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?

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.

[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.

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.

Again it comes down to money and opportunities. An aspiring athlete is far more likely to be successful and earn more money in other sports, especially team sports.

Please explain your thesis of how the proliferation of world title belts prevents people from taking up boxing?

Boxing is competing with a lot of other sports, and also a more sedentary video gamer generation. Not many kids in gyms these days, plenty at home on the xbox. The jocks want to go into team sports mostly.

Boxing thrived in the early 20th century because that was the golden era of sport. It's unlikely to ever get back to that. Even if it did you wouldn't recognise it as your so stuck with idealising the past.

But the past wasn't that great for the fighters. Even the great champions didn't exactly become rich. Poor old Joe Luis ended up broke and had to go back to the ring and he was arguably the greatest fighter ever up to that point, definitely at heavyweight.

Boxing has been killed by PPV if anything. Sport has to be on free terrestial tv for the stars to become household names.

In the UK some of the biggest household names bizarrely are snooker players, and Formula One drivers, because it's on free tv. Wimbledon tennis is also, and everyone watches that.

In contrast the other tennis grand slams arent featured and so hardly anyone has any idea who wins the US Open or the French etc.

PPV might have damaged the global fanbase.

Personally though I don't care at all. I get to watch all the fights anyway and I'm not bothered at all if none of my mates know who Yuriorkis Gamboa is.

If your trying to argue that fighters arent as good these days I think you are completely wrong. Prime Pacquiao, Mayweather, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Calzaghe, Mosley, the Klitschkos match up well in any era.

I think the decline of boxing is massively exaggerated.

In the last 5 years all of the best fights have been made barring Manny vs Floyd. Fighters have been routinely seeking the best opposition as a mateer of course.

Again I ask you, in the last 5 years name all the big fights that the alphabet belts prevented from happening?

[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.

Again it comes down to money and opportunities. An aspiring athlete is far more likely to be successful and earn more money in other sports, especially team sports.

Please explain your thesis of how the proliferation of world title belts prevents people from taking up boxing?

Boxing is competing with a lot of other sports, and also a more sedentary video gamer generation. Not many kids in gyms these days, plenty at home on the xbox. The jocks want to go into team sports mostly.

Boxing thrived in the early 20th century because that was the golden era of sport. It's unlikely to ever get back to that. Even if it did you wouldn't recognise it as your so stuck with idealising the past.

But the past wasn't that great for the fighters. Even the great champions didn't exactly become rich. Poor old Joe Luis ended up broke and had to go back to the ring and he was arguably the greatest fighter ever up to that point, definitely at heavyweight.

Boxing has been killed by PPV if anything. Sport has to be on free terrestial tv for the stars to become household names.

In the UK some of the biggest household names bizarrely are snooker players, and Formula One drivers, because it's on free tv. Wimbledon tennis is also, and everyone watches that.

In contrast the other tennis grand slams arent featured and so hardly anyone has any idea who wins the US Open or the French etc.

PPV might have damaged the global fanbase.

Personally though I don't care at all. I get to watch all the fights anyway and I'm not bothered at all if none of my mates know who Yuriorkis Gamboa is.

If your trying to argue that fighters arent as good these days I think you are completely wrong. Prime Pacquiao, Mayweather, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Calzaghe, Mosley, the Klitschkos match up well in any era.

I think the decline of boxing is massively exaggerated.

In the last 5 years all of the best fights have been made barring Manny vs Floyd. Fighters have been routinely seeking the best opposition as a mateer of course.

Again I ask you, in the last 5 years name all the big fights that the alphabet belts prevented from happening?

YOU are arguing that fighters would stay away from the sport if belts are too hard to come by. In reality the correlation is exactly the opposite. The number of fighters has declined dramatically since the proliferation of straps. That's the data.

The decline of boxing is massively exaggerated? Really? HALF as many fighters, live shows down, by my calculations, 30-40% EVERYWHERE over the last 20 years except for Eastern Europe where the baseline was zero and Argentina where shows are down 10-15% Less boxing on television than at any point in my lifetime and that is WITH the addition of 300 new channels. Heck on ESPN alone FNF represents less than half of what ESPN was showing 20 years ago. In ANY business I've ever financed? Those kinds of numbers mean a business catastrophe.

You have listed, over the past decade, eight guys who could compete in any era. I agree with that list. Now let's look at what the the 1970's list would be. Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Duran, Foster, Galindez, Saad, Monzon, Hagler, Naploes, Leonard, Cervantes, Benitez, De Jesus, Buchanan, Jofre, Arguello, Olivares, Zarate, Chionoi, Palomino, Little Red, Pintor and Canto. That's in 90 seconds off the top of my head. AND IT IS THREE TIMES AS MANY GUYS!

Let's try the 1950's, another generally down period, Marciano, Robinson, Moore, Basilio, Brown, Fulmer, Saddler, Pep, Carruthers, Dado, Gavilan, Johnson, Ezzard, Turpin, LaMotta, Liston, Ortiz, Loi, Davey Moore, Perez, Kingpetch. That's 22 guys, almost three times as many.

You haven't addressed the heavyweight lack of fights issue. No surprise, there is no way to refute it. Data is data.

