A two part question..............?

Question

1) Current alphabet soup heavyweight champions Maskaev, Valuev, Klitschko, Liahkovich; which Heavyweight champions of the last 40 years do believe they could beat? I don't think there would be many.
2) The utter insanity of having 17 different weight divisions and currently 67 different champions is hurting the sport. True or False; and why or how is it hurting the sport?

Answer 1

These 'champions' are no better or worse than the parade of clowns that held titles in the mid eighties.
You are absolutely correct about the myriad of divisions and champions hurting boxing, though. Boxing better beware - a lot of people are turning away from it to the UFC fights. The UFC fighters are serious athletes, and in that sport there are fewer divisions, and only one champ per division.
However, as long as people keep paying the sanctioning fees to these 'governing bodies' and we keep buying these PPV 'championships', the alphabet boys are not going anywhere soon.

To Ric, writing below: I've got news for you, buddy, the alphabet morons don't have just one champ per division anymore.
The WBA now has 'Super Champions'. In effect, if a fighter holds a title for more than one governing body, he is then a 'Super Champion', and the title he held for them is freed up so that someone else is their 'Champion', simultaneously.
Thus we have the absurd situation where O'Neill Bell is their Cruiserweight 'Super Champion', whilst Virgil Hill is their Cruiserweight 'Champion'. Gotta keep those sanctioning fees rolling in.
How can this be good for boxing?

Answer 2

1st off, Sergei Lyakhovich is the best champion out there right now in my opinion. 2ndly, I think they could beat many champions of the last 40 years. Norton, Tubbs, (Leon) Spinks, all of the "champs" in the 80's except Holmes, Tyson, and possibly (Mike) Spinks, Douglas, Moorer, Bowe (ask Golota), Morrison, Botha, McCall, Bruno, Seldon... want me to continue? I can. There are very many, probably most of them, if AT LEAST not half of the champions. 17 weight divisions I don't view as a bad thing really, but it's debatable. But 67 champions (I don't know if that number is right or not due to vacancies and unifications, but we'll let it ride) can hurt the general public. They may be confused and want A CHAMPION. What needs to be understood, is there is a champion per ORGANIZATION. Like a UFC Heavyweight champion, PRIDE Heavyweight champion, and so on. The sport, as a whole, does not. But niether does MMA. As a fan, I find it to be neutral, not good or bad. I like the idea of multiple champions, because the unification bouts are BOMB and bring in alot of money. Soon, a unification bout will happen, so one of the 4 champions will bring it down to 3 champs, one of whom will have 2 belts. The other champions will gun for what the champ has got. Then it'll be exciting. But alot of people don't like 4 champions (lest we count the IBO IBA WBF etc.), to them I say, only recognise the Ring champions instead then. So OK, I like many champions, I respect them, if you don't, stick to Ring champs, end of story. Your answer for your second part is no, it does not (signifigantly) hurt anything. What hurts is anytime a fight is worth watching it costs big bucks. Let's face it, many boxers are from a poor back ground. It's then fair to say many boxing fans are poorer also (I am). THAT is what hurts boxing. I don't mind a few PPV's, but when most good fights are there, it's not that I won't watch boxing, but I CAN'T watch boxing.

Answer 3

Tubbs, Weaver, Page, Coetzee, Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Leon Spinks, Norton, Patterson. these are all debatable fights.

I do feel the number of belts is hurting the sport. With the need to draw more publicity and exposure these people keep creating title belts to try and stimulate intersest in fighters. I feel there need to be one world title, one continental title for each continent, and also include regional titles. like usa champ or mexican champ etc. by capturing these titiles first would propel you in the rankings to get a title shot by the lone world champion.

Answer 4

For starters, I want to agree with the people who've pointed to the mid-80's class of heavy weight champs. I really don't think Tyson was ever particularly dominant. He was the best of a miserably bad crop.

As for weight classes, yes, yes, yes. In a perfect world, there would be one championship per weight class... and these weight classes would be separated by a few more pounds, eliminating a few of them.

The problem with that is... it's hard enough for a young stud to get a title bout now. It seems like it's near impossible to book fights between two champs at the same weight class... because the champs don't want to risk their belts unless it's a sure win, or a huge payday.

The result is that the overall quality of the booked fights aren't what they could be. The light and middle weight classes these days are thriving with talents that just.... refuse... to fight eachother in meaningful matches because they've all got belts that they don't want to risk... and records that they want to protect in the name of the paydays involved. It's a sorry state.