Printable View
Have we ever had this many Brits holding world titles before?
We are certainly holding our own against the rest of the world at the moment.
I've just had a real quick look at the current list of boxing champions and it looks like we have 11, I don't believe they are all champion quality but they have the straps and there are other world level fighters who don't deserve to be where they are.
I think UK, USA and Mexico all currently hold 11 belts each.
Yes but out of the 11 not 1 of them is the best in there division IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by Batman
I think British boxing is going through a 'golden era' at the moment. This is mainly due to the investment in the amateur game for the 2012 Olympics.
But this golden era should not be judged on title holders, because as already suggested, titles mean so little now in general boxing currency.
The judgement should be on how many fighters we can get to be generally recognized as the best in their division.
As much as I hate to say Matchroom has done so much for British boxing in the last few years. They give their fighters such great chances to win world titles particularly given some of their limited abilities. With 11 current champions they have some guaranteed world champs in the making too with Joshua, Campbell, Davies, Edwards, Selby etc.
Need to get a few super fights in Britain next year to start the takeover. Follow up on Quigg v Frampton with Brook v Khan or Joshua v Haye would be a good start.
We have 10 (unless we steal Andy Lee :D) - which is currently more than any other country in the world.
James DeGale (IBF super-middleweight)
Liam Smith (WBO light-middleweight)
Kell Brook (IBF welterweight)
Anthony Crolla (WBA lightweight)
Terry Flanagan (WBO lightweight)
Lee Selby (IBF featherweight)
Carl Frampton (IBF super-bantamweight)
Scott Quigg (WBA super-bantamweight)
Jamie McDonnell (WBA bantamweight)
Lee Haskins (IBF bantamweight)
Usa - 8
Japan - 7
Mexico - 7
Russia - 5
Of all these belt holders - the Brits and the other nations - hardly any of them can truly claim to be the best in the division. As far as Britain goes - DeGale, Brook (maybe) and McDonnell have a claim to being top man. Obviously some divisions are far stronger than others.
Thats remarkable considering the size difference of GB compared to the other countries.
Fenster - Ireland are taking Frampton :D you guys can have Macklin :D
Good for the Brits, they deserve the belts! I can't agree with you though, I'd rather have the belt and be in the record books than to be looked at as the most deserving. Most of the belt holders today grew up in the system as it stands, so those belts mean something to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Most of us understand what you are saying but I think most of the belt holders would be thinking 'crackpot' if they heard you. I'm not saying you are wrong or looking for an argument, just trying to give you what I think the fighters view would be. Some of them would probably agree with you but would still be holding onto that belt as tightly as possible.
Yeah I'm stealing Andy Lee so that makes it 11...12 when Tyson Fury goes to town on Klit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
(that was a joke about Fury, I know to mention his name in a thread is risking derailing the whole topic with arguments)
Russia has more quality than quantity.
With the Brits claiming Wales and Irish fighters surely Russia can claim all of the old soviet union countries too to boost their numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
only we can pick who is included
I would not belittle someone for wanting a belt and being proud of it when they win it. But my point was in a wider context the 'currency' of belts is so diluted now as to not be a reliable indicator of the health of the sport in a particular state. That should be judged on the amount of fighters a state has that are 'generally considered' the best in their division.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedGood for the Brits, they deserve the belts! I can't agree with you though, I'd rather have the belt and be in the record books than to be looked at as the most deserving. Most of the belt holders today grew up in the system as it stands, so those belts mean something to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Most of us understand what you are saying but I think most of the belt holders would be thinking 'crackpot' if they heard you. I'm not saying you are wrong or looking for an argument, just trying to give you what I think the fighters view would be. Some of them would probably agree with you but would still be holding onto that belt as tightly as possible.
Britain includes Wales, but I would concede it clearly does not include any part of the Island of Ireland; for that we need the UK! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeWith the Brits claiming Wales and Irish fighters surely Russia can claim all of the old soviet union countries too to boost their numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
I did not realise we had so many world champion belt holders. It does not feel like a golden generation of fighters who stand out as the best yet at their respective weights.
Frampton is a proud Irishman. However, he is eligible to fight for the British title, therefore he makes the team, whether he likes it or not :D
I think the supposed golden gen for us Brits was when (and I could be wrong)
But at one time I think we had as champion
Hatton
Calzaghe
Haye
Enzo
Gavin Rees maybe
Khan
And maybe a couple more anyway it totalled about 7 and 3 or 4 were seriously big names and we had hatton on sky and calzaghe on ITV
Good times
Who decides who is the best in the division? I agree fully that "world" champion has been diluted. Multi champs is nonsense. However, I would bet we couldn't find a "respected" independent ranking system that doesn't include all four alphabet holders in their top ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidI would not belittle someone for wanting a belt and being proud of it when they win it. But my point was in a wider context the 'currency' of belts is so diluted now as to not be a reliable indicator of the health of the sport in a particular state. That should be judged on the amount of fighters a state has that are 'generally considered' the best in their division.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedGood for the Brits, they deserve the belts! I can't agree with you though, I'd rather have the belt and be in the record books than to be looked at as the most deserving. Most of the belt holders today grew up in the system as it stands, so those belts mean something to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Most of us understand what you are saying but I think most of the belt holders would be thinking 'crackpot' if they heard you. I'm not saying you are wrong or looking for an argument, just trying to give you what I think the fighters view would be. Some of them would probably agree with you but would still be holding onto that belt as tightly as possible.
If we had just one champion today, you could argue that we would not know who the best in the division was because many fighters would never even get a shot.
That is why I use 'Generally recognized'; you can almost never have an Undisputed best; not least because by definition they could not fight, as the moment they did, their opponent would be disputing their claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterWho decides who is the best in the division? I agree fully that "world" champion has been diluted. Multi champs is nonsense. However, I would bet we couldn't find a "respected" independent ranking system that doesn't include all four alphabet holders in their top ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidI would not belittle someone for wanting a belt and being proud of it when they win it. But my point was in a wider context the 'currency' of belts is so diluted now as to not be a reliable indicator of the health of the sport in a particular state. That should be judged on the amount of fighters a state has that are 'generally considered' the best in their division.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedGood for the Brits, they deserve the belts! I can't agree with you though, I'd rather have the belt and be in the record books than to be looked at as the most deserving. Most of the belt holders today grew up in the system as it stands, so those belts mean something to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Most of us understand what you are saying but I think most of the belt holders would be thinking 'crackpot' if they heard you. I'm not saying you are wrong or looking for an argument, just trying to give you what I think the fighters view would be. Some of them would probably agree with you but would still be holding onto that belt as tightly as possible.
If we had just one champion today, you could argue that we would not know who the best in the division was because many fighters would never even get a shot.