One World Champion Recognised by 3/4 of the Boxing Organisations

Wbo is nothing more than Bob arum's own personal belt organization, just look at how every mandatory is always a top rank fighter Actually, he and fish eyes have a time-share agreement on it.

That would be awesome. It would be just like the UFC. If you wanna be the champ, you have to beat the champ. Yup, and we would finally get rid of those "A fighter is ducking B because..." threads since the best will have to constantly square off against the best.

As long as they consistently enforce champion vs champion IMMEDIATELY (maybe a 2 fight limit rule at most) after a title is won I'm fine with that. Get rid of interims, silvers, internationals, etc. The only other sub-belts I like are possibly: USA: none (i believe travel is easier with USA-USA fighters?) England/Commonwealth: The Commonwealth Champion (decent title right? plus it makes the matches a bit more interesting especially USA vs England??) Then all the other countries/continents could have their own belt given said fighter clears his weight division in his country/continent. "Africa's Welterweight Champion" "Japan's Flyweight Champion" It would just ring a nice bell when they fight for whomever may be the true champion. Of course these titles wouldn't exist if the fighter is already from that nation/continent/commonwealth. Sounds something like this http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/C3MhOKsMLno/maxresdefault.jpg And I like it :boxing:

Yes. Boxing is finally getting its act together. Beautiful news. Good to hear on the eve on this stuff I hear about this new boxing with less padding and no ropes.

That would be awesome. It would be just like the UFC. If you wanna be the champ, you have to beat the champ.

100 thousand more and that one world champ could be recognized by all four.

The reason that there is 4 belt organizations... well I'm not sure if I should be saying this but what the hell it's to help fuel online chat forums like this nobody really wants one true champ they want multiple guys so they can debate who's really the best if they all fought and settled it in the ring well there wouldn't be as much traffic on these sites it's a conspiracy propagated by website hosts and boxing hierarchy. Interesting. You are right about the numerous champs sparking so many heated debates across the board and leading to million dollar bets and such. However, the sanctioning bodies are in it for their own pockets, and if this move were to deepen them, I'm sure they would neglect the forums and go on with it. Thanks for the video. A couple of things from it: Standardization of Instant Replay Standardization of drug test procedure. Monitoring of weight 30 days, 7 days and 1 day before fight. Establish maximum weight for day of fight. Respecting each other’s suspensions. And a tournament to crown a world champ. I think these small things a good step in the right direction. We'd all prefer to have less sanctioning bodies but with the money they're making that aint gonna happen. the bolded are interesting to say the least. I think the sanctioning fees for their World Champion will be raised, and seeing as how they can retain a few of their other champs as long as they are not labeled "world champs", I don't think it is too farfetched. They will be making good money and if it were to make them lose any, I doubt it would even be a centre of discussion for a conference. In fact, the IBF and WBA would have joined the WBO in ginning the WBC the cold shoulder.

Thanks! I'm about to listen lol. I got my information from the interview Mauricio gave on Golpe a Golpe which was very interesting for the Spanish speakers. It's on YouTube if anyone is interested. :boxing: Thanks for the video. A couple of things from it: Standardization of Instant Replay Standardization of drug test procedure. Monitoring of weight 30 days, 7 days and 1 day before fight. Establish maximum weight for day of fight. Respecting each other’s suspensions. And a tournament to crown a world champ. I think these small things a good step in the right direction. We'd all prefer to have less sanctioning bodies but with the money they're making that aint gonna happen.

The reason that there is 4 belt organizations... well I'm not sure if I should be saying this but what the hell it's to help fuel online chat forums like this nobody really wants one true champ they want multiple guys so they can debate who's really the best if they all fought and settled it in the ring well there wouldn't be as much traffic on these sites it's a conspiracy propagated by website hosts and boxing hierarchy.

Where would the 5th judge be? A ring only has 4 sides. Didnt the ref act as a judge like way back in the day? Im not sure how it really worked... I agree with the weight thing. I dont see why anyone wouldnt. But screw open scoring man. That can really mess with a fighter's mentality whether hes winning or losing. The 5th judge would be so we wouldn't have an even amount of votes, thus being a tie breaker in a sense, at least that's what i think. Plus, having 5 judges spectating can broaden the results towards the proper decision, since more eyes are attentive. I think with 4 judges a lot more fights would be scored draws, thus the 5th element. Has any action been taken against ridiculous open scoring yet? The only argument I've heard is that it'll serve as motivation to the losing fighter or some B.S Not sure, but it isn't as ridiculous as the HBO/Shotime audience believes. Again, it is subjective. All I know is 3 states have accepted it but the rest had rejected the thought. If it was such a bad idea I don't think Japan would have implemented in some of their fights. Also, I do think we get to see what's going on with the judges before we get surprised and witness a robbery after 12. Anyway about it affecting the mentality of fighters, I'm not sure. I think a fighter is in there to win and do his best to do so not just give up half way in. For example, if Provo knew he was losing after 8 rounds, I'm sure he would have gotten even more aggressive and or have attempted to adjust appropriately to win. It gives fighters an opportunity to know their standing and attempt to change their game plan in order to win. Again, all opinion and it's a subjective matter.

