Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[Kev]

I mst be the only on here who doesn't actually think there is a problem with the belts.

Having 4 titles in each weight class is entirely normal in sport. In golf there are the majors, in tennis the Grand Slams, in soccer, lots of different cups and trophies to aim for.

A single world champ in each weight class would be shit. It would mean certain fighters could be ignored, like in the old days and never get to fight for the title. There would be less interest for non title fights and it would be harder for fighters to get recognition.

Onto the admiteddly silly emeritus and diamond belt situation. I agree they are often silly but actaully they help the sport imo by making sure the biggest name, high profile guys get titles to distinguish them, immediate rematch at a title they once owned etc.

I don't see how that is actually bad beyond people's sensibilities being offended.

So for example maui says Saul Alvarez is no more of a world champ than he is. Well I agree I don't regard him as the true champ in the weight class but right now he is one of the most exciting up and coming fighters and a fighter lots of guys want to see fight so I'm all for a way to make sure he gets the attention and giving him a belt does that.

Just forget about the name. A belt world championship hasn't meant world champion in decades now, fucking get it over it guys! We all know that. The Ring rankings are what people involved in the sport follow.

The belts just attach a title and meaning to a fight to get people watching. Look at golf and tennis. There are all sorts of majors and grand slams. Winning one doesn't mean you are the best player in the wolrd but if they only had one major or one grandslam it would suck.

Would we even watch an event that didn't have a major or grandslam tag to it? I don't think minor events even get televised, certainly only the most hardcore fans will watch them.

Titles and belts are a necessary part of the reward process in any sport. They just act to give a fighter a name and to give a significance and meaning to a fight.

Without them it's just two people fighting, or two people playing tennis. Sportsfans don't watch that.


Just get with the times and stopp griping about redundant arguments.

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

[marbleheadmaui]

I mst be the only on here who doesn't actually think there is a problem with the belts.

Having 4 titles in each weight class is entirely normal in sport. In golf there are the majors, in tennis the Grand Slams, in soccer, lots of different cups and trophies to aim for.

A single world champ in each weight class would be shit. It would mean certain fighters could be ignored, like in the old days and never get to fight for the title. There would be less interest for non title fights and it would be harder for fighters to get recognition.

Onto the admiteddly silly emeritus and diamond belt situation. I agree they are often silly but actaully they help the sport imo by making sure the biggest name, high profile guys get titles to distinguish them, immediate rematch at a title they once owned etc.

I don't see how that is actually bad beyond people's sensibilities being offended.

So for example maui says Saul Alvarez is no more of a world champ than he is. Well I agree I don't regard him as the true champ in the weight class but right now he is one of the most exciting up and coming fighters and a fighter lots of guys want to see fight so I'm all for a way to make sure he gets the attention and giving him a belt does that.

Just forget about the name. A belt world championship hasn't meant world champion in decades now, fucking get it over it guys! We all know that. The Ring rankings are what people involved in the sport follow.

The belts just attach a title and meaning to a fight to get people watching. Look at golf and tennis. There are all sorts of majors and grand slams. Winning one doesn't mean you are the best player in the wolrd but if they only had one major or one grandslam it would suck.

Would we even watch an event that didn't have a major or grandslam tag to it? I don't think minor events even get televised, certainly only the most hardcore fans will watch them.

Titles and belts are a necessary part of the reward process in any sport. They just act to give a fighter a name and to give a significance and meaning to a fight.

Without them it's just two people fighting, or two people playing tennis. Sportsfans don't watch that.


Just get with the times and stopp griping about redundant arguments.

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

The data seems to me to show you're dead wrong. The decline of boxing viewerships, shows, national attention etc runs awfully close in time to the emergence of the alphabet organizations in their current formations.

Now why is that? Because the casual fan now has no way of determining the gravity of a fight. Everybody is a champ and therefore nobody is a champ. These belts prevent Sergio Martinez from leaping out as the champion he really is. The casual fan turns on JCC jr or Felix Sturm and says "THIS GUY is a champion? This sport blows." And he is 100% right to say that.

