Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Wait a minute. Explain that to me a little more.

At the end of the year in baseball, basketball, and football, the two best teams play eachother to be champion (e.g. the Steelers may have been the AFC champs, but there is no debate that the champs last year were the Packers). There is only one champion every year. No one cares who the division champ was unless to say that the Steelers were in second place of the league at the end of the year. In those sports, the best play the best for the ring at the end of the year. The point of the divisional and league champion is only to aid in determining who will be in the final contest, and, thus, the complete champion at the end of the season.

Comparing them to boxing is difficult. There is no system to determine who the champion is for each weight class. The WBA and WBO super middleweights aren't competing for the ultimate boxing championship (the S6 was an attempt at doing something like that by the way). After the Andre Ward v. Carl Froch fight, who is the champion of the super middleweights? The winner or Lucian Bute? What if Lucian Bute fights Kessler and Pavlik? Ward loses to Glen Johnson. What then? For example, who is the champion at 140 right now? Amir Khan or Tim Bradley (err Eric Morales since the WBA stripped Tim Bradley). Who was the champion at heavyweight before Haye fought Klitschko? Vitali, Wladimir, or Haye? Moreover, the WBA (or WBC, I can't recall which) frequently strips fighters of their belts if they unify.

Boxing in the Olympics is much more comparable to american baseball, football or basketball. Geographic champions compete to the best at the end of every four years. There is a first, second, and third place.

---

Ok, you're missing the point. You don't have to get all anal over the details on the differences in the sports champions. The point is there are a number of Champions in all the sports not just in the Final End all Superbowl or World Cup etc. It's called demographics or whatever. Marketing the bigger than life World Champion image sells easier than the grudge match between town/state/country rivals.

---

Simply not true. NOBODY beleives division champs and Super Bowl winners are remotely comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Bilbo - the problem is that the alphabet belts don't have a procedure in place that ultimately culminates with a champion so you have multiple champions in different weight classes resulting in no clear champion. Aside from the fundamental problem of having no clear champion in many weight classes, there is no set system as to what merits receipt of a title fight or a title belt. Most of the time having a big following is all that is required. That shouldn't be what merits championship status or the term champion is watered down. It's like if the Yankees finished third place, but were given a title because they had a pretty good team and sold a ton of tickets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Premiere League, isn't there always one clear champion at the end of the day? And aren't the divisional leaders, the best second place team, or the best of their division?

How is Eric Morales fighting Barrios a title fight at 140?

I still am wondering though. What do you find so great about having a title that isn't found in being considered second or third place in a division? Is it just the marketability?

---

As I've said before you guys are just hung up on a single word, 'world'.

In tennis there are four Grandslam events. If someone is the US open champion it doesn't mean he's the best tennis player in the world, and you could have a different champion for every grand slam. So one player wins the US open, another Wimbledon, another the French and another the Australian. Or one player might win 2 or 3 or even have all 4.

It's no different in boxing except that they use the term IBF World champion, rather than IBF champion.

If they didn't use the word 'World' ih there would it still bother you?

You NEED lots of competitions and titles in sport to ensure marketability, to motivate the participants, to generate money etc. If not then 99 percent of fights would just be two guys fighting each other. The titles just context and something to fight over.

It's just such a non point. Nobody who follows the sport is really confused as to who the top guys are, the holding of a belt merely highlights you out as one of the significant players in a division.

Just regard them open or major champions if the world 'world' offends you.

I don't see why the fuss. If you got rid of all the belts it would be shit, as all we would be doing is watching fights without context. Few fighters would ever get a shot at fighting for the belt and consequently they wouldn't hang around in the sport.

Sportsmen need titles to have the marketability to earn a decent living. I'm sure you all want fighters to be well rewarded and get a decent share of the profits. Well more belts helps them get that.

Otherwise it would be like the UFC where for example Shane Carwin got $40,000 for fighting for the UFC heavyweight crown. The most prestigious title in mixed martial arts, and he made 40k for his efforts.

Try and convince a Miguel Cotto, a Bernard Hopkins, or a Tim Bradley to fight a world title fight for that amount.

Sport is big business. When premiership footballers can routinely earn over £50,000 a week, boxers need to be well compensated.

