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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

If THAT'S true? Then they'd gladly do it for nothing...right? I mean the fans apparently aren't necessary.

How about this? let's go all the way and make EVERY fight a title fight! Let's give EVERYONE a belt. After all, we wouldn't want anyone left out or their feelings hurt. Then EVERYONE can be above average!

[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.

If THAT'S true? Then they'd gladly do it for nothing...right? I mean the fans apparently aren't necessary.

How about this? let's go all the way and make EVERY fight a title fight! Let's give EVERYONE a belt. After all, we wouldn't want anyone left out or their feelings hurt. Then EVERYONE can be above average!

They fight to get paid mate. Good luck convincing 3 out of 4 world champs to give up their belts, and 3 out of 4 organisations to stop operating because you don't like them.

Just regard them as what they are, IBF belt holder, WBC belt holder etc etc. The world champions are the guys that have the Ring belts. It@s already run the way you want it pretty mcuh.

Also you have consistently claimed that the alphabets have stopped the big fights happening.
So in the last 5 years name 5 fights that haven't happened as a result of alphabet interference.

[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.

[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?

[fan johnny]

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.

30 Years ago? 2010 - 30 years = 1980. I don't think there were more than a handful of 3 weight champions back then. Today I don't think there is more than a handful of five weight champions. I think you were just exaggerating to make a point?

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

If THAT'S true? Then they'd gladly do it for nothing...right? I mean the fans apparently aren't necessary.

How about this? let's go all the way and make EVERY fight a title fight! Let's give EVERYONE a belt. After all, we wouldn't want anyone left out or their feelings hurt. Then EVERYONE can be above average!

They fight to get paid mate. Good luck convincing 3 out of 4 world champs to give up their belts, and 3 out of 4 organisations to stop operating because you don't like them.

Just regard them as what they are, IBF belt holder, WBC belt holder etc etc. The world champions are the guys that have the Ring belts. It@s already run the way you want it pretty mcuh.

Also you have consistently claimed that the alphabets have stopped the big fights happening.
So in the last 5 years name 5 fights that haven't happened as a result of alphabet interference.

Well wait a minute. Haven't you been saying they fight for belts and trophies and things?

If they fight for money then why is an economically shrinking sport, what absolutely corresponds to the rise of the straps, good for them again?

I don't claim things. YOU do that. I provide data. In the last THREE years at heavyweight there have been a total of nine fights among ranked contenders outside of Wlad's defenses. In 1973 ALONE there were nine and in 1958 ALONE there were ten.

[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.

[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).