Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[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.

[Fenster]

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

1960
Heavyweight - Floyd Patterson (USA won title in USA)
Light Heavy - Archie Moore (USA/USA)
Middle - Paul Pender (USA/USA)
Welter - Don Jordan (USA/USA)
Lightweight - Joe Brown (USA/USA)
Featherweight - Davey Moore (USA/USA)
Bantam - Eder Jofre (Brasil/USA)
Fly - Pasqual Perez (ARG/Japan)

SEVEN out of eight titles contested in the USA. SIX out of eight champions are American. 40 years on and STILL America has a stranglehold on all things "world champion."

Now lets jump another 40 years forward.

2000
Heavyweight - Lennox Lewis (ENG/USA)
Light Heavy - Dariusz Michalczewski (POL/GER)
Middle - vacant (Ring no.1 Hopkins - USA)
Welter - Felix Trinidad Jr. (PR/USA)
Lightweight - vacant - (Ring no.1 Castillo - MEX)
Feather - Naz Hamed (ENG/ENG)
Bantam - vacant (Ring no.1 Ayala - USA)
Fly - 3K-Battery (Thai/Thai)

FIVE non-American world champions. At least THREE legitimate champions were crowned OUTSIDE the USA.

Here are the CURRENT Ring champs/no.1.

2011
Heavy - Wlad (UKR)
LH - Hopkins (USA)
Middle - Martinez (ARG)
Welter - Pacquiao (PHI)
Light - Marquez (MEX)
Feather - Gamboa (CUBA)
Bantam - Donaire (PHI)
Fly - Wonjongkam (Thai)

Is it a coincidence that America lost it's stranglehold on "world" championships as the opportunities became more global?

But i don't get your point. Has boxing been spread over the years? Sure. Mostly across British Colonies (South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria) and by places dominated by the US Military (Cuba, the Phillipines, Japan, Korea) or those where Nat Fleischer made a specific, concerted effort (Germany, Thailand, Argentina).

It was mostly complete by say 1960. And it was clearly a good thing. I couldn't care less where great fighters come from. I care that there ARE great fighters. There was no African boxing scene ignored in the US in the 1920's, nor an Asian one. They had to be created. As fighters came along they did what fighters always do, then went where the money was.

But that has ZERO bearing on the meaning of the championships held before then. If people/peoples don't choose to participate? it is what it is. The list of fighters I provided Bilbo demonstrates there was no systematic exclusion of foreigners or black fighters (heavyweight title excluded). It is just the way the sport has developed and spread.

Here's a far bigger issue. The decline since the 1950's in the number of fighters.

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

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

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

[Kev]

@marbleheadmaiu.

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


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

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

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

The belts do NOTHING to identify top fighters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting pretty damned funny.

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

[p4pking]

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

[fan johnny]

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

[marbleheadmaui]

@marbleheadmaiu.

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


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

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

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

The belts do NOTHING to identify top fighters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting pretty damned funny.

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

Let's play the MORE DATA game!

In 1979 ranked welters fought one another eleven times. In 1958, another down period for boxing, they fought one another AT LEAST a dozen times. I stopped counting.

This year? Ranked welters, with all those belts to create fights? Will have fought one another what? Let's count them.

Manny v Shane
Ortiz v. Berto
Ortiz v Mayweather

Am I leaving any fights out? Let's assume I've forgotten two for arguments sake.
All these belts with such value and being used as such bargaining chips are producing no better than HALF as many fights!

Data, data, data

Oh and I have NO IDEA who the alphabet strapholders are or are not. Nor do I care.

[marbleheadmaui]

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

Pretty sure if you dig each of the sanctioning bodies (spit) have a list on-line somewhere.

[marbleheadmaui]

More money for those at the pinnacle, less money for the majority. There's no way an alphabet harms a fighters earning potential. It's the complete opposite. They are the greatest barganing chip.

I agree with only one world champion per division, however, the more chance there is to exploit titles the more people make money. Does it cheapen the sport overall? Yeah.. but there are currently champions from all corners of the world benefiting from being "world" champion. Back in the good old days how many world title fights were held outside of America? Good luck with trying to revert back to that.

Also, I don't know about American fighters, but in Britain it's common for fighters to actually have a day job. Even "world" champions. Ricky Burns (WBO champ) works in a sports shop.

Lots actually. How far back do you want to go?

1920?

Give me the nationality of the EIGHT world champions and where they won the title?

OK, there were actually nine (130 was being contested in that year)

Jimmy Wilde (Welsh) at flyweight won it in the UK
Pete Herman (USA) at Bantam won it in the US
Johnny Kilbane at feather won it in the US
Johnny Dundee (Italian born US immagrant) at 130, won it in the US
Benny Leonard USA at 135, won it in the US from Welshman
jack Britton USA at 147, won it from a Brit in USA
Mike O'Dowd (USA) at middle, won in the USA
Geroge Carpentier (France) at 175, won in USA

So in other words over 1/3 of the cases ivolved either a Non-US born fighter or a non-US fight.

I'll also not that around those years Al Brown defended his title in Europe over a dozen times, Battling Siki defended in Dublin, Capentier defended across Europe as did Wilde.

You forgot Jack Dempsey (USA/USA).

Eight out of nine titles were contested in the USA. Seven out of nine champions were American based. Carpentier fought the majority of his fights in the USA from 1920.