---

Fights without context? Really? THAT'S where you want to go? You think the WBC manadatory defenses (as an example) provide a "context?" They are a fraud that has the ffect of trying to get fans to wear 20/200 eyeglasses.

Again, somehow when there were only eight belts the sport was 2-3 times as big as it is today in terms of number of fighters. You base your "they wouldn't hang around" on what exactly? Cause it sure isn't data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Bilbo - the problem is that the alphabet belts don't have a procedure in place that ultimately culminates with a champion so you have multiple champions in different weight classes resulting in no clear champion. Aside from the fundamental problem of having no clear champion in many weight classes, there is no set system as to what merits receipt of a title fight or a title belt. Most of the time having a big following is all that is required. That shouldn't be what merits championship status or the term champion is watered down. It's like if the Yankees finished third place, but were given a title because they had a pretty good team and sold a ton of tickets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Premiere League, isn't there always one clear champion at the end of the day? And aren't the divisional leaders, the best second place team, or the best of their division?

How is Eric Morales fighting Barrios a title fight at 140?

I still am wondering though. What do you find so great about having a title that isn't found in being considered second or third place in a division? Is it just the marketability?

---

As I've said before you guys are just hung up on a single word, 'world'.

In tennis there are four Grandslam events. If someone is the US open champion it doesn't mean he's the best tennis player in the world, and you could have a different champion for every grand slam. So one player wins the US open, another Wimbledon, another the French and another the Australian. Or one player might win 2 or 3 or even have all 4.

It's no different in boxing except that they use the term IBF World champion, rather than IBF champion.

If they didn't use the word 'World' ih there would it still bother you?

You NEED lots of competitions and titles in sport to ensure marketability, to motivate the participants, to generate money etc. If not then 99 percent of fights would just be two guys fighting each other. The titles just context and something to fight over.

It's just such a non point. Nobody who follows the sport is really confused as to who the top guys are, the holding of a belt merely highlights you out as one of the significant players in a division.

Just regard them open or major champions if the world 'world' offends you.

I don't see why the fuss. If you got rid of all the belts it would be shit, as all we would be doing is watching fights without context. Few fighters would ever get a shot at fighting for the belt and consequently they wouldn't hang around in the sport.

Sportsmen need titles to have the marketability to earn a decent living. I'm sure you all want fighters to be well rewarded and get a decent share of the profits. Well more belts helps them get that.

Otherwise it would be like the UFC where for example Shane Carwin got $40,000 for fighting for the UFC heavyweight crown. The most prestigious title in mixed martial arts, and he made 40k for his efforts.

Try and convince a Miguel Cotto, a Bernard Hopkins, or a Tim Bradley to fight a world title fight for that amount.

Sport is big business. When premiership footballers can routinely earn over £50,000 a week, boxers need to be well compensated.

---

Tennis has one set of rankings and there is one definitive #1 player at all times. Your analogy fails.

The NBA has 82 game seasons, MLB has over 100 regular season games, the NFL has 16 regular game seasons, college basketball has between 30-40 games in the regular season. I can go on and on so clearly you do not need lots of titles in sports for marketability or for sportsmen to make a living b/c all of these sports end with one singular and recognized champion. Further more non of the professionals are starving. In fact less alphabets in boxing would mean less sanctioning fees and more money for the boxer. Marketability comes from entertainment. Fighting for a trinket belt cheapens the sport and using clearly corrupt rankings where title shots can be bought removes the sport's credibility. The sport of MMA as we know it today is roughly 25 years old and fighter salaries have increased dramatically over the years and will continue to rise. Once again the analogy just doesn't pass the smell test. More importantly no one is forcing anyone to box or fight in MMA. If you don't like the salary then please be my guest and instead of playing a sport for a living, get a real job like the rest of us. Damn near every professional sport I can think of ends their season with one singular and recognized champ but some how boxing is better off with a convoluted and corrupt belt system that hands out titles like something out of a cracker jacks box.:rolleyes:

---

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

---

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

They have their entertainment value Bilbo. Sort of like watching a pig farmer wear a blindfold & sort random heads then demand the 1st lb. In fantasy land the orginizations would keep it literal and have number one meet the champ and rankings below meet in eliminations to earn way to top. If your ranked # 10 for Christ sake you should at least defeat a SINGLE guy ranked ahead of you to earn a shot. But the networks would hate that and its not like we fans actually want to see fighters we've never heard of more than once on HBO anyway. I think HBO and Showtime have tunnel vision, and we drink the kool aid.

