters are avoiding each other that much nowadays, i read some stat somewhere, and i cant remember exactly what it was but it was something like, in the last 5 years there have been more genuine world champions fighting each other than in the previous 25 years
look at the super 6 too, i think times are changing
do you think having more belts helps spread the wealth?
Re: all the weights all the belts
all these belts are my biggest hate of the sport without a doubt, one title per weight class the end, how amazing would that be;D, that way all the fighters fight each other or dont get a shot at the title, how amazing would that be;D
Re: all the weights all the belts
The belts would not be so bad if they would leave them unified when fighters unify them.
So they would always stay unified, and they would only become un-unified if a fighter vacates. That would start the new process of consolidating power.
All that this would need would be for the four alphabet gangs to have unified mandatories. instead of klitschko having to fight his IBF and WBO mandatories, the the IBF and WBO mandatories would fight each other for the Unified mandatory slot.
