Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sport Of Boxing Should ONLY Have 1 Champion Per Division

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    I can only imagine how many title changes we going to have. Every 3 or 6 months a new world champion

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Fighting_Pride View Post
      boxing should has one central controlling body, it's the only most watched sport that does not have a central commission like pro football & basketball, boxing is run by corrupt state organizations whose sole mission is to make money and not care about the athletes
      Actually boxing is run by corrupt sanctioning bodies, the state commissions have very little power.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by craigus1990 View Post
        I think this is made too much of to be honest. A) If we had one champion, there are too many pro contenders and some of them wouldn't get a shot by the time they retire. B) We don't call Povetkin a champion, he is a title holder. Boxing knows who the real men of the division are.
        it just occured to me, boxers are partly to blame for the decline of boxing, they don't fight that much, inactivity is a boxer's worst enemy, these boxing organizations are so biased, they forget their own guidelines, i mean there champions should defend the belt every 3-4 months but the so called champions fight once a year and they get away with it.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Stokely View Post
          Nope. That would give a monopoly to one authorising body. There should be two. That way we still keep the excitement of unification bouts for crowning the undisputed champion.
          undisputed sure does sound good, but unifying the belt means the boxer needs to be so active to defend more than two belts, which is good, but it also means vacating the belt and passing it to an unworthy paper champion. point is 1 central body, 1 belt

          Comment


          • #25
            I totally agree but I'm going to be a dick and complain about a pet peeve of mine. Why are people calling it "the sport of boxing"????? Do people walk around saying "did you watch the sport of football/cricket/basketball/F1/MMA last night?" No, no they ****ing don't!!

            Sorry just had to get that out. Thanks.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Stokely View Post
              Nope. That would give a monopoly to one authorising body. There should be two. That way we still keep the excitement of unification bouts for crowning the undisputed champion.
              That's the point. You wouldn't need a unification bout. Whoever is the champ, is ultimately the best in that division. While also having to defend that title against the best of the best constantly.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by craigus1990 View Post
                I think this is made too much of to be honest. A) If we had one champion, there are too many pro contenders and some of them wouldn't get a shot by the time they retire. B) We don't call Povetkin a champion, he is a title holder. Boxing knows who the real men of the division are.
                Even in the current state of boxing, a lot of fighters go their entire career without getting a shot. Having one champ per division must be accompanied by the enforcement of mandatories at least 3 times a year.

                Comment


                • #28
                  No because then it will be exactly like it was when the mob ran boxing and guys would have to deal with whatever criminal is in charge thus that criminal would have enormous power, with multiple belts a guy can pick the criminal he wants to deal with and the criminal needs to be more accommodating because a guy has other options thus spreading out the power and the amount they can exploit that power.

                  It probably has gone to far the other way but if there were only 4 main belts it wouldn't be that bad but with the WBA having a super champ in damn near every division (plus other organizations having multiple champs) and the one cool thing about there being multiple belts is unification but the bodies seem to be eliminating those. Still really there is only 1 real champ (or zero), the rest are just belt holders or titlists.
                  Last edited by The Gambler1981; 11-12-2012, 03:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by The Gambler1981 View Post
                    No because then it will be exactly like it was when the mob ran boxing and guys would have to deal with whatever criminal is in charge thus that criminal would have enormous power, with multiple belts a guy can pick the criminal he wants to deal with and the criminal needs to be more accommodating because a guy has other options thus spreading out the power and the amount they can exploit that power.

                    It probably has gone to far the other way but if there were only 4 main belts it wouldn't be that bad but with the WBA having a super champ in damn near every division (plus other organizations having multiple champs) and the one cool thing about there being multiple belts is unification but the bodies seem to be eliminating those. Still really there is only 1 real champ (or zero), the rest are just belt holders or titlists.
                    What!? No. It would mean the #1 guy would have to fight the #2-10 guys on a constant basis. Their would be a ranking system, and their wouldn't be a way to exploit that, unless the champ just flat out refused to fight the mandatory, thus relinquishing the belt. As it should be.

                    Also, if the singular governing body was that damn corrupt, the fans would immediately notice. Their wouldn't only be a handful of hardcore boxing fans crying foul. The mass majority would know what's going on at all times, since their would be a definitive ranking system in place.
                    Last edited by 1sballotHOF; 11-12-2012, 03:25 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by 1sballotHOF View Post
                      What!? No. It would mean the #1 guy would have to fight the #2-10 guys on a constant basis. Their would be a ranking system, and their wouldn't be a way to exploit that, unless the champ just flat out refused to fight the mandatory, thus relinquishing the belt. As it should be.

                      Also, if the singular governing body was that damn corrupt, the fans would immediately notice. Their wouldn't only be a handful of hardcore boxing fans crying foul. The mass majority would know what's going on at all times, since their would be a definitive ranking system in place.
                      Boxing will always be corrupt and most people don't care to see it. People look back on the past with rose colored glassed saying how great the past was, like when Albert Anastasia the head of Murder Inc. was basically running the whole sport nobody would get a shot or ranking unless he wanted it to happen. If people can't see it in history they won't see it in front fo their face.

                      Sure in a perfect world it would work and a criminal wouldn't be running the sport but that is not being real.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP