Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[Kev]

You are hung up on one single word, 'world'.

Titles are essential in sport. You're completely missing the point about Wimbledon. The whole two weeks is Wimbledon, the entire competition is the final. It's a knockout competition and so one single event.

Your preferred idea would be to scrap Wimbledon as an exciting knockout competition which allows even unrated players a chance to challenge for the title and just have the two highest seeded players play each other for the title of world tennis champion, with the 3 and 4 seeds battling for the right to play the champion next time.

That would be shit.

In tennis there are 4 grand slams, an official tour ranking and dozens of minor competitions. So somebody can be the US Open champion, or the Wimbledon champion, or be the number one rated player on the tour or the Rogers Cup champion.

Every time these guys play, it's in a competition for a prize of some sort.

Imagine they called the open winners world champions, and your little nose was put out of joint so you wanted them scrapped and the champion determined by who was the highest ranked player on the tour. Would that improve tennis? Of course not, it would ruin it.


Boxing is no different. You have fourmajor titles in each weight class, the IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO and a lot of minor ones, IBO, British, Commonwealth etc.

It's the same structure as any other sport, only you object to the word used 'world'.

Let me ask you, if instead of the world champion tag the belts were called 'IBF Major champ', or 'WBA Open champion' would that be better? My guess is that you don't mind the belts themselves, rather it's just your constant focusing on the single word 'world' that gets you all worked up.

A division with no belts would be shit. What would people be fighting for? There would be only two, at most 3 championship fights a year, sometimes none if the champ is inactive and a couple of eliminators.

How would you reward the best challengers? What would they have to distinguish them from everybody else? Currently they get a belt, which marks them out as one of the best fighters in the division, and someone a fighter must beat if they wish to claim the title of Ring champ. It's a good system.

Let's look at your Martinez argument. First of all, what fans are confused about whether he's the best fighter? It's a straw man argument because everyone knows Sergio Martinez is the best fighter in the division, which is why the Ring have him rated at one.

What about Sturm? Well his belt clearly marks him out as the best challenger, a man Martinez must beat if he wants to unify and become the Ring champ. Of Sturm also knows he must beat Martinez if he wants to be regarded the same.

It's not confusing, you know the true status of fighters in the middleweight division as well as I do. The idea that fans can't understand and think Chavez Jr is the best fighter is false.

What about Chavez Jr. Well as the son of a legend, and a very popular and undefeated fighter himself with a huge following, especially in Mexico, his belt marks him out as one of the best fighters too. That's a good thing. Guys like Chavez Jr and Saul Alvarez are GOOD for boxing. Ticket sellers, popular fighters who fans want to see. Giving them a belt helps market them and gives significance and context to their fights. It's entirely normal and how it is in every sport where any top sportsman is a champion of some sort. You need titles otherwise it's just people playing sport.

Do you object to the World Series by the way? Do you write and complain to your favourite baseball magazine that they stop it because world only means American and that the whole world thing is a sham? Should they scrap the world series to save baseball?

I think your argument is simply outdated, still living 30 years ago. We have moved on, IBF World champion doesnt' mean best fighter in the world and hasn't for decades. Just regard them as similar to being the US open champ or the US Masters champ and all is fine. Stop getting hung up on a single word, that hasn't meant what you believe it does in more than a generation.

There is only one champion per year in baseball, basketball, and football. Those sports are extremely successful with only one champion.

Titles are essential in sport, but I don't understand the why there should be more than one title per division division? Is your argument strictly based on marketing (a la it makes fighters easier to sell)? Are Canelo and Chavez Jr. not as marketable without titles or do their titles make them more marketable? Shouldn't titles convey the idea that the holder is the best? If not, aren't they wastes of time if a fan would know the difference?

Why is tennis a good comparison? I'm not too familiar with tennis, but is there a ranking organization?

Does UFC have multiple titles per division? Not too familiar with UFC.

As has already been pointed out every team in every sport is playing for a title. In the Uk the top divisional league is the Premiership. It contains the top 20 clubs in England. All of them play each other twice and the winner wins the league. They are all playing for that title.

Below them is the championship consisting of 24 teams. The winner is crowned champion and promoted. Second place team also go up and the next four ,eet in the playoffs with the winner also going up. At the other end teams can go down if they finish in the bottom 3.

This continues with League 1 and 2 below them, then into the Conference, then down into the amatuer leagues. Every club is competing for a league title all the way down to pub 5 a sides.

This is the same for every single sport on earth.

People won't dedicate their lives to something they have no chance of winning anything in. What would be the motivation?

I play chess. I'm not very good only an amatuer but tournaments are split into sections according to your grade so you always play in events with similarly graded players and thus have a fair chance of winning them.

This is probably the same for every major organised sport on earth.

Why should boxing be any different? Do you think Matthew Hatton thought his world title shot against Saul Alvarez was meaningless? Was it just a usesless trinket to him?

It's so easy for fans to dismiss the worth of a belt but we aren't the ones in the ring, making all the sacrifices and dedicating ourselves to make something out of the sport we all love.

I'm just glad all these guys get a chance at a payday and a little bit of glory. And its not like anyone can win a world title. There are over 10,000 current active pro's and maybe 30 world champs across all weight classes so about 0.03% of boxers.


The UFC is totally different. First off, it's not a sport it's an organisation within the wider world of MMA. There are other world champions in different organisations MMA.

Secondly the fighter roster is so much smaller. 10,000 boxers, maybe 250 UFC fighters.

It's statistically probably 20 times harder to get a title shot in boxing than in the UFC.

Brock Lesnar won his UFC world title in his fourth pro fight. There isn't exactly an ocean of competition.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

And some people still thing that their isn't a conflict of interest

The Ring Magazine may as well be a political organisation as far as I'm concerned because all they are doing is painting a picture that makes THEM look nice and rosy. No different to tabloid newspapers IMO.

It's all bs.

You wan't a problem solved. Just be a sanctioning body that craves Lineage. That way, the man will always be just that.

[VictorCharlie]

Bilbo you keep using the analogy of other sports with divisions, conferences, league championships that ultimately lead to the top spot. But that isn't the case in boxing. The four major alphabets call their guy the world champion and unless its changed since the last time I checked their rankings they don't even rank the other belt holders. I compete in sports and have my whole life. Sure I wanted to win but I competed regardless. If I had been good enough to get paid to do it knowing I was never going to be the best in the world I would have done it in a heart beat. If a guy can make a living as a boxer more power to him but if he needs some watered down belt system to pump up his sensitive nature then he probably needs to find another sport or way to earn a living. You keep advocating a tiered belt system but that is not what we currently have with the four rmajor alphabets. We have the potential for four world champions in every division and 5 set of rankings if you count the Ring. Your attitude reminds of the pussification of American youth sports where everyone is a winner and everyone makes the team. Its boxing for crying out loud. If you can't make it to the top and do not want to be a gate keeper then find another job.

[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?

[Kev]

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.

[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.

Bilbo -
A couple of questions that I've asked but you haven't answered. Is the main reason you like the alphabet titles because they seemingly add marketability to boxers, and as a result, to boxing?

Is there a big difference between being second or third place in a weight class as opposed to being a titleholder in terms of marketability?

I think you're wrong about people being confused about who is the "man" in the division because of all the titles. For example, who is the man at super middleweight? Who is the "man" at junior welterweight?

In tennis, as you explained it, there is the US Open champion, the Wimledon champion etc., but in those cases, don't have you to compete to be the US Open Champ or the Wimbledon champ? Isn't there is a set round robin to determine who holds the trophy in those events, right? That's what those events are - tournaments to determine the best. I have no problem with that. If the alphabet organizations wanted to hold a tournament to determine who was the best at 140. That's great, but as of now in boxing, there is no set method to determine who is a title holder. Please see the recent WBA Eric Morales v. Barrios titlefight. Neither of them really should even be in a title fight, but Barrios definitely doesn't deserve it. He's never even fought at 140!

