Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[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?

[VictorCharlie]

Bilbo you are all over the place. At first the alphabets are what makes the sport great and are single handily keeping boxers from trading sexual favors in order to stay out of the poor house now the argument is that the straps are largely irrelevant. I'm going to agree with you that to serious fans they are irrelevant but its b/c we recognize how they impede the sport, lack credibility and are corrupt. To the casual fan, which is who the sport is losing in a landslide, they make following the sport convoluted. Even with great champions its not hard to find instances where they protected their belts by choosing to not fight another title holder or waiting until a great fighter got older. The alphabets perpetuate this practice. If you don't like the Ring fine, if you think the sport needs more tiered belts great, but I just can't fathom that having a watered down, corrupt alphabet system that hurts the sports credibility is preferential to singular belt and objective ranking system for each division.

[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?

1920?

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

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

[JazMerkin]

Although I don't support the ridiculous proliferation of belts available nowadays, there is a point that letting one single body be in charge of all of it makes that body more susceptible to the corruption of promoters. See how certain promoters are able to control the belts? Well, what if they could try & control or manipulate the Ring belt or rankings in such a way.

I also have a problem with the idea that the Ring is THE authority on lineage. In actual fact, they've ignored plenty of their own lineage & how it carried through the 90s. They also for some bizarre reason have chosen not to make the Cotto-Margarito fight for the lineal belt even though everyone else accepted it as such. I can't remember if it was about Mayweather's retirement being too recent or keeping Williams ranked above Margarito despite his loss to Quintana.

Then you've got them not liking that Zsolt Erdei was the lineal LHW champ of the world, so they decided to create another one. Sorry, you don't get to do that just because the champ is fighting marks.

All that said, if Ring did institute a proper policy like Maui's, then I'd be in support of it.

[marbleheadmaui]

Although I don't support the ridiculous proliferation of belts available nowadays, there is a point that letting one single body be in charge of all of it makes that body more susceptible to the corruption of promoters. See how certain promoters are able to control the belts? Well, what if they could try & control or manipulate the Ring belt or rankings in such a way.

I also have a problem with the idea that the Ring is THE authority on lineage. In actual fact, they've ignored plenty of their own lineage & how it carried through the 90s. They also for some bizarre reason have chosen not to make the Cotto-Margarito fight for the lineal belt even though everyone else accepted it as such. I can't remember if it was about Mayweather's retirement being too recent or keeping Williams ranked above Margarito despite his loss to Quintana.

Then you've got them not liking that Zsolt Erdei was the lineal LHW champ of the world, so they decided to create another one. Sorry, you don't get to do that just because the champ is fighting marks.

All that said, if Ring did institute a proper policy like Maui's, then I'd be in support of it.

Ring ain't perfect. It is merely the best of the available current choices...by a mile.

[Fenster]

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?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

[marbleheadmaui]

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?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

[Kev]

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?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

hahaha. You are a bit mental marblehead.

Every champion either form the US or UK, apart from a French American and an Italian American? How many were black? Or Asian?

How many countries were participating in your exclusive 'world' title bouts? Two? With maybe the odd tour in a foreign land, like a circus sideshow?

The boxing scene is a hundred times more diverse than it was when there was only one world title belt. Winning a belt in 1920 just meant you were the best White American/English fighter at the weight. How good are white American and Brits these days?

I'm struggling to even think of the last good white American fighter. Pavlik? Even Oscar was Mexican American and I'm not sure they were very active in the twenties.

[marbleheadmaui]

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?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

hahaha. You are a bit mental marblehead.

Every champion either form the US or UK, apart from a French American and an Italian American? How many were black? Or Asian?

How many countries were participating in your exclusive 'world' title bouts? Two? With maybe the odd tour in a foreign land, like a circus sideshow?

The boxing scene is a hundred times more diverse than it was when there was only one world title belt. Winning a belt in 1920 just meant you were the best White American/English fighter at the weight. How good are white American and Brits these days?

I'm struggling to even think of the last good white American fighter. Pavlik? Even Oscar was Mexican American and I'm not sure they were very active in the twenties.

I'm assuming you gave up the other argument? A lack of data on your side will do that.

Here's some more data for you

Pre 1930 Boxing had the following black champions (off the top of my head) George Dixon, Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Tiger Flowers, Kid Norfolk and Barbados Joe Walcott as well as ATG's who weren't champs like Sam McVea, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Peter Jackson and plenty of others.

Pre-1930 boxing had the following non-US/Brit champs (off the top of my head) Kid Chocolate, Battling Siki, Panama Al Brown, Young Griffo and Pancho Villa. There were also great non champs like Baby Arizmendi, Pedro Montanez, Marcel Thil, Les Darcy and the Dixie Kid.