They 'can' matter but yes, having a belt used to mean something. As it should. Just because its common now to hand them out like door prizes doesn't mean fans aren't right to call bullshit on it when they see it.

---

With 4 belts you simply can't have the best ranked fighters fighting for each belt as it would be the same guys ranked the same in each organisation.

I think of each organisation seperately, just like in MMA. So Cain Valesquez is the UFC world champ whilst Allister Overeem is the Strikeforce world champ. Actually I think he just got injured and stripped but the point remains. Two world champs, two different organisations.

Well boxing's roster is probably 100 times bigger than the UFC. There are probably 250 UFC contracted fighters and maybe 100 in Strikforce versus maybe 10,000 pro boxers so as the contention rate is much lower 1:1500 per weight class vs maybe 1:100 in the UFC and Strikeforce they have 4 orgainisations instead of two.

It's no problem to me. Considering the welterweight division has 1483 boxers in it (boxrec) and the UFC has maybe 63 fighters in it's welterweight division then even with 4 belts it's still far harder to win a world title in boxing than it is in the UFC.

Fans seem to ignore this. A sportsman who is dedicating his life to his sport wants to have belts, trophies, etc to aim for. Having 4 organisations gives hope to more pro's that one day they can fight for and win a world title and probably keeps them in the sport.

They are not bad for boxing, rather they are necessary for boxing.

---

Laughing

Necessary? Hardly. The sport thrived with TWICE as many fighters in only eight divisions with only eight belts.

Now? The sport is on a respirator.

---

Maybe the fans were loving it, but how many boxers were thriving as a result of entertaining you?

How many great fighters of the past were rewarded for their greatness by becoming incredibly wealthy men? Most of them quit broke because they didn't see jack shit of the revenue back then. They had to fight every few weeks and that was the champions!

Good luck with trying to convince today's fighters to give up their belts and 4/5ths of their income because you want only one of them in each weight class having the honour of being called champion.

Sport has evolved since the 40's and 50's and now it's big money. Now the sportsmen are properly rewarded in all major sports and expect to be so.

Why would somebody take up boxing if there was no chance of winning anything and thus earning anything?

You say people turn up to football and hockey matches for games that don't mean anything, that's ridiculous? In the UK football is life and death for some people. A teams position in the league, and progress in the FA cup, to say nothing of the progress in the European cups is literally the most important thing in many British men's lives. Every game is for a title, the premier league, championship, league one, league two etc. Not a single team from premiership down to amatuer pub 5 a sides does not compete for a title of some sort, it's the exact opposite of what you are arguing. Likewise with American football and hockey. All the teams are competing for something!

Your viewpoint is totally selfish just thinking of your perpspective as a fan. If you cared about the fighters you'd be happy to see them rewarded for their efforts, the same way professionals are in other major sports.

---

What makes a champion a champion? it is in the OVERCOMING, it is in the RARITY, it is in the EXCELLENCE!

90% of major sports games have zero meaning in themselves. NONE. Who wins or loses has ZERO to do with the outcome of an individual game. And how many NBA champs are there every year? ONE!

This is bloodsport, not some game of fourth gradse dogeball where people get participation certificates.

Again, this is measurable. If you were right? More straps would mean more fighters. In fact the opposite is true.

---

You and vanchilds are bleating a load of nonsense!

Why does having four belts stop fighters from reaching the pinnacle? Since when has winning an alphabet belt been the pinnacle? Truly great fighters go well beyond that. They want to win several belts, across multiple divisions, amass a ton of trophies and silverware just like in every other sport. Then they want to fight the other best fighters and prove their greatness.

How have the alphabets hindered that? Have fighters like Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Holyfield, Lewis, Marquez, Morales, Barrera, De La Hoya not been able to achieve in the sport because of the alphabets?

