British boxing champions

[Fenster]

I think British boxing is going through a 'golden era' at the moment. This is mainly due to the investiment in the amatuer 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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

[Britkid]

I think British boxing is going through a 'golden era' at the moment. This is mainly due to the investiment in the amatuer 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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.