Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[Kev]

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

Quote from your article

Bradley could’ve avoided the WBC’s ax if he had fought Amir Khan on July 23. He had a chance to unify the junior welterweight titles and earn a seven-figure payday in the process but chose to walk away. Mistake. That doesn’t mean he deserved to lose his title,

I didn't realise this is why he lost it, but to be honest if they stripped him for refusing to unify against Amir then good for them! Isn't this the exact OPPOSITE of what you are arguing?

You say alphabet belts stop the meaningful fights from happening and yet here we have an alphabet belt stripping their champion because he refused to take the big fight. Surely thats the kind of action you would approve of? Make the best fight the best and if they don't they lose their right to be called champ.

Well done WBC

[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.

[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]

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.

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

[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.

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

Fights without context? Really? THAT'S where you want to go? You think the WBC manadatory defenses (as an example) provide a "context?" They are a fraud that has the ffect of trying to get fans to wear 20/200 eyeglasses.

Again, somehow when there were only eight belts the sport was 2-3 times as big as it is today in terms of number of fighters. You base your "they wouldn't hang around" on what exactly? Cause it sure isn't data.