Does this not strongly suggest an American dominance on all things "world championship" boxing?

Now lets jump forward 40 years? Name the EIGHT champions in 1960? Nationality and where the fight was contested?

Dominance? Sure. But so what? England was dominant for a hundred years before that. The fights go where the money is. There is clearly no EXCLUSIVITY for the US.

Sorry about Demspey. I was doing other things.

How about YOU do the work on 1960? I did my share.

1960
Heavyweight - Floyd Patterson (USA won title in USA)
Light Heavy - Archie Moore (USA/USA)
Middle - Paul Pender (USA/USA)
Welter - Don Jordan (USA/USA)
Lightweight - Joe Brown (USA/USA)
Featherweight - Davey Moore (USA/USA)
Bantam - Eder Jofre (Brasil/USA)
Fly - Pasqual Perez (ARG/Japan)

SEVEN out of eight titles contested in the USA. SIX out of eight champions are American. 40 years on and STILL America has a stranglehold on all things "world champion."

Now lets jump another 40 years forward.

2000
Heavyweight - Lennox Lewis (ENG/USA)
Light Heavy - Dariusz Michalczewski (POL/GER)
Middle - vacant (Ring no.1 Hopkins - USA)
Welter - Felix Trinidad Jr. (PR/USA)
Lightweight - vacant - (Ring no.1 Castillo - MEX)
Feather - Naz Hamed (ENG/ENG)
Bantam - vacant (Ring no.1 Ayala - USA)
Fly - 3K-Battery (Thai/Thai)

FIVE non-American world champions. At least THREE legitimate champions were crowned OUTSIDE the USA.

Here are the CURRENT Ring champs/no.1.

2011
Heavy - Wlad (UKR)
LH - Hopkins (USA)
Middle - Martinez (ARG)
Welter - Pacquiao (PHI)
Light - Marquez (MEX)
Feather - Gamboa (CUBA)
Bantam - Donaire (PHI)
Fly - Wonjongkam (Thai)

Is it a coincidence that America lost it's stranglehold on "world" championships as the opportunities became more global?

But i don't get your point. Has boxing been spread over the years? Sure. Mostly across British Colonies (South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria) and by places dominated by the US Military (Cuba, the Phillipines, Japan, Korea) or those where Nat Fleischer made a specific, concerted effort (Germany, Thailand, Argentina).

It was mostly complete by say 1960. And it was clearly a good thing. I couldn't care less where great fighters come from. I care that there ARE great fighters. There was no African boxing scene ignored in the US in the 1920's, nor an Asian one. They had to be created. As fighters came along they did what fighters always do, then went where the money was.

But that has ZERO bearing on the meaning of the championships held before then. If people/peoples don't choose to participate? it is what it is. The list of fighters I provided Bilbo demonstrates there was no systematic exclusion of foreigners or black fighters (heavyweight title excluded). It is just the way the sport has developed and spread.

Here's a far bigger issue. The decline since the 1950's in the number of fighters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fan johnny]

@marbleheadmaiu.

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


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

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

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

The belts do NOTHING to identify top fighters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting pretty damned funny.

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

Let's play the MORE DATA game!

In 1979 ranked welters fought one another eleven times. In 1958, another down period for boxing, they fought one another AT LEAST a dozen times. I stopped counting.

This year? Ranked welters, with all those belts to create fights? Will have fought one another what? Let's count them.

Manny v Shane
Ortiz v. Berto
Ortiz v Mayweather

Am I leaving any fights out? Let's assume I've forgotten two for arguments sake.
All these belts with such value and being used as such bargaining chips are producing no better than HALF as many fights!

Data, data, data

Oh and I have NO IDEA who the alphabet strapholders are or are not. Nor do I care.

What does that even mean? It supports nothing! You use one weight class. Fighters get ranked by who they face in the ring and what they do. The win / loss record comes into play when those win / losses are against ranked fighters. It doesn't matter if you call it organization a, b, c, or ring as long as there is a tracking method. The data is the history and is paramount to the boxing game. I think you had a brain fart or something but usually don't just babel useless info like that.

[Rantcatrat]

Fenster - will you please explain the US/UK angle to this discussion to me? Are you saying there is a point to the alphabet belts because boxing has become global? I'm not being facetious, I just wasn't following it.

Bilbo - can you tell me once more what you see as the major benefit to the alphabet titles? Is it marketability for boxers?

Bilbo - does this mean that you would be against a single worldwide boxing organization that had one champion per division?

[badr_hari]

Alphabet titles confuse the casual fan, but we have to live with it. Ring is definitely not the solution. Its an American magazine (that can be easily manipulated) and i totally disagree with their rankings.

[Rantcatrat]

Alphabet titles confuse the casual fan, but we have to live with it. Ring is definitely not the solution. Its an American magazine (that can be easily manipulated) and i totally disagree with their rankings.

The solution is something like what Fifa does for soccer. Right?

[badr_hari]

Alphabet titles confuse the casual fan, but we have to live with it. Ring is definitely not the solution. Its an American magazine (that can be easily manipulated) and i totally disagree with their rankings.

The solution is something like what Fifa does for soccer. Right?

Absolutely yes. Their structure with 6 confederations for each continent and Fifa for major worldwide tournaments should be used as an example from the boxing community. Maybe we should wait until 2013 for AIBA pro boxing.