Your argument fails on Golf and Tennis. There is only ONE British Open champ at a time. There is only ONE US Open champ at a time. And you say people won't "just go watch" unless there is something at stake. You've never been to Wimbledon or the US Open is my guess. People don't just show for the finals. They show for the whole two weeks.

Hell if "get withe the times" means everyone gets a championship? Why don't we just stop the World Cup at the semi-finals and call everyone a champ and go home?

[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.

[Violent Demise]

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.

He's already the Ring champion, stupid.

[Kev]

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.

He's already the Ring champion, stupid.

Even less reason for Maui to feel aggrieved then.

[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.

Your approach has several problems. Most notably it flies in the face of what is actually happeninhg in the sports world.

First you assert people won't go to see jsut sports being played withoput some sort of title being on the line. Yet Saturday after Saturday millions of Amercians file into college football stadiums to watach games of no particular import. On Sundays they do the same to watch NFL games. Five days a week hundreds of thousands go to baseball games and three times a week they go to hockey and basketball games. The same must be true for Premier League Football. So much for that.

Second, if your theory is correct and the four belts do represent the desires of "the times?" Then "the Times" must be rewarding the sport with higher attendance at more events and more viewers watching more televised fights and more ranked fighters must be fighting more ranked fighters and the sport must be in a Golden Age.

Of course the exact opposite of the above is true. Fewer events, smaller crowds, fewer televised fights, fewer contender fighting contender fights and so on. Seems to me "the Times" are speaking as regards boxing.

And they are saying Phooey!

[Rantcatrat]

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.

[fan johnny]

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.

[Rantcatrat]

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.

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

Weekend Review: WBC reminds us of why we hate sanctioning bodies | RingTV

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Jody Lane]

I mst be the only on here who doesn't actually think there is a problem with the belts.

Having 4 titles in each weight class is entirely normal in sport. In golf there are the majors, in tennis the Grand Slams, in soccer, lots of different cups and trophies to aim for.

A single world champ in each weight class would be shit. It would mean certain fighters could be ignored, like in the old days and never get to fight for the title. There would be less interest for non title fights and it would be harder for fighters to get recognition.

Onto the admiteddly silly emeritus and diamond belt situation. I agree they are often silly but actaully they help the sport imo by making sure the biggest name, high profile guys get titles to distinguish them, immediate rematch at a title they once owned etc.

I don't see how that is actually bad beyond people's sensibilities being offended.

So for example maui says Saul Alvarez is no more of a world champ than he is. Well I agree I don't regard him as the true champ in the weight class but right now he is one of the most exciting up and coming fighters and a fighter lots of guys want to see fight so I'm all for a way to make sure he gets the attention and giving him a belt does that.

Just forget about the name. A belt world championship hasn't meant world champion in decades now, fucking get it over it guys! We all know that. The Ring rankings are what people involved in the sport follow.

The belts just attach a title and meaning to a fight to get people watching. Look at golf and tennis. There are all sorts of majors and grand slams. Winning one doesn't mean you are the best player in the wolrd but if they only had one major or one grandslam it would suck.

Would we even watch an event that didn't have a major or grandslam tag to it? I don't think minor events even get televised, certainly only the most hardcore fans will watch them.

Titles and belts are a necessary part of the reward process in any sport. They just act to give a fighter a name and to give a significance and meaning to a fight.

Without them it's just two people fighting, or two people playing tennis. Sportsfans don't watch that.


Just get with the times and stopp griping about redundant arguments.

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

Are you frigging kidding me Bilbo? I can't stand all these damn titles. And I can remember a Ring article almost 30 years ago pointing to this day of so many titles that people don't have time to defend them because they keep winning new ones and how fighters have held five titles in different weight classes that were seperated by 6 pounds, 9ounces between the lowest and highest class they won titles in. I may be a traditionalist so shoot me. You have your opinion and I respect that Bilbo. But I want to go back to one champ and only the best getting a shot at the title.