Holding a belt in a division highlights you as one of the more marketable forces in the division, not one of the best - that's the difference with your tennis analogy because in boxing there is no set procedure to determine who gets a title. The reason there are alphabet organizations is to generate sanctioning fees, little else. So, they tend to make marketable boxers champions convince me of the reason for having them.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[fan johnny]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

A better point is that winning your division or conference in the NBA or NFL is a step towards winning the world championship. Pretty sure Lebron is not happy that he was the Eastern Conference Champion and I doubt Dirk is wearing his Western Conference Ring.

[Fenster]

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.

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.

[VictorCharlie]

Isn't the point to be at the pinnacle? I can't believe we are rationalizing the alphabets to subsidize a mid tier boxer's salary. I don't really understand the logic anyway. How does having four world champions help the mid-level fighter's bottom line? Once again if you can't make a living playing a sport then don't and find a real job. I also don't necessarily agree with the premise that the alphabets increase salaries. Currently top 10 fighters are more likely to not fight one another so they can wait for a title shot. If there was only one belt holder and one set of rankings then more top fighters would meet in the ring to move up the rankings for a shot at the title. Champions would more regularly fight the top contender in their division. Fans would consistently get the top fights they want to see and in a timely manner. Better fights, higher frequency which leads to more fans hence more money for the fighters. The alphabets are self serving orgs meant only to fill their own wallets. They don't care about the sport and don't care about the fighter. Maybe the Ring isn't the best option but their rankings and title policies are far more objective than any of the alphabets.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

Bilbo makes a great point about what the belts actually mean to fighters.

I was reading a brief twitter argument between Sergio Martinez and Peter Quillin the other week. Martinez proudly cited he was a three time IBO champion in England. This made me laugh. The LINEAL middleweight champ of the world was citing the IBO title as one of his proud achievements.

Four world champions per division is utterly pathetic. However, has winning an alphabet ever caused harm to a fighters career? Silverware only boosts it.

Harm to a fighter's career? Probably never. Harm to the sport? Every day.

[marbleheadmaui]

You are hung up on one single word, 'world'.

Titles are essential in sport. You're completely missing the point about Wimbledon. The whole two weeks is Wimbledon, the entire competition is the final. It's a knockout competition and so one single event.

Your preferred idea would be to scrap Wimbledon as an exciting knockout competition which allows even unrated players a chance to challenge for the title and just have the two highest seeded players play each other for the title of world tennis champion, with the 3 and 4 seeds battling for the right to play the champion next time.

That would be shit.

In tennis there are 4 grand slams, an official tour ranking and dozens of minor competitions. So somebody can be the US Open champion, or the Wimbledon champion, or be the number one rated player on the tour or the Rogers Cup champion.

Every time these guys play, it's in a competition for a prize of some sort.

Imagine they called the open winners world champions, and your little nose was put out of joint so you wanted them scrapped and the champion determined by who was the highest ranked player on the tour. Would that improve tennis? Of course not, it would ruin it.


Boxing is no different. You have fourmajor titles in each weight class, the IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO and a lot of minor ones, IBO, British, Commonwealth etc.

It's the same structure as any other sport, only you object to the word used 'world'.

Let me ask you, if instead of the world champion tag the belts were called 'IBF Major champ', or 'WBA Open champion' would that be better? My guess is that you don't mind the belts themselves, rather it's just your constant focusing on the single word 'world' that gets you all worked up.

A division with no belts would be shit. What would people be fighting for? There would be only two, at most 3 championship fights a year, sometimes none if the champ is inactive and a couple of eliminators.

How would you reward the best challengers? What would they have to distinguish them from everybody else? Currently they get a belt, which marks them out as one of the best fighters in the division, and someone a fighter must beat if they wish to claim the title of Ring champ. It's a good system.

Let's look at your Martinez argument. First of all, what fans are confused about whether he's the best fighter? It's a straw man argument because everyone knows Sergio Martinez is the best fighter in the division, which is why the Ring have him rated at one.

