Lennox Lewis 'there should only be one belt in each division' but is it actually good

[Skittlez]

Lennox Lewis in an interview said that even during the 90's he felt 3 belts cheapened the titles, now there are 4-6 and that totally devalues the champions.

Initially I tend to agree, but is that actually a good thing? One belt per weight class?

I think 2 is perfect tbh. Because we can have a unification match. One champion cleans up half the division, the other champion takes the 2nd half. They meet.

There really is pros and cons to having multiple belts though.

[Skittlez]

The #1 must fight the #2 though. Or there really is no #1 or #2.If you never fought the rank 2 of your division, you can not be considered rank 1.

[Ryn0]

It would be much better if it was just one, then there would be no way of ducking and dodging the best.

And mandatories would become worth something again, there would be way less 3 division champions like Robert (not Fernando my mistake) Guerrero (who isn't a bad fighter btw). There would be no easy way to a title in a division either.

[T.Horton]

in this soft generation of video game pudgies, there'd be a lot fewer boxers if there was only one title per class to contend for.

[The Noose]

One champion.

Seems like with so many belts they all can claim to the best without fighting each other.

[kiaba360]

It would be much better if it was just one, then there would be no way of ducking and dodging the best.

And mandatories would become worth something again, there would be way less 3 division champions like Fernando Guerrero (who isn't a bad fighter btw). There would be no easy way to a title in a division either.

umm...he isn't a 3 weight champion lol

The point of having multiple titles is so that all the countries in the world have a realistic chance of becoming a champion. Multiple titles seem to be a result of politics, not a symptom. One title would do away with the concept of "lineal champion".

[1sballotHOF]

Only 1 belt. Even then, the #2-10 ranked guys wouldn't be looked upon as bums either. They'd be looked at, as the legit #2-10 guys.

Af far as money goes, it would be up to the fighter to put on a good show, and make fans through his fighting. Which would be A LOT easier, if their was 1 governing body. Which probably means, more money going into advertisement, tv contracts, etc.

[Skittlez]

Only 1 belt. Even then, the #2-10 ranked guys wouldn't be looked upon as bums either. They'd be looked at, as the legit #2-10 guys.

Great point. If you never fought the #1, you can not be called a champion.

[1sballotHOF]

Great point. If you never fought the #1, you can not be called a champion.

Exactly. It's like getting to the 2nd round in the NBA playoffs, and beating that team. Then calling yourself a world champion afterwards. It makes absolutely no sense.

[Ryn0]

umm...he isn't a 3 weight champion lol

The point of having multiple titles is so that all the countries in the world have a realistic chance of becoming a champion. Multiple titles seem to be a result of politics, not a symptom. One title would do away with the concept of "lineal champion".

If you read his recent interview on boxingscene he claims he is a 3 weight champion because of interim belts that sort of talk is what one belt per division would change.

And that is only partially true, there were plenty of south American, European champions before the belts split up but America did have preferential treatment because of the money over there. But it also came about because of economic reasons, all these belts earn money for their organisations (which is why we have diamond, interim, super, regional belts).

How would one belt do away with a lineal champion when there is only one belt therefore the only champion would be the lineal champion? The only reason we have a lineal champion now is the lineage of fighters who beat THE champion during the one belt era.