Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[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.

[Kev]

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.

That is just a list of fights that never happened. None of those fights were prevented from taking place by the alphabet organisations.

Also, and I love this, every single fight you listed were between alphabet belt holders! So you reject the idea of the alphabets yet accept that their champions are the best fighters and must fight each other.

Bizarre, clearly the belts do a great job of identifying the top fighters in a weight class as without a single exception you made your list from their list of champions.

As I have said from the beginning, far from preventing fights the alphabets promote them by identifying the top fighters in a weight class and giving them the necessary bargaining tool to tempt the other man into the ring.

Unwittingly your own list just confirms this. There wasn't a single overlooked non champion in your list. The belts work.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

That is just a list of fights that never happened. None of those fights were prevented from taking place by the alphabet organisations.

Also, and I love this, every single fight you listed were between alphabet belt holders! So you reject the idea of the alphabets yet accept that their champions are the best fighters and must fight each other.

Bizarre, clearly the belts do a great job of identifying the top fighters in a weight class as without a single exception you made your list from their list of champions.

As I have said from the beginning, far from preventing fights the alphabets promote them by identifying the top fighters in a weight class and giving them the necessary bargaining tool to tempt the other man into the ring.

Unwittingly your own list just confirms this. There wasn't a single overlooked non champion in your list. The belts work.

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

The belts do NOTHING to identify top fighters. Know how I know this? Because I had NO IDEA what the status of these guys belts were when I made the list. None.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is getting pretty damned funny.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Whats AIBA or whatever?

[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.

[p4pking]

This thread is really hurting imo. The ring is a magazine. I've never even seen it for sale anywhere in my life, who gives a damn what they recognize in the scheme of things. Its not as if they are about to abolish the sanctioning bodies, to simply ignore certain strap holders is pretentious beyond belief and would just make it even harder to follow the sport.

[fan johnny]

I'd be interested if there is any sort of regional tie trends with regards to fighters and the abc's. Has anyone looked at this or keep a database list of the past champions by all the sanctioning bodies?