Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-26-2019, 07:49 PM
Kirkland Laing

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

If you could couple the one title per weight division thing with the champ having to fight a mandatory every couple of fights and the mandatory being the guy at the top of the consensus top ten then boxing would become much bigger than it is now. The promoters would hate it though. :)
11-26-2019, 07:51 PM
powerpuncher

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

If you could couple the one title per weight division thing with the champ having to fight a mandatory every couple of fights and the mandatory being the guy at the top of the consensus top ten then boxing would become much bigger than it is now. The promoters would hate it though. :)

I always thought that it would be cool if somehow they could have a fan vote. Like every third title defense is a fan vote and they have to fight who the fans vote in. Although I understand the logistical nightmare it would be with negotiations and everything. It’s just a cool thought.
11-26-2019, 08:42 PM
Alpha

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

If you could couple the one title per weight division thing with the champ having to fight a mandatory every couple of fights and the mandatory being the guy at the top of the consensus top ten then boxing would become much bigger than it is now. The promoters would hate it though. :)

If it ever went back to 1 Championship, it would need to be run properly or things wouldn't be much better than they are today. High risk/ low reward challengers would be avoided for as long as possible for higher paying/ lower risk opponents. The rankings would also need to be monitored, so undeserving fighters were not pushed unfairly towards the top.

As fans we can make a start by not recognising these sanctioning bodies and their worthless belts (fighters need to wake up as well).

My thinking is fighters should be fighting 3 times a year to maintain their top 10 ranking and only fighters in the top 10 should be getting title shots.

What we need is a decent ranking system that the majority of fans can agree with, maybe along the lines of powerpunchers idea of fan voting between 3 opponents to get a shot at the title.
11-26-2019, 10:32 PM
Dia bando

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Four main governing body's so four Champions at each weight in some cases.
Then the TV PPV giants who will not let there cash cows fight on someone else's network.
We rarely get Champion V Champion theses days unlike in the 80s when it was a common.
It's all about money not the belts theses days there again boxing is a business pure and simple.
11-26-2019, 11:21 PM
TitoFan

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dia bando

Four main governing body's so four Champions at each weight in some cases.

If that was all it was, Dia...... But to make matter worse, some of these governing bodies have more than one belt per weight class! So the titles just keep on multiplying until anyone who wants a belt can practically have one.

Then the WBC comes up with this Franchise Champion bullshit, and makes things even worse than they EVER were.

It's enough to make fans :puke:
11-27-2019, 12:49 AM
X

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Good question, I would go for the one champ per existing weight divisions. When there were only eight, there were some people who fell between the cracks of those old weights.

i would also go for a weigh in on the way to the ring, stopping the silly games people,play with their weight. Admittedly, there would have to be a hydration % the fighters would have to reach.
11-27-2019, 09:46 AM
Master

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by X

Good question, I would go for the one champ per existing weight divisions. When there were only eight, there were some people who fell between the cracks of those old weights.

i would also go for a weigh in on the way to the ring, stopping the silly games people,play with their weight. Admittedly, there would have to be a hydration % the fighters would have to reach.

If the weight was independently monitored and verified throughout their camp then this would help the safety of the fighter and ensure they are healthy when they step into the ring.
11-27-2019, 01:09 PM
Fenster

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

Originally Posted by X

Good question, I would go for the one champ per existing weight divisions. When there were only eight, there were some people who fell between the cracks of those old weights.

i would also go for a weigh in on the way to the ring, stopping the silly games people,play with their weight. Admittedly, there would have to be a hydration % the fighters would have to reach.

If the weight was independently monitored and verified throughout their camp then this would help the safety of the fighter and ensure they are healthy when they step into the ring.

That already happens in WBC fights - 30, 14, 7 days out fighters need to be within a limit. And the IBF already have the 10lb same day weigh in rehydration clause.
11-27-2019, 01:49 PM
Fenster

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

If you could couple the one title per weight division thing with the champ having to fight a mandatory every couple of fights and the mandatory being the guy at the top of the consensus top ten then boxing would become much bigger than it is now. The promoters would hate it though. :)

The fighters would hate it more than promoters.

The best thing for boxing fans in America would be if Dana White took over. It's incredible the "small" purses his fighters get (officially) compared with boxers in America considering their success.
11-27-2019, 08:02 PM
TIC

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

i thought pbc no longer recgonising the wbo would be a good thing, turns out things will more than likely get worse. they want to introduce their own belt. more inhouse pandering on the way
11-27-2019, 09:00 PM
Kirkland Laing

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

If you could couple the one title per weight division thing with the champ having to fight a mandatory every couple of fights and the mandatory being the guy at the top of the consensus top ten then boxing would become much bigger than it is now. The promoters would hate it though. :)

The fighters would hate it more than promoters.

The best thing for boxing fans in America would be if Dana White took over. It's incredible the "small" purses his fighters get (officially) compared with boxers in America considering their success.

If you had one guy or one organisation running all the chamionship fights then that would be ideal. The best thing about UFC is that you know the top guys are going to be matched against each other. They can't avoid it because they're all signed to the same guy who doesn't care who wins and who loses because he's backed both horses. The champ keeps winning and he becomes a legend and more than likely does good and increasing PPV numbers. Somebody beats him and he's an overnight sensation and immediately becomes a big name. This is what boxing is missing.
11-28-2019, 01:30 AM
powerpuncher

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

If you could couple the one title per weight division thing with the champ having to fight a mandatory every couple of fights and the mandatory being the guy at the top of the consensus top ten then boxing would become much bigger than it is now. The promoters would hate it though. :)

The fighters would hate it more than promoters.

The best thing for boxing fans in America would be if Dana White took over. It's incredible the "small" purses his fighters get (officially) compared with boxers in America considering their success.

If you had one guy or one organisation running all the chamionship fights then that would be ideal. The best thing about UFC is that you know the top guys are going to be matched against each other. They can't avoid it because they're all signed to the same guy who doesn't care who wins and who loses because he's backed both horses. The champ keeps winning and he becomes a legend and more than likely does good and increasing PPV numbers. Somebody beats him and he's an overnight sensation and immediately becomes a big name. This is what boxing is missing.

That’s why I hope that one of the streaming sites/networks takes over and just becomes what UFC is to MMA. Then other promotions can be like Belator or ONE and still put on good fights but everyone knows where the best fighters go.
11-28-2019, 01:35 AM
Fatboxingfan

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

If you could change one of these two things, which one would it be?

One title per weight class or change back to 8 weight classes?

It seems that having one title would be the obvious answer to me, and I think it would fix a ton of problems, but having only 8 weight classes would also prevent jumping weight classes and ducking. People would be forced to stay at a weight class for a much longer time and couldn’t just move up to avoid someone.

I still think that having one title per weight class would be better, but we still have so many weight classes that even at that, it gets so watered down. There would be more potential mega fights with 8 weight classes because every weight would have at least a handful of really good fighters.

8 wait class
11-29-2019, 08:38 AM
Baal

Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

One champion for each category

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page