Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[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.

[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.

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.

There are 1000 - 1500 fighters in a typical boxing weight class. An elite fighter fights between 1 and 3 times per year. How do they all fight each other pray tell me?

Of course fights won't happen thats the consequence of so few fight fixtures versus other sports. A tennis player will play more matches in a season than a fighter will fight his entire career.

You listed the best fighters who didn't fight each other. EVERY SINGLE ONE was a belt holder. That means the belts do a pretty good job recognising the best fighters. You made the list I didn't.

How did they prevent these fights taking place. Lets start with Cotto Floyd. Take away Cotto's title. Now Floyd is going to fight him?

Your posts make no sense whatsover. I don't need to debate with you you do a better job disproving your own points than I could.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Whats AIBA or whatever?

[Spicoli]

Whats AIBA or whatever?

Pretty sure they were some power-pop band out of Sweden in the late 70's- early 80's