In the last five years I'll name some fights that were logical and didn't happen:
Floyd-Cotto
Floyd-Margarito
Floyd-Clottey
BHOP-Erdai
Pavlik-Abraham
Pavlik-Sturm
Abraham-Sturm
Williams-Cotto
Williams-Sahne
Williams-Floyd
Hatton-Witter
Witter-Malignaggi
Casamyor-Baby Bull
Casamyor-Campbell
Diaz-Diaz
Chris John-Guererro
John-in-Jin Chi
In jin Chi-Guererro
Donaire-Naito
Donaire-Wonjonkam
Narvaez-Wonjonkam
Narvaez-Donaire

I'm getting bored of doing this. I can find another 25, but this will have to do.

I'm out again, thanks as always for your thoughts.

[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?

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.

The point is this - The rise in alphabets have given fighters from all over the world an opportunity to become "world" champion. America is no longer the central point for boxing. The be-all and end-all. As it clearly was in 1960 when everything was perfect for you.

We now commonly have "world" champions from everywhere - Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America, Oceania. These fighters no longer need America. They have the silverware and earn big money succsessfully reigning in their own domain.

The best fights in the world no longer need America's stamp of approval. So good luck with trying to recreate the 1960s

[Kev]

@marbleheadmaiu.

As the logic in your last post was so alien to me I wanted to go through it with you step by step so you can help show me what I'm not understanding here. Can you go through with me one by one and lets see if we can work through this?


You SERIOUSLY struggle with the concept of cause and effect don't you?

Uhm, I admit I do struggle with your conclusions about the causes certainly. Let's start with Floyd not fighting Cotto and Margarito. How did the belts orgs cause that? My likely explanation for the cause is twofold. Firstly, it's been more than half a decade since Floyd was fighting more than twice a year which means he can only fight one or two people in that time. By fighting one he automatically avoids another. The other cause, as I see it is that Floyd choose who Floyd fights. What I don't see is any evidence at all of an alphabet organisation sabotaging that fight. You obviously disagree so if so please present the evidence.

Likewise for the other fights down the list. I don't see how the belts sabotaged any of them, can you explain how they did, beyond shouting cause and effect?

The belts do NOTHING to identify top fighters.

If that is true then why did every single fighter you named hold a belt? A 100% concurrence between the best fighters and the beltholders. That has to be better than chance, do you not a agree?

Know how I know this? Because I had NO IDEA what the status of these guys belts were when I made the list. None.

Amazing logic. So your argument is that if you didn't know the fighters you considered the best were beltholders (which I really doubt is true btw) than there can be no connection to the alphabet orgs having the best guys as champs.

That's like saying because you have never heard of Charles Dickens he couldn't have written Oliver Twist.

In addition you fall down over your own logic. YOUR claim is belts create fights. I list fights that did NOT happen. YOU point out that these guys were beltholders. YET THEY DIDN'T FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does my logic fail because some fights didn't happen? Lets consider basic maths. 1000 fighters in a weight class. Average fighter fights 3 times a year. Now for a 1000 fighters to all fight each other, each fighter would need to fight 999 opponents. How is this possible? Can you mathematically explain this to me?

I would conclude the reason some fights don't happen is because fighters do not fight enough to make it possible. If Floyd have fought Cotto for example he would not have been able to fight Mosley, or Hatton. Do you disagree with this? If you think Cotto was a better opponent then those guys and he should have fought him instead, can you explain how the alphabet bodies dictated this?

This is getting pretty damned funny.

If by funny, you mean odd, queer, bizarre I most definitely agree. Your post made literally no sense to me whastover. Baffling.

[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.

The point is this - The rise in alphabets have given fighters from all over the world an opportunity to become "world" champion. America is no longer the central point for boxing. The be-all and end-all. As it clearly was in 1960 when everything was perfect for you.

We now commonly have "world" champions from everywhere - Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America, Oceania. These fighters no longer need America. They have the silverware and earn big money succsessfully reigning in their own domain.

The best fights in the world no longer need America's stamp of approval. So good luck with trying to recreate the 1960s

But it has done nothing of the sort. It has merely dumbed down the concept. We've gone from eight or ten to over 100! They aren't remotely comparable. It is like calling the quarterfinalists in the World Cup champions.

And the sport continues to economically shrink. How is that good for fighters again?

As for recreating the 1960's, you mean those years where there were champions like Italy's Duilio Loi and Nigeria's Dick Tiger and Brazil's Eder Jofre and Cuba's Benny Paret and Thailand's Pone Kingpetch and Argentina's Pascual Perez and Cuba's Sugar Ramos and the Phillipines Flash Elorde and Panamanian Ismael Laguna and Mexican Vicentes Saldivar and Japan's Fighting Harada and Italy's Sal Burruni and Cuban Luis Miguel Rodriguez and Japan's Horiuki Ebihara and Italy's Nino Benvenuti and Argentina's Nicolino Locche and Cuba's Jose Napoles and Japan's Hisroshi Kobayashi and Australia's Johnny Famechon and Mexico's Reuben Olivares and Sweden's Ingemar Johannsen?

Those years where non-Americans couldn't get a shot or defend in their homelands?