Someone pls tell me why don't they just keep 1 belt per division?

i think having more belts makes things more interesting for instance more chances to be champion, more championship matches, and ususally belt matches are better. Come on could you just imagine Mayweather cherry picking fights just cause he is the champ.

You are talking about 1 state per country.

I agree in some arguements. 1. that it's about the money. But then again, earlier the champion was dodging some contender. It's not good to have 4 belts, but having more then one gives more contenders a shot to be the owner of a belt.

its all about money boxing is a business

Money. and i don't mean Mayweather.

thanks. on $ business standpoint i'll agree, but as a pure fan i'd rather have just 1 belt per division that way it lowers chances of boxers dodging each other. ultimately the question is. would it create more viewership by having 1 belt per division or by just keep how it is now? There was only 1 belt up until the 70's I think. How did that work out for boxing :D You just need to get rid of the corruption and set rules in place to get fighters to fight and defend the title. One thing about the UFC is that Dana White has Dictatorship over his fighters and can basically force them to fight a certain amount of times a year in order to get a shot at the title and even have the Champions defend the title. In other sports, like NFL Football, World Football, Baseball, etc. you have mandatory games that you have to play and then when everything is added up with wins...you play for the title. And Champions have to defend every year against a worthy opponent. Boxing needs a proper system in place to make it better and fair so that the fan can follow it better. And when the Champion is crowned, they will now who the Champion is and which of their favorite prospects may be able to take the crown from "The Champion."

money money money

thanks. on $ business standpoint i'll agree, but as a pure fan i'd rather have just 1 belt per division that way it lowers chances of boxers dodging each other. ultimately the question is. would it create more viewership by having 1 belt per division or by just keep how it is now?

MONEY and boxers buy into it. The positive to having more than one belt and I think I heard this from Colin Hart...is that no one Champion can hold the title for a long time without defending it. Remember, throughout history Champions have avoided fighters and have even taken long bouts of inactivity. Like Dempsey and his 3 year hiatus. Same with Braddock and his 2 years away from the fight. Fighters just need to ditch the belts. I would be in favor of the Ring belt.

They make too much $ chargin fees. We'd all luv 1 belt a division, but who knows if it ever happens. Ring belt is what really counts. But aside form the fees, a title at stake, even just a paper title makes any fight a lil bigger. And fighters know they can get fights they might not get otherwise if they got a belt. And bein a titlist gives fighters leverage in negotiations. Cuz of that, despite the shit they take gettin taxed by teh sanctioning bodies, most fighters won't be so quick to shit on alphabet soup and focus on Ring belts, tho a few have done so.