Can you really not tell the difference between their acomplishments and lets say those of David Diaz, Ponce de Leon, Steven Lueveno, Marcus Beyer and Hasim Rahman?

The alphabets are not the pinnacle, they are just a title, like winning a Grand slam isn't in tennis isn't the pinnacle or winning a major isn't the pinnacle in golf, or winning the FA cup isn't the pinnacle in English football.

All of these trophies are highly desirable to win but winning them doesn't make you the best person or team in your sport. Winning a few of them might well do though, and it's no different in boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

They have their entertainment value Bilbo. Sort of like watching a pig farmer wear a blindfold & sort random heads then demand the 1st lb. In fantasy land the orginizations would keep it literal and have number one meet the champ and rankings below meet in eliminations to earn way to top. If your ranked # 10 for Christ sake you should at least defeat a SINGLE guy ranked ahead of you to earn a shot. But the networks would hate that and its not like we fans actually want to see fighters we've never heard of more than once on HBO anyway. I think HBO and Showtime have tunnel vision, and we drink the kool aid.

They 'can' matter but yes, having a belt used to mean something. As it should. Just because its common now to hand them out like door prizes doesn't mean fans aren't right to call bullshit on it when they see it.

---

With 4 belts you simply can't have the best ranked fighters fighting for each belt as it would be the same guys ranked the same in each organisation.

I think of each organisation seperately, just like in MMA. So Cain Valesquez is the UFC world champ whilst Allister Overeem is the Strikeforce world champ. Actually I think he just got injured and stripped but the point remains. Two world champs, two different organisations.

Well boxing's roster is probably 100 times bigger than the UFC. There are probably 250 UFC contracted fighters and maybe 100 in Strikforce versus maybe 10,000 pro boxers so as the contention rate is much lower 1:1500 per weight class vs maybe 1:100 in the UFC and Strikeforce they have 4 orgainisations instead of two.

It's no problem to me. Considering the welterweight division has 1483 boxers in it (boxrec) and the UFC has maybe 63 fighters in it's welterweight division then even with 4 belts it's still far harder to win a world title in boxing than it is in the UFC.

Fans seem to ignore this. A sportsman who is dedicating his life to his sport wants to have belts, trophies, etc to aim for. Having 4 organisations gives hope to more pro's that one day they can fight for and win a world title and probably keeps them in the sport.

They are not bad for boxing, rather they are necessary for boxing.

---

Laughing

Necessary? Hardly. The sport thrived with TWICE as many fighters in only eight divisions with only eight belts.

Now? The sport is on a respirator.

---

Maybe the fans were loving it, but how many boxers were thriving as a result of entertaining you?

How many great fighters of the past were rewarded for their greatness by becoming incredibly wealthy men? Most of them quit broke because they didn't see jack shit of the revenue back then. They had to fight every few weeks and that was the champions!

Good luck with trying to convince today's fighters to give up their belts and 4/5ths of their income because you want only one of them in each weight class having the honour of being called champion.

Sport has evolved since the 40's and 50's and now it's big money. Now the sportsmen are properly rewarded in all major sports and expect to be so.

Why would somebody take up boxing if there was no chance of winning anything and thus earning anything?

You say people turn up to football and hockey matches for games that don't mean anything, that's ridiculous? In the UK football is life and death for some people. A teams position in the league, and progress in the FA cup, to say nothing of the progress in the European cups is literally the most important thing in many British men's lives. Every game is for a title, the premier league, championship, league one, league two etc. Not a single team from premiership down to amatuer pub 5 a sides does not compete for a title of some sort, it's the exact opposite of what you are arguing. Likewise with American football and hockey. All the teams are competing for something!

Your viewpoint is totally selfish just thinking of your perpspective as a fan. If you cared about the fighters you'd be happy to see them rewarded for their efforts, the same way professionals are in other major sports.

---

What makes a champion a champion? it is in the OVERCOMING, it is in the RARITY, it is in the EXCELLENCE!

90% of major sports games have zero meaning in themselves. NONE. Who wins or loses has ZERO to do with the outcome of an individual game. And how many NBA champs are there every year? ONE!

This is bloodsport, not some game of fourth gradse dogeball where people get participation certificates.

