It seems like theres the wbc,wba,wbo all that is to confusing. How about One champion that we can look up to and say hey hes the champion... There seems to be 10 guys claming to be the heavyweight champ and there all scared to fight each other.
2007-03-04 05:06:27 · 9 answers · asked by mike c 3 in Sports ➔ Boxing
I am one of the few who thinks that there can be a million "Titles" and it would not matter. You recognize who YOU want. There have almost ALWAYS been disputes as to who "The Champion" is, even in Tyson's era, there was the WBO that came around then. A few people acually DID think Francesco Damiani was the Champ... even though Tyson would have made minced meat out of him. Look, there have ALWAYS been disputes, and there ALWAYS will be. Comparing different Boxing champions is like comparing MMA champions from UFC, IFL, or PRIDE. There is no champion of THE WORLD!!! Only of an organised group of people... accept it or don't.
2007-03-08 04:48:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no problem with there being more than one champion...it makes unification that much more significant and RING magazine is pretty good at keeping a recognized one "true champion" for those who want there to be just one. Truth is too many fighters avoid others or terms can't be reached or promotions won't work with each other so fights never take place. So there should be different avenues one can take to become champion ...just to be fair. Most people recognize Wladimir as the "true" champion and that is who the fighters even say they want to beat so in a way there are a lot of champions but only one is truely recognized and rightfully so as he has been taking on undefeated prospects (Sam Peter) as well as the seasoned champs (Chris Byrd) and has not ducked anyone.
2007-03-04 09:45:00 · answer #2 · answered by mrraraavis 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think 1 belt per class would be awesome for the sport.
But along with it, I think salary classes would have to come.
And thats just not going to happen, because fans will pay for an exciting non champion before they throw money at a boring champion.
Boxing should almost become like other sports, win/loss records playing a roll in who fights who.
Each champion should have to fight a mandatory 2 to 3 fights per year, each against the next top contenders. No ducking allowed, if you dont want to fight a guy you forfeit the belt.
Get a salary situation started.
Champ obviously makes the most
then the number 2-5 guys get paid a certain bracket
then 5-10, and so on.
I think it would help other boxers get a chance to move up in the ranking regardless of BS politics. You make your name by winning, not by who you have promoting you.
2007-03-04 13:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by Thats me...A to the D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be great. There is too much money to be made by having 3 or 4 belts, that is why there isn't just 1 belt anymore. I don't think there are too many heavyweights out there for one belt. Maybe only the best will box for the title, not some tomato can. Maybe you should have to be a really good boxer to box for the title. I long for the days of old, where there was one belt, one champion, and no alphabet soup organizations.
2007-03-07 09:27:22 · answer #4 · answered by Travis R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Theres too many fighters for one belt. If these guys fought every month then it would be cool, but thats not going to happen because they'll go brain dead. So they fight every 6 months sometimes longer, how can there be one belt when the guy will only fight 1 time a year? A great champion will unify them, hands down. ! belt will give too much power to 1 promoter and fighter. They already had it that way and it did'nt work, thats why you see the others.
2007-03-04 08:47:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The blogbaba agrees the sport would be better with all the alphabet soup organizations rolled into one, with one world champ per weight class. Unfortunately the $$$ rules the sport, and the more title belts on the line, the more $$$ the organizations make.
It does seem a lot of potential match ups never happen I have to agree with you again, it would be better for the sport if the best fought the best to determine a real champ.
2007-03-06 15:13:08 · answer #6 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One belt would be nice. You can't really be a "World" champion if there are 10 other belts just like it! But in the U.S., we like to proclaim ourselves world champions even when all the talent competing is solely in the U.S.
I think having one belt would be good, but good luck convincing the organizations that own the various rights to these belts to agree which one reigns supreme!
It would make the fighers work hard and make for better fights I think. But for marketing reasons, it will probably never happen.
2007-03-04 13:38:51 · answer #7 · answered by phil_cheesy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I believe so. Too may belts out there and nowadays, boxing is losing ratings because of UFC. In order for boxing to get back ratings, they must have a playoff of all weight classes and dtermine who is overall in their weight class, best pound for pound fighter.
Boxing needs to eliminate judges errors and be certified or recertified on how to judge a fight per round. Their has to be standards and boxing does not have that at all.
2007-03-04 05:14:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A step in the right direction.
Also, about time we got rid of all the corrupt judges out there.
I stopped watching boxing several years ago, switched to MMA (more honest scoring, and much more exciting fights).
2007-03-04 05:11:16 · answer #9 · answered by zaphodsclone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