Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[Jody Lane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

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

You can want ht, but it't going to happen.

I think there is a fundamental difference of view here about who boxing exists for. Is it for the fans? Or for those who actually compete and make their livelihood out of it?

You are looking at ut soley from a fans perspective without giving two shits about those actually fighting, training, promoting etc. It's your viewing interest, it's their livelihoods.

They want to get paid. They want to fight for titles. They want to have the chance to build a financially rewarding future for their efforts in the ring.

You might not like it, but who are you at the end of the day?

They fight for themselves, not you.

I guess so Bilbo. Been 28 years since I hung up the gloves after winning the Indiana Golden Gloves so I guess I have settled into the audience frame of mind.

[Kev]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

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

You can want ht, but it't going to happen.

I think there is a fundamental difference of view here about who boxing exists for. Is it for the fans? Or for those who actually compete and make their livelihood out of it?

You are looking at ut soley from a fans perspective without giving two shits about those actually fighting, training, promoting etc. It's your viewing interest, it's their livelihoods.

They want to get paid. They want to fight for titles. They want to have the chance to build a financially rewarding future for their efforts in the ring.

You might not like it, but who are you at the end of the day?

They fight for themselves, not you.

I guess so Bilbo. Been 28 years since I hung up the gloves after winning the Indiana Golden Gloves so I guess I have settled into the audience frame of mind.

Ironic that a man against the prolifieration of titles in boxing would pull rank by citing some obscure belt he won 30 years ago as if that regional trinket should impress anyone.