Again, this is measurable. If you were right? More straps would mean more fighters. In fact the opposite is true.

---

You and vanchilds are bleating a load of nonsense!

Why does having four belts stop fighters from reaching the pinnacle? Since when has winning an alphabet belt been the pinnacle? Truly great fighters go well beyond that. They want to win several belts, across multiple divisions, amass a ton of trophies and silverware just like in every other sport. Then they want to fight the other best fighters and prove their greatness.

How have the alphabets hindered that? Have fighters like Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Holyfield, Lewis, Marquez, Morales, Barrera, De La Hoya not been able to achieve in the sport because of the alphabets?

Can you really not tell the difference between their acomplishments and lets say those of David Diaz, Ponce de Leon, Steven Lueveno, Marcus Beyer and Hasim Rahman?

The alphabets are the pinnacle, they are just a title, like winning a Grand slam isn't in tennis isn't the pinnacle or qinning a major isn't a pinnacle in golf, or winning the FA cup isn't the pinnacle in English football.

All of these trophies are highly desirable to win but winning them doesn't make you the best person or team in your sport. Winning a few of them might well do though, and it's no different in boxing.

---

Let's do some basic math again. THREE TIMES as many fights between contenders in the days of one belt as there are today. THAT is what the belts do. They prevent top fighters from fighting top fighters.

Winning straps means NADA. The Atlanta Braves won something like nine straight division titles. Yet in that run? They won only a single world series. How are they thought of? As a team that only won a single world series. That is as it should be.

Dumbing down excellence doesn't create more excellence. It dilutes the very concept and makes it more difficult for the casual observer to distinguish between TRUE excellence and the dumbed down version.

The casual fan sees this in boxing and THAT plays a big role in why the sport has shrunk so badly.

If your thesis were correct? Boxing would be in a Golden Era. It ain't.

Thanks for your thought, I'm out for the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Bilbo - the problem is that the alphabet belts don't have a procedure in place that ultimately culminates with a champion so you have multiple champions in different weight classes resulting in no clear champion. Aside from the fundamental problem of having no clear champion in many weight classes, there is no set system as to what merits receipt of a title fight or a title belt. Most of the time having a big following is all that is required. That shouldn't be what merits championship status or the term champion is watered down. It's like if the Yankees finished third place, but were given a title because they had a pretty good team and sold a ton of tickets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Premiere League, isn't there always one clear champion at the end of the day? And aren't the divisional leaders, the best second place team, or the best of their division?

How is Eric Morales fighting Barrios a title fight at 140?

I still am wondering though. What do you find so great about having a title that isn't found in being considered second or third place in a division? Is it just the marketability?

---

As I've said before you guys are just hung up on a single word, 'world'.

In tennis there are four Grandslam events. If someone is the US open champion it doesn't mean he's the best tennis player in the world, and you could have a different champion for every grand slam. So one player wins the US open, another Wimbledon, another the French and another the Australian. Or one player might win 2 or 3 or even have all 4.

It's no different in boxing except that they use the term IBF World champion, rather than IBF champion.

If they didn't use the word 'World' ih there would it still bother you?

You NEED lots of competitions and titles in sport to ensure marketability, to motivate the participants, to generate money etc. If not then 99 percent of fights would just be two guys fighting each other. The titles just context and something to fight over.

It's just such a non point. Nobody who follows the sport is really confused as to who the top guys are, the holding of a belt merely highlights you out as one of the significant players in a division.

Just regard them open or major champions if the world 'world' offends you.

I don't see why the fuss. If you got rid of all the belts it would be shit, as all we would be doing is watching fights without context. Few fighters would ever get a shot at fighting for the belt and consequently they wouldn't hang around in the sport.

Sportsmen need titles to have the marketability to earn a decent living. I'm sure you all want fighters to be well rewarded and get a decent share of the profits. Well more belts helps them get that.

Otherwise it would be like the UFC where for example Shane Carwin got $40,000 for fighting for the UFC heavyweight crown. The most prestigious title in mixed martial arts, and he made 40k for his efforts.

Try and convince a Miguel Cotto, a Bernard Hopkins, or a Tim Bradley to fight a world title fight for that amount.