By 1950 the activity across Asia had really opened up as had the action in the British Colonies in Africa.

You seem to be saying two things, that because people (or peoples) do NOT choose to box, those who do are less deserving and that boxing should be governed by some sort of affirmative action.

Both views are balderdash.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Bil, how many truely big fights has their been during the past five years, period!

I suppose an alternative question to be asked could be: ''how many unification fights has their been in the past five years?"

Or even worse how many champions have been regarded as undisputed. On my count there's only been 1...! (Bernard Hopkins missed out by a two years).

[Fenster]

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?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

1960
Heavyweight - Floyd Patterson (USA won title in USA)
Light Heavy - Archie Moore (USA/USA)
Middle - Paul Pender (USA/USA)
Welter - Don Jordan (USA/USA)
Lightweight - Joe Brown (USA/USA)
Featherweight - Davey Moore (USA/USA)
Bantam - Eder Jofre (Brasil/USA)
Fly - Pasqual Perez (ARG/Japan)

SEVEN out of eight titles contested in the USA. SIX out of eight champions are American. 40 years on and STILL America has a stranglehold on all things "world champion."

Now lets jump another 40 years forward.

2000
Heavyweight - Lennox Lewis (ENG/USA)
Light Heavy - Dariusz Michalczewski (POL/GER)
Middle - vacant (Ring no.1 Hopkins - USA)
Welter - Felix Trinidad Jr. (PR/USA)
Lightweight - vacant - (Ring no.1 Castillo - MEX)
Feather - Naz Hamed (ENG/ENG)
Bantam - vacant (Ring no.1 Ayala - USA)
Fly - 3K-Battery (Thai/Thai)

FIVE non-American world champions. At least THREE legitimate champions were crowned OUTSIDE the USA.

Here are the CURRENT Ring champs/no.1.

2011
Heavy - Wlad (UKR)
LH - Hopkins (USA)
Middle - Martinez (ARG)
Welter - Pacquiao (PHI)
Light - Marquez (MEX)
Feather - Gamboa (CUBA)
Bantam - Donaire (PHI)
Fly - Wonjongkam (Thai)

Is it a coincidence that America lost it's stranglehold on "world" championships as the opportunities became more global?

[marbleheadmaui]

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?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

1960
Heavyweight - Floyd Patterson (USA won title in USA)
Light Heavy - Archie Moore (USA/USA)
Middle - Paul Pender (USA/USA)
Welter - Don Jordan (USA/USA)
Lightweight - Joe Brown (USA/USA)
Featherweight - Davey Moore (USA/USA)
Bantam - Eder Jofre (Brasil/USA)
Fly - Pasqual Perez (ARG/Japan)

SEVEN out of eight titles contested in the USA. SIX out of eight champions are American. 40 years on and STILL America has a stranglehold on all things "world champion."

Now lets jump another 40 years forward.

2000
Heavyweight - Lennox Lewis (ENG/USA)
Light Heavy - Dariusz Michalczewski (POL/GER)
Middle - vacant (Ring no.1 Hopkins - USA)
Welter - Felix Trinidad Jr. (PR/USA)
Lightweight - vacant - (Ring no.1 Castillo - MEX)
Feather - Naz Hamed (ENG/ENG)
Bantam - vacant (Ring no.1 Ayala - USA)
Fly - 3K-Battery (Thai/Thai)

FIVE non-American world champions. At least THREE legitimate champions were crowned OUTSIDE the USA.

Here are the CURRENT Ring champs/no.1.

2011
Heavy - Wlad (UKR)
LH - Hopkins (USA)
Middle - Martinez (ARG)
Welter - Pacquiao (PHI)
Light - Marquez (MEX)
Feather - Gamboa (CUBA)
Bantam - Donaire (PHI)
Fly - Wonjongkam (Thai)

Is it a coincidence that America lost it's stranglehold on "world" championships as the opportunities became more global?

But i don't get your point. Has boxing been spread over the years? Sure. Mostly across British Colonies (South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria) and by places dominated by the US Military (Cuba, the Phillipines, Japan, Korea) or those where Nat Fleischer made a specific, concerted effort (Germany, Thailand, Argentina).

It was mostly complete by say 1960. And it was clearly a good thing. I couldn't care less where great fighters come from. I care that there ARE great fighters. There was no African boxing scene ignored in the US in the 1920's, nor an Asian one. They had to be created. As fighters came along they did what fighters always do, then went where the money was.

But that has ZERO bearing on the meaning of the championships held before then. If people/peoples don't choose to participate? it is what it is. The list of fighters I provided Bilbo demonstrates there was no systematic exclusion of foreigners or black fighters (heavyweight title excluded). It is just the way the sport has developed and spread.

Here's a far bigger issue. The decline since the 1950's in the number of fighters.