Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

[Ron Swanson]

No brainer for me. One title per weight class.

The fear of people jumping weight classes would fade a bit when fighters realized they couldn't just pick the weak zebra in the herd and just go get it (aka: Rocky Fielding). They'd have to face a bonafide champion, and that's all there is to it.

I don't mind more than 8 weight classes. It gives us more championship fights, which is always a good thing unless it's for a meaningless belt like the WBC likes to churn out.

Agreed. Imagine Loma couldn’t have said no to Belchelt and Garcia, how great his CV would be. And he would have fought a champ at 126, his CV would be insane.

[powerpuncher]

No brainer for me. One title per weight class.

The fear of people jumping weight classes would fade a bit when fighters realized they couldn't just pick the weak zebra in the herd and just go get it (aka: Rocky Fielding). They'd have to face a bonafide champion, and that's all there is to it.

I don't mind more than 8 weight classes. It gives us more championship fights, which is always a good thing unless it's for a meaningless belt like the WBC likes to churn out.

Agreed. Imagine Loma couldn’t have said no to Belchelt and Garcia, how great his CV would be. And he would have fought a champ at 126, his CV would be insane.

I agree that it would be nice to make it much harder to manufacture a champion. You could bring them along slowly, but you still have to beat the champion. Then when you are the champion, you have to defend it against worthy challengers.

[Spicoli]

Yeh I'd say one trinket per division as it would emphasis a true champion and see a round robin of quality talent facing off. The top ten rankings would also regain respect. I don't have as big a problem with the divisions now, aside from divas using them as pit stops to "make history" but I believe most fans know a terrible match set up when they see it. Honestly I'm wondering how many of todays top fighters would flounder if they lost the pre step added divisions and the fact that they would have to truly fight up the new ranks in much deeper divisions? Or if they would leave at all as cleaning out only 8 divisions would take a bigger broom before you jump without being called a ducker at every turn.

[Mark TKO]

Easy choice - one title per weight class

Got a bot sick of all the weight divisions but having just one title would ease that one

We all know it will never happen

[TIC]

less titles needs to happen, we know more are on the way

[Master]

One title per weight class would be better as we are now so use to the multiple weight divisions and long gone are the traditional 8 weight classes. You will still get “lucky” champions who will have one defence and lose the title, champions that will not want to face the best fighter in the division, a lot more top contenders not fighting and risking their ranking but at least you will get one undisputed champion.

[TitoFan]

It seems the overwhelming majority of us prefer having one title per weight class, and are less overwhelmingly in favor of less weight classes.

All of which deserves more scrutiny (weight classes). Right now the differences are 3-4 pounds at the lighter weights, and 7-8 pounds at the heavier weights. That's probably slicing the cheese too thin.

Although being familiar with the original weight classes, I looked them up anyway and was surprised to find there were lower limits on the weights.

For instance, welter is stated at 140-147, and middle is stated at 154-160. I imagine if you were a 150-pounder and couldn't make welter comfortably, you'd have been forced to fight at middle, which would present considerable disadvantages.

I also imagine if the 150-pounder showed up on fight night weighing below 154, he'd still be able to fight at his risk, knowing the opponent could have weighed in at 160.

I only mention it because it's odd seeing windows on weight classes, when in my mind it's only the upper limit that matters. Odd that they would present it that way.

But back in the days of the original weight classes, the differences from flyweight to light heavyweight were, in ascending order: 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 pounds.

It's obvious then, that at lighter weights it's necessary to have a smaller margin between divisions.

But it makes me wonder what the optimum divisions would be. Seventeen (17) weight divisions DOES sound like a lot when you ponder the actual number. But..... are eight divisions enough to satisfy our cravings for more boxing and more championship fights?

Also..... I could see catchweights being more logical back in the days of eight divisions. The case of the 150-pounder fits that picture pretty well.

But thinking now about the 17 divisions...... why in HELL do we need to keep slicing the pie into even smaller pieces?? Might as well have divisions at each 1-pound increment.

TBH, I think with the comparatively tiny increments we have now, catchweights should be done away with, at least for any type of "championship" fight.

[powerpuncher]

It seems the overwhelming majority of us prefer having one title per weight class, and are less overwhelmingly in favor of less weight classes.

All of which deserves more scrutiny (weight classes). Right now the differences are 3-4 pounds at the lighter weights, and 7-8 pounds at the heavier weights. That's probably slicing the cheese too thin.

Although being familiar with the original weight classes, I looked them up anyway and was surprised to find there were lower limits on the weights.

For instance, welter is stated at 140-147, and middle is stated at 154-160. I imagine if you were a 150-pounder and couldn't make welter comfortably, you'd have been forced to fight at middle, which would present considerable disadvantages.

I also imagine if the 150-pounder showed up on fight night weighing below 154, he'd still be able to fight at his risk, knowing the opponent could have weighed in at 160.

I only mention it because it's odd seeing windows on weight classes, when in my mind it's only the upper limit that matters. Odd that they would present it that way.

But back in the days of the original weight classes, the differences from flyweight to light heavyweight were, in ascending order: 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 pounds.

It's obvious then, that at lighter weights it's necessary to have a smaller margin between divisions.

But it makes me wonder what the optimum divisions would be. Seventeen (17) weight divisions DOES sound like a lot when you ponder the actual number. But..... are eight divisions enough to satisfy our cravings for more boxing and more championship fights?

Also..... I could see catchweights being more logical back in the days of eight divisions. The case of the 150-pounder fits that picture pretty well.

But thinking now about the 17 divisions...... why in HELL do we need to keep slicing the pie into even smaller pieces?? Might as well have divisions at each 1-pound increment.

TBH, I think with the comparatively tiny increments we have now, catchweights should be done away with, at least for any type of "championship" fight.

UFC does 8 weight classes and most people don’t seem to be calling for more. I have heard about maybe trying to put in one more, but Dana White says that he doesn’t want to. But those in between weights are an easy fix. If you weigh 150, you can easily cut down to 147. If you weight more and can’t cut, you can easily bulk up just a bit. With the original 8 weight classes, it wouldn’t be hard to go one way or another.

But that was my big thing. Where do the weight classes stop? 17 just seems very excessive. I don’t think any other combat sport has so many weigtt he classes. I know that college and international wrestling have 10 while the olympics goes down to six (which I don’t think is enough).