Sport is big business. When premiership footballers can routinely earn over £50,000 a week, boxers need to be well compensated.

---

Tennis has one set of rankings and there is one definitive #1 player at all times. Your analogy fails.

The NBA has 82 game seasons, MLB has over 100 regular season games, the NFL has 16 regular game seasons, college basketball has between 30-40 games in the regular season. I can go on and on so clearly you do not need lots of titles in sports for marketability or for sportsmen to make a living b/c all of these sports end with one singular and recognized champion. Further more non of the professionals are starving. In fact less alphabets in boxing would mean less sanctioning fees and more money for the boxer. Marketability comes from entertainment. Fighting for a trinket belt cheapens the sport and using clearly corrupt rankings where title shots can be bought removes the sport's credibility. The sport of MMA as we know it today is roughly 25 years old and fighter salaries have increased dramatically over the years and will continue to rise. Once again the analogy just doesn't pass the smell test. More importantly no one is forcing anyone to box or fight in MMA. If you don't like the salary then please be my guest and instead of playing a sport for a living, get a real job like the rest of us. Damn near every professional sport I can think of ends their season with one singular and recognized champ but some how boxing is better off with a convoluted and corrupt belt system that hands out titles like something out of a cracker jacks box.:rolleyes:

---

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

---

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

---

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

Bilbo you are all over the place. At first the alphabets are what makes the sport great and are single handily keeping boxers from trading sexual favors in order to stay out of the poor house now the argument is that the straps are largely irrelevant. I'm going to agree with you that to serious fans they are irrelevant but its b/c we recognize how they impede the sport, lack credibility and are corrupt. To the casual fan, which is who the sport is losing in a landslide, they make following the sport convoluted. Even with great champions its not hard to find instances where they protected their belts by choosing to not fight another title holder or waiting until a great fighter got older. The alphabets perpetuate this practice. If you don't like the Ring fine, if you think the sport needs more tiered belts great, but I just can't fathom that having a watered down, corrupt alphabet system that hurts the sports credibility is preferential to singular belt and objective ranking system for each division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Bilbo - the problem is that the alphabet belts don't have a procedure in place that ultimately culminates with a champion so you have multiple champions in different weight classes resulting in no clear champion. Aside from the fundamental problem of having no clear champion in many weight classes, there is no set system as to what merits receipt of a title fight or a title belt. Most of the time having a big following is all that is required. That shouldn't be what merits championship status or the term champion is watered down. It's like if the Yankees finished third place, but were given a title because they had a pretty good team and sold a ton of tickets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Premiere League, isn't there always one clear champion at the end of the day? And aren't the divisional leaders, the best second place team, or the best of their division?

How is Eric Morales fighting Barrios a title fight at 140?

I still am wondering though. What do you find so great about having a title that isn't found in being considered second or third place in a division? Is it just the marketability?

---

As I've said before you guys are just hung up on a single word, 'world'.

In tennis there are four Grandslam events. If someone is the US open champion it doesn't mean he's the best tennis player in the world, and you could have a different champion for every grand slam. So one player wins the US open, another Wimbledon, another the French and another the Australian. Or one player might win 2 or 3 or even have all 4.

It's no different in boxing except that they use the term IBF World champion, rather than IBF champion.

If they didn't use the word 'World' ih there would it still bother you?

You NEED lots of competitions and titles in sport to ensure marketability, to motivate the participants, to generate money etc. If not then 99 percent of fights would just be two guys fighting each other. The titles just context and something to fight over.

It's just such a non point. Nobody who follows the sport is really confused as to who the top guys are, the holding of a belt merely highlights you out as one of the significant players in a division.

Just regard them open or major champions if the world 'world' offends you.

I don't see why the fuss. If you got rid of all the belts it would be shit, as all we would be doing is watching fights without context. Few fighters would ever get a shot at fighting for the belt and consequently they wouldn't hang around in the sport.

Sportsmen need titles to have the marketability to earn a decent living. I'm sure you all want fighters to be well rewarded and get a decent share of the profits. Well more belts helps them get that.

Otherwise it would be like the UFC where for example Shane Carwin got $40,000 for fighting for the UFC heavyweight crown. The most prestigious title in mixed martial arts, and he made 40k for his efforts.