What about Sturm? Well his belt clearly marks him out as the best challenger, a man Martinez must beat if he wants to unify and become the Ring champ. Of Sturm also knows he must beat Martinez if he wants to be regarded the same.

It's not confusing, you know the true status of fighters in the middleweight division as well as I do. The idea that fans can't understand and think Chavez Jr is the best fighter is false.

What about Chavez Jr. Well as the son of a legend, and a very popular and undefeated fighter himself with a huge following, especially in Mexico, his belt marks him out as one of the best fighters too. That's a good thing. Guys like Chavez Jr and Saul Alvarez are GOOD for boxing. Ticket sellers, popular fighters who fans want to see. Giving them a belt helps market them and gives significance and context to their fights. It's entirely normal and how it is in every sport where any top sportsman is a champion of some sort. You need titles otherwise it's just people playing sport.

Do you object to the World Series by the way? Do you write and complain to your favourite baseball magazine that they stop it because world only means American and that the whole world thing is a sham? Should they scrap the world series to save baseball?

I think your argument is simply outdated, still living 30 years ago. We have moved on, IBF World champion doesnt' mean best fighter in the world and hasn't for decades. Just regard them as similar to being the US open champ or the US Masters champ and all is fine. Stop getting hung up on a single word, that hasn't meant what you believe it does in more than a generation.

There is only one champion per year in baseball, basketball, and football. Those sports are extremely successful with only one champion.

Titles are essential in sport, but I don't understand the why there should be more than one title per division division? Is your argument strictly based on marketing (a la it makes fighters easier to sell)? Are Canelo and Chavez Jr. not as marketable without titles or do their titles make them more marketable? Shouldn't titles convey the idea that the holder is the best? If not, aren't they wastes of time if a fan would know the difference?

Why is tennis a good comparison? I'm not too familiar with tennis, but is there a ranking organization?

Does UFC have multiple titles per division? Not too familiar with UFC.

Now that is not true at all. You have the American League East, West and Central Champions, who battle to be The American League Conference Champion. Then there is the National League champions. Both Conferences are divided up by geographic regions. Basketball and Football follow the same type of conferences and divisions. You could easily relate it to minor belts and major belts.

No you can't. NOBODY equates being a division champ with being a world series champ. NOBODY.

It happens in boxing all the time. I mean Manny is an eight division "champion?" REALLY?

[marbleheadmaui]

You are hung up on one single word, 'world'.

Titles are essential in sport. You're completely missing the point about Wimbledon. The whole two weeks is Wimbledon, the entire competition is the final. It's a knockout competition and so one single event.

Your preferred idea would be to scrap Wimbledon as an exciting knockout competition which allows even unrated players a chance to challenge for the title and just have the two highest seeded players play each other for the title of world tennis champion, with the 3 and 4 seeds battling for the right to play the champion next time.

That would be shit.

In tennis there are 4 grand slams, an official tour ranking and dozens of minor competitions. So somebody can be the US Open champion, or the Wimbledon champion, or be the number one rated player on the tour or the Rogers Cup champion.

Every time these guys play, it's in a competition for a prize of some sort.

Imagine they called the open winners world champions, and your little nose was put out of joint so you wanted them scrapped and the champion determined by who was the highest ranked player on the tour. Would that improve tennis? Of course not, it would ruin it.


Boxing is no different. You have fourmajor titles in each weight class, the IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO and a lot of minor ones, IBO, British, Commonwealth etc.

It's the same structure as any other sport, only you object to the word used 'world'.

Let me ask you, if instead of the world champion tag the belts were called 'IBF Major champ', or 'WBA Open champion' would that be better? My guess is that you don't mind the belts themselves, rather it's just your constant focusing on the single word 'world' that gets you all worked up.

A division with no belts would be shit. What would people be fighting for? There would be only two, at most 3 championship fights a year, sometimes none if the champ is inactive and a couple of eliminators.

How would you reward the best challengers? What would they have to distinguish them from everybody else? Currently they get a belt, which marks them out as one of the best fighters in the division, and someone a fighter must beat if they wish to claim the title of Ring champ. It's a good system.

