Wouldn't Regional Titles Work Better?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Those who win alphabet titles are not world champions. The WBC champion is the champion of the WBC, and that's it. If a fighter wins the Ring title, he is champion for the magazine. That's it. So maybe we should refer the alphabet champions as company champions and the Ring champions as magazine champions.

However, as with most things, the smaller and simpler they are, the easier they are to appreciate.

So why not focus on the champions of each country and have just one world champion per division? One valid body that decides who these champions are through tournaments and then discard the others.

I understand that there have always been various boxing organizations like the current four and the NBA and many others. I also recognize that ours is a global sport. So the idea of making it like MLB, the NBA or NFL don't work.

However, we have a huge legitimacy problem here. I guess it would be different if the organizations did not claim to have "world" titles. I mean, this is really stupid.

I am thinking that maybe it would be best to do cards that were world title only. About four a year with three or four divisions on each card. The winners are world champions and only the world title fights are on these megacards. It would make for great cards and give fans something to look forward to. And the rest of the time, guys fight over the regional belts in their own respective countries. I'd love to see the tournaments that would stem from this. Perhaps the guys with other titles would steer clear of them and it might be rough going for a while, but once the tradition set in and few names got involved, I think it would bring a lot of legitimacy to the sport.

Any thoughts?

[Razcal26]

No need for all that.

The only belts I recognize are the WBC, WBA and IBf. If you win those 3 belts in your division, you're the Lineal Champ imo.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

No need for all that.

The only belts I recognize are the WBC, WBA and IBf. If you win those 3 belts in your division, you're the Lineal Champ imo.

Ah, but how many do that or can ever get the organizations to agree with it? As it stands, according to that, there are currently zero world champions.

My main problem is that they are being called "world" champions and clearly they are not. It's not the fighters' fault. I just wish it would be cleared up.

[Razcal26]

Ah, but how many do that or can ever get the organizations to agree with it? As it stands, according to that, there are currently zero world champions.

My main problem is that they are being called "world" champions and clearly they are not. It's not the fighters' fault. I just wish it would be cleared up.

Exactly. There are no World Champions. Unification is how you achieve that.

They are Champions of the respected Sanctioning body of whatever belt(s) that they hold. To become "World (Lineal)" Champion, you must be in possession of the WBA,WBC and IBF belts.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Exactly. There are no World Champions. Unification is how you achieve that.

They are Champions of the respected Sanctioning body of whatever belt(s) that they hold. To become "World (Lineal)" Champion, you must be in possession of the WBA,WBC and IBF belts.

So thee haven't been any world champions in the last decade at least?

Interesting...

[Razcal26]

So thee haven't been any world champions in the last decade at least?

Interesting...

It is isn't?

Now, I'm stingy in how I see it. I do accept situations where if you have held the WBA, WBC or IBF title and the board strips you or you vacate, I still see you as the lead dude in the division.

Kind of like Floyd.
He held those 3 belts at WW and was never beaten for them. To me, he is the Lineal Champ at WW. You have to beat him to get that title (It also helped that Floyd usually had the WBC belt).

So, you would have to win the WBA and IBF belt, beat Floyd for the WBC and then you are recognized as the Lineal Champ of the division.

It seems excessive, but I prefer to look at it that way.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It is isn't?

Now, I'm stingy in how I see it. I do accept situations where if you have held the WBA, WBC or IBF title and the board strips you or you vacate, I still see you as the lead dude in the division.

Kind of like Floyd.
He held those 3 belts at WW and was never beaten for them. To me, he is the Lineal Champ at WW. You have to beat him to get that title (It also helped that Floyd usually had the WBC belt).

So, you would have to win the WBA and IBF belt, beat Floyd for the WBC and then you are recognized as the Lineal Champ of the division.

It seems excessive, but I prefer to look at it that way.

We all have our way of deduction.

I guess right now, I see Fury as the heavyweight since he beat the guy who most people felt was the man in the division who had such a long run. With light heavyweight, it's up to Kovalev and Stevenson facing off. I favor Kovalev, but we won't know unless they clash and for me, what better fight is there right now in the division? At middleweight, it's the winner of Canelo and GGG. The rest of the divisions are really toss ups for me.

I just think that one world champion isn't asking much. If the WBA, for example, became the world organization officially and the other three went regional, that would be excellent. Or any one of them. Can be WBC, IBF or WBO as well.

[HeroBando]

It is isn't?

Now, I'm stingy in how I see it. I do accept situations where if you have held the WBA, WBC or IBF title and the board strips you or you vacate, I still see you as the lead dude in the division.

Kind of like Floyd.
He held those 3 belts at WW and was never beaten for them. To me, he is the Lineal Champ at WW. You have to beat him to get that title (It also helped that Floyd usually had the WBC belt).

So, you would have to win the WBA and IBF belt, beat Floyd for the WBC and then you are recognized as the Lineal Champ of the division.

It seems excessive, but I prefer to look at it that way.

With such a hard line stance its surprising you'd support a full unification of MW belts at 155

[Razcal26]

With such a hard line stance its surprising you'd support a full unification of MW belts at 155

I don't support the 155 cw stuff.

I also don't support BS.

I've asked this question before to the GGG fans, I'll ask again:

"If Canelo vacates the belt, and GGG had a choice to either fight Canelo, or fight some jobber for the belt, which one do you think he is taking?"

We know the answer to this right?

They know it's more about Canelo than it is about the belt. They want his name on GGG's resume. If you want to fight him that bad, (like Floyd wanted to fight Oscar) make the necessary concessions and kick his ass on his terms.

This has happened throughout the history of boxing. Whoop his ass on his terms if you want him that bad.

[HeroBando]

I don't support the 155 cw stuff.

I also don't support BS.

I've asked this question before to the GGG fans, I'll ask again:

"If Canelo vacates the belt, and GGG had a choice to either fight Canelo, or fight some jobber for the belt, which one do you think he is taking?"

We know the answer to this right?

They know it's more about Canelo than it is about the belt. They want his name on GGG's resume. If you want to fight him that bad, (like Floyd wanted to fight Oscar) make the necessary concessions and kick his ass on his terms.

This has happened throughout the history of boxing. Whoop his ass on his terms if you want him that bad.

Still you must recoginze how wrong and disgraceful such a demand is, as it'd crown the true MW champ, something you have very high standards for. You don't even recognize the Wbo hence Oscar was not even a champ! He was of course much smaller, and agreed to a more reasonable CW. That's cause he actually wanted to make the fight, unlike 155lb, 90/10 Canelo