Try and convince a Miguel Cotto, a Bernard Hopkins, or a Tim Bradley to fight a world title fight for that amount.

Sport is big business. When premiership footballers can routinely earn over £50,000 a week, boxers need to be well compensated.

---

Tennis has one set of rankings and there is one definitive #1 player at all times. Your analogy fails.

The NBA has 82 game seasons, MLB has over 100 regular season games, the NFL has 16 regular game seasons, college basketball has between 30-40 games in the regular season. I can go on and on so clearly you do not need lots of titles in sports for marketability or for sportsmen to make a living b/c all of these sports end with one singular and recognized champion. Further more non of the professionals are starving. In fact less alphabets in boxing would mean less sanctioning fees and more money for the boxer. Marketability comes from entertainment. Fighting for a trinket belt cheapens the sport and using clearly corrupt rankings where title shots can be bought removes the sport's credibility. The sport of MMA as we know it today is roughly 25 years old and fighter salaries have increased dramatically over the years and will continue to rise. Once again the analogy just doesn't pass the smell test. More importantly no one is forcing anyone to box or fight in MMA. If you don't like the salary then please be my guest and instead of playing a sport for a living, get a real job like the rest of us. Damn near every professional sport I can think of ends their season with one singular and recognized champ but some how boxing is better off with a convoluted and corrupt belt system that hands out titles like something out of a cracker jacks box.:rolleyes:

---

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

---

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

---

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

---

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

Although I don't support the ridiculous proliferation of belts available nowadays, there is a point that letting one single body be in charge of all of it makes that body more susceptible to the corruption of promoters. See how certain promoters are able to control the belts? Well, what if they could try & control or manipulate the Ring belt or rankings in such a way.

I also have a problem with the idea that the Ring is THE authority on lineage. In actual fact, they've ignored plenty of their own lineage & how it carried through the 90s. They also for some bizarre reason have chosen not to make the Cotto-Margarito fight for the lineal belt even though everyone else accepted it as such. I can't remember if it was about Mayweather's retirement being too recent or keeping Williams ranked above Margarito despite his loss to Quintana.

Then you've got them not liking that Zsolt Erdei was the lineal LHW champ of the world, so they decided to create another one. Sorry, you don't get to do that just because the champ is fighting marks.

All that said, if Ring did institute a proper policy like Maui's, then I'd be in support of it.

I agree that having 4 belts often stops (or is a reason why) the best fighters fight each other less frequently these days... And therefore I also understand the importance of the role that lineage plays... But 'Lineage' isn't a wholy owned subsidery of Ring Magazine ay?

Damit Jaz you just beat me to it.

Now everyone is going to think I am your less articulated Alt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

---

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

---

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

---

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

---

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Although I don't support the ridiculous proliferation of belts available nowadays, there is a point that letting one single body be in charge of all of it makes that body more susceptible to the corruption of promoters. See how certain promoters are able to control the belts? Well, what if they could try & control or manipulate the Ring belt or rankings in such a way.

I also have a problem with the idea that the Ring is THE authority on lineage. In actual fact, they've ignored plenty of their own lineage & how it carried through the 90s. They also for some bizarre reason have chosen not to make the Cotto-Margarito fight for the lineal belt even though everyone else accepted it as such. I can't remember if it was about Mayweather's retirement being too recent or keeping Williams ranked above Margarito despite his loss to Quintana.

Then you've got them not liking that Zsolt Erdei was the lineal LHW champ of the world, so they decided to create another one. Sorry, you don't get to do that just because the champ is fighting marks.

All that said, if Ring did institute a proper policy like Maui's, then I'd be in support of it.

---

Ring ain't perfect. It is merely the best of the available current choices...by a mile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

I agree that having 4 belts often stops (or is a reason why) the best fighters fight each other less frequently these days... And therefore I also understand the importance of the role that lineage plays... But 'Lineage' isn't a wholy owned subsidery of Ring Magazine ay?

---

Absolutely agree. Ring is merely the best of today's options if we are seeking a third party view untainted by our own biases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

---

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

---

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

---

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

---

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

---

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.