Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  2
Likes Likes:  11
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,093
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    386
    Cool Clicks

    Default Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    If you could change one of these two things, which one would it be?

    One title per weight class or change back to 8 weight classes?

    It seems that having one title would be the obvious answer to me, and I think it would fix a ton of problems, but having only 8 weight classes would also prevent jumping weight classes and ducking. People would be forced to stay at a weight class for a much longer time and couldn’t just move up to avoid someone.

    I still think that having one title per weight class would be better, but we still have so many weight classes that even at that, it gets so watered down. There would be more potential mega fights with 8 weight classes because every weight would have at least a handful of really good fighters.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,859
    Mentioned
    453 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1654
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    No brainer for me. One title per weight class.

    The fear of people jumping weight classes would fade a bit when fighters realized they couldn't just pick the weak zebra in the herd and just go get it (aka: Rocky Fielding). They'd have to face a bonafide champion, and that's all there is to it.

    I don't mind more than 8 weight classes. It gives us more championship fights, which is always a good thing unless it's for a meaningless belt like the WBC likes to churn out.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    7,009
    Mentioned
    165 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    255
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Yea out of the 2 listed I would agree with 1 Championship per division. I don't think it's necessary to drop all the way back to 8 divisions but a few could definitely go.
    They live, We sleep

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,093
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    386
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    We have so many weight classes it’s ridiculous. Where does it stop? It becomes diluted. I’m imagining welterweight if you added guys like Taylor, Prograis, and Ramirez. How good would that weight class be? Even with more than one belt, there would be fights that wouldn’t be made if we kept the weight classes intact and just had one title per weight class.

    The main reason to have one title is so that no one can duck the obvious top guy in the division because multiple people now can claim they are the champion. That would be great. Having less weight classes make many more good potential match ups.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,578
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    399
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    No brainer for me. One title per weight class.

    The fear of people jumping weight classes would fade a bit when fighters realized they couldn't just pick the weak zebra in the herd and just go get it (aka: Rocky Fielding). They'd have to face a bonafide champion, and that's all there is to it.

    I don't mind more than 8 weight classes. It gives us more championship fights, which is always a good thing unless it's for a meaningless belt like the WBC likes to churn out.
    Agreed. Imagine Loma couldn’t have said no to Belchelt and Garcia, how great his CV would be. And he would have fought a champ at 126, his CV would be insane.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,093
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    386
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    No brainer for me. One title per weight class.

    The fear of people jumping weight classes would fade a bit when fighters realized they couldn't just pick the weak zebra in the herd and just go get it (aka: Rocky Fielding). They'd have to face a bonafide champion, and that's all there is to it.

    I don't mind more than 8 weight classes. It gives us more championship fights, which is always a good thing unless it's for a meaningless belt like the WBC likes to churn out.
    Agreed. Imagine Loma couldn’t have said no to Belchelt and Garcia, how great his CV would be. And he would have fought a champ at 126, his CV would be insane.
    I agree that it would be nice to make it much harder to manufacture a champion. You could bring them along slowly, but you still have to beat the champion. Then when you are the champion, you have to defend it against worthy challengers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,646
    Mentioned
    165 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1045
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    I'm not convinced it would make a huge difference, but one title per division would be the better one. Boxing is a shady business, I don't know how much all these trinkets really have to do with it these days as opposed to other things. More weight classes is almost a non issue for me though. If anything more weight classes just creates more even/safe fights overall, I'm often cool with catchweights and weight hopping for the same reason. If any fighter is confident enough, there is nothing to stop them from weighing an extra half pound and fighting at the next class up. If they can't compete against fighters that size, that's exactly the reason you need the weight classes what they are.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    On the levee
    Posts
    38,998
    Mentioned
    342 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    4734
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Yeh I'd say one trinket per division as it would emphasis a true champion and see a round robin of quality talent facing off. The top ten rankings would also regain respect. I don't have as big a problem with the divisions now, aside from divas using them as pit stops to "make history" but I believe most fans know a terrible match set up when they see it. Honestly I'm wondering how many of todays top fighters would flounder if they lost the pre step added divisions and the fact that they would have to truly fight up the new ranks in much deeper divisions? Or if they would leave at all as cleaning out only 8 divisions would take a bigger broom before you jump without being called a ducker at every turn.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    7,974
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1561
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Easy choice - one title per weight class

    Got a bot sick of all the weight divisions but having just one title would ease that one

    We all know it will never happen
    Don't bully fat kids - they've got enough on their plate

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    351
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    44
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    less titles needs to happen, we know more are on the way
    Apply shame. Apply fame. The crook and the flail.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    57,202
    Mentioned
    1480 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2718
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    One title per weight class would be better as we are now so use to the multiple weight divisions and long gone are the traditional 8 weight classes. You will still get “lucky” champions who will have one defence and lose the title, champions that will not want to face the best fighter in the division, a lot more top contenders not fighting and risking their ranking but at least you will get one undisputed champion.
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,859
    Mentioned
    453 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1654
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    It seems the overwhelming majority of us prefer having one title per weight class, and are less overwhelmingly in favor of less weight classes.

    All of which deserves more scrutiny (weight classes). Right now the differences are 3-4 pounds at the lighter weights, and 7-8 pounds at the heavier weights. That's probably slicing the cheese too thin.

    Although being familiar with the original weight classes, I looked them up anyway and was surprised to find there were lower limits on the weights.

    For instance, welter is stated at 140-147, and middle is stated at 154-160. I imagine if you were a 150-pounder and couldn't make welter comfortably, you'd have been forced to fight at middle, which would present considerable disadvantages.

    I also imagine if the 150-pounder showed up on fight night weighing below 154, he'd still be able to fight at his risk, knowing the opponent could have weighed in at 160.

    I only mention it because it's odd seeing windows on weight classes, when in my mind it's only the upper limit that matters. Odd that they would present it that way.

    But back in the days of the original weight classes, the differences from flyweight to light heavyweight were, in ascending order: 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 pounds.

    It's obvious then, that at lighter weights it's necessary to have a smaller margin between divisions.

    But it makes me wonder what the optimum divisions would be. Seventeen (17) weight divisions DOES sound like a lot when you ponder the actual number. But..... are eight divisions enough to satisfy our cravings for more boxing and more championship fights?

    Also..... I could see catchweights being more logical back in the days of eight divisions. The case of the 150-pounder fits that picture pretty well.

    But thinking now about the 17 divisions...... why in HELL do we need to keep slicing the pie into even smaller pieces?? Might as well have divisions at each 1-pound increment.

    TBH, I think with the comparatively tiny increments we have now, catchweights should be done away with, at least for any type of "championship" fight.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    4,745
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    513
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Quote Originally Posted by powerpuncher View Post
    If you could change one of these two things, which one would it be?

    One title per weight class or change back to 8 weight classes?

    It seems that having one title would be the obvious answer to me, and I think it would fix a ton of problems, but having only 8 weight classes would also prevent jumping weight classes and ducking. People would be forced to stay at a weight class for a much longer time and couldn’t just move up to avoid someone.

    I still think that having one title per weight class would be better, but we still have so many weight classes that even at that, it gets so watered down. There would be more potential mega fights with 8 weight classes because every weight would have at least a handful of really good fighters.
    Change the weight limits along with probably losing a few weight classes. I see no difference between Jr Welter and Welter and no difference between a true lightweight and a legitimate featherweight.
    Bigger man George, bigger punch!

    Subscribe: Free online Classifieds and Business directory!
    Hidden Content

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,093
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    386
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    It seems the overwhelming majority of us prefer having one title per weight class, and are less overwhelmingly in favor of less weight classes.

    All of which deserves more scrutiny (weight classes). Right now the differences are 3-4 pounds at the lighter weights, and 7-8 pounds at the heavier weights. That's probably slicing the cheese too thin.

    Although being familiar with the original weight classes, I looked them up anyway and was surprised to find there were lower limits on the weights.

    For instance, welter is stated at 140-147, and middle is stated at 154-160. I imagine if you were a 150-pounder and couldn't make welter comfortably, you'd have been forced to fight at middle, which would present considerable disadvantages.

    I also imagine if the 150-pounder showed up on fight night weighing below 154, he'd still be able to fight at his risk, knowing the opponent could have weighed in at 160.

    I only mention it because it's odd seeing windows on weight classes, when in my mind it's only the upper limit that matters. Odd that they would present it that way.

    But back in the days of the original weight classes, the differences from flyweight to light heavyweight were, in ascending order: 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 pounds.

    It's obvious then, that at lighter weights it's necessary to have a smaller margin between divisions.

    But it makes me wonder what the optimum divisions would be. Seventeen (17) weight divisions DOES sound like a lot when you ponder the actual number. But..... are eight divisions enough to satisfy our cravings for more boxing and more championship fights?

    Also..... I could see catchweights being more logical back in the days of eight divisions. The case of the 150-pounder fits that picture pretty well.

    But thinking now about the 17 divisions...... why in HELL do we need to keep slicing the pie into even smaller pieces?? Might as well have divisions at each 1-pound increment.

    TBH, I think with the comparatively tiny increments we have now, catchweights should be done away with, at least for any type of "championship" fight.
    UFC does 8 weight classes and most people don’t seem to be calling for more. I have heard about maybe trying to put in one more, but Dana White says that he doesn’t want to. But those in between weights are an easy fix. If you weigh 150, you can easily cut down to 147. If you weight more and can’t cut, you can easily bulk up just a bit. With the original 8 weight classes, it wouldn’t be hard to go one way or another.

    But that was my big thing. Where do the weight classes stop? 17 just seems very excessive. I don’t think any other combat sport has so many weigtt he classes. I know that college and international wrestling have 10 while the olympics goes down to six (which I don’t think is enough).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    4,745
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    513
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Which one would make a more positive difference to boxing?

    WE all know why we have multiple sanctioning bodies, because when we had one in just the WBA, it became corrupt and legit guys were not getting a title shot or be recognized for the money.
    Bigger man George, bigger punch!

    Subscribe: Free online Classifieds and Business directory!
    Hidden Content

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-23-2017, 10:36 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-08-2013, 08:08 PM
  3. Positive Tests, Can't make weight!
    By DannyV297 in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-20-2012, 04:44 PM
  4. What a difference 6 pounds make.
    By Deanrw in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 05:07 PM

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  





Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Videos | Boxing Forum | Boxing Books | Boxing Posters | Learn to Box | Advanced Fighting Methods | Boxing Rankings | Boxing Schedule | Auctions | Fun and Games | Boxing Equipment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019 Saddo Boxing - Boxing