Let's look at your Martinez argument. First of all, what fans are confused about whether he's the best fighter? It's a straw man argument because everyone knows Sergio Martinez is the best fighter in the division, which is why the Ring have him rated at one.

What about Sturm? Well his belt clearly marks him out as the best challenger, a man Martinez must beat if he wants to unify and become the Ring champ. Of Sturm also knows he must beat Martinez if he wants to be regarded the same.

It's not confusing, you know the true status of fighters in the middleweight division as well as I do. The idea that fans can't understand and think Chavez Jr is the best fighter is false.

What about Chavez Jr. Well as the son of a legend, and a very popular and undefeated fighter himself with a huge following, especially in Mexico, his belt marks him out as one of the best fighters too. That's a good thing. Guys like Chavez Jr and Saul Alvarez are GOOD for boxing. Ticket sellers, popular fighters who fans want to see. Giving them a belt helps market them and gives significance and context to their fights. It's entirely normal and how it is in every sport where any top sportsman is a champion of some sort. You need titles otherwise it's just people playing sport.

Do you object to the World Series by the way? Do you write and complain to your favourite baseball magazine that they stop it because world only means American and that the whole world thing is a sham? Should they scrap the world series to save baseball?

I think your argument is simply outdated, still living 30 years ago. We have moved on, IBF World champion doesnt' mean best fighter in the world and hasn't for decades. Just regard them as similar to being the US open champ or the US Masters champ and all is fine. Stop getting hung up on a single word, that hasn't meant what you believe it does in more than a generation.

There is only one champion per year in baseball, basketball, and football. Those sports are extremely successful with only one champion.

Titles are essential in sport, but I don't understand the why there should be more than one title per division division? Is your argument strictly based on marketing (a la it makes fighters easier to sell)? Are Canelo and Chavez Jr. not as marketable without titles or do their titles make them more marketable? Shouldn't titles convey the idea that the holder is the best? If not, aren't they wastes of time if a fan would know the difference?

Why is tennis a good comparison? I'm not too familiar with tennis, but is there a ranking organization?

Does UFC have multiple titles per division? Not too familiar with UFC.

As has already been pointed out every team in every sport is playing for a title. In the Uk the top divisional league is the Premiership. It contains the top 20 clubs in England. All of them play each other twice and the winner wins the league. They are all playing for that title.

Below them is the championship consisting of 24 teams. The winner is crowned champion and promoted. Second place team also go up and the next four ,eet in the playoffs with the winner also going up. At the other end teams can go down if they finish in the bottom 3.

This continues with League 1 and 2 below them, then into the Conference, then down into the amatuer leagues. Every club is competing for a league title all the way down to pub 5 a sides.

This is the same for every single sport on earth.

People won't dedicate their lives to something they have no chance of winning anything in. What would be the motivation?
I play chess. I'm not very good only an amatuer but tournaments are split into sections according to your grade so you always play in events with similarly graded players and thus have a fair chance of winning them.

This is probably the same for every major organised sport on earth.

Why should boxing be any different? Do you think Matthew Hatton thought his world title shot against Saul Alvarez was meaningless? Was it just a usesless trinket to him?

It's so easy for fans to dismiss the worth of a belt but we aren't the ones in the ring, making all the sacrifices and dedicating ourselves to make something out of the sport we all love.

I'm just glad all these guys get a chance at a payday and a little bit of glory. And its not like anyone can win a world title. There are over 10,000 current active pro's and maybe 30 world champs across all weight classes so about 0.03% of boxers.


The UFC is totally different. First off, it's not a sport it's an organisation within the wider world of MMA. There are other world champions in different organisations MMA.

Secondly the fighter roster is so much smaller. 10,000 boxers, maybe 250 UFC fighters.

It's statistically probably 20 times harder to get a title shot in boxing than in the UFC.

Brock Lesnar won his UFC world title in his fourth pro fight. There isn't exactly an ocean of competition.

Money, honor, a place in the world. Like I said if you were right? More straps shuld generate more fighters.

Yet the correlation is the exact opposite.