Just finished listening to the hour long interview that was previously posted and a lot of good points were brought up. One that really interested me was the thought of having 5 judges monitor and score title fights instead of 3. That would make things a lot more interesting and perhaps a higher opportunity of swaying the scoring in the right direction. Mauricio Sulaiman also made a good case for open scoring, since the judging is more transparent and proper actions can be taken against the particular judge that seems to be straying from reality. However there is a lot of disagreements on this particular way of judging in the USA but it is generally accepted in Japan, Mexico and African countries. I'm also intrigued by the weight clause if ever it is implemented. Imagine fighters such as Canelo, Chavez Jr, Salido amongst dozens others who gain +15 lbs overnight and have a physical advantage over their smaller opponents. They would be forced to either stay true to the weight dictated by the weight class they compete in, or move up and lose that advantage..and fight men that are actually on equal grounds. I also believe this would stop all the nonsense weight jumping that seems so popular nowadays. I don't think the overnight thing is a problem because both fighters can take advantage. The problem is weigh ins for guys like Chavez are sometimes 36 hours before the fight (I think the Andy Lee fight was for example) That is just terrible, again both fighters can take advantage but that is above and beyond shady as the contracts are already signed. Doing it exactly 24 hours before the fight (8 or 9 pst) is how the weigh-ins should be handled IMO.

I know there wasnt open scoring but remember when Nacho told Marquez in the 3rd fight that he was winning? He let off and Pacquiao made I come back. And I dont really care who won or lost. But Pacquiao came back in those rounds. Then you have trainers tell a fighter hes losing even if hes winning. You have to know your people and know how they react to these things. Not everyone is the same.

Has any action been taken against ridiculous open scoring yet? The only argument I've heard is that it'll serve as motivation to the losing fighter or some B.S Thats complete bullsh*t and a dumbass argument. Not just fighters but people in general react differently to negativity. Some people take it as motivation and others just give up.

Just finished listening to the hour long interview that was previously posted and a lot of good points were brought up. One that really interested me was the thought of having 5 judges monitor and score title fights instead of 3. That would make things a lot more interesting and perhaps a higher opportunity of swaying the scoring in the right direction. Mauricio Sulaiman also made a good case for open scoring, since the judging is more transparent and proper actions can be taken against the particular judge that seems to be straying from reality. However there is a lot of disagreements on this particular way of judging in the USA but it is generally accepted in Japan, Mexico and African countries. I'm also intrigued by the weight clause if ever it is implemented. Imagine fighters such as Canelo, Chavez Jr, Salido amongst dozens others who gain +15 lbs overnight and have a physical advantage over their smaller opponents. They would be forced to either stay true to the weight dictated by the weight class they compete in, or move up and lose that advantage..and fight men that are actually on equal grounds. I also believe this would stop all the nonsense weight jumping that seems so popular nowadays. Has any action been taken against ridiculous open scoring yet? The only argument I've heard is that it'll serve as motivation to the losing fighter or some B.S

Just finished listening to the hour long interview that was previously posted and a lot of good points were brought up. One that really interested me was the thought of having 5 judges monitor and score title fights instead of 3. That would make things a lot more interesting and perhaps a higher opportunity of swaying the scoring in the right direction. Mauricio Sulaiman also made a good case for open scoring, since the judging is more transparent and proper actions can be taken against the particular judge that seems to be straying from reality. However there is a lot of disagreements on this particular way of judging in the USA but it is generally accepted in Japan, Mexico and African countries. I'm also intrigued by the weight clause if ever it is implemented. Imagine fighters such as Canelo, Chavez Jr, Salido amongst dozens others who gain +15 lbs overnight and have a physical advantage over their smaller opponents. They would be forced to either stay true to the weight dictated by the weight class they compete in, or move up and lose that advantage..and fight men that are actually on equal grounds. I also believe this would stop all the nonsense weight jumping that seems so popular nowadays. Where would the 5th judge be? A ring only has 4 sides. Didnt the ref act as a judge like way back in the day? Im not sure how it really worked... I agree with the weight thing. I dont see why anyone wouldnt. But screw open scoring man. That can really mess with a fighter's mentality whether hes winning or losing.

I agree with that overnight weight gain clause, for sure.

Just finished listening to the hour long interview that was previously posted and a lot of good points were brought up. One that really interested me was the thought of having 5 judges monitor and score title fights instead of 3. That would make things a lot more interesting and perhaps a higher opportunity of swaying the scoring in the right direction. Mauricio Sulaiman also made a good case for open scoring, since the judging is more transparent and proper actions can be taken against the particular judge that seems to be straying from reality. However there is a lot of disagreements on this particular way of judging in the USA but it is generally accepted in Japan, Mexico and African countries. I'm also intrigued by the weight clause if ever it is implemented. Imagine fighters such as Canelo, Chavez Jr, Salido amongst dozens others who gain +15 lbs overnight and have a physical advantage over their smaller opponents. They would be forced to either stay true to the weight dictated by the weight class they compete in, or move up and lose that advantage..and fight men that are actually on equal grounds. I also believe this would stop all the nonsense weight jumping that seems so popular nowadays.

You need to read the entire first post... What they are saying is there will be a WBC, WBA and IBF or whichever letter champs. They can still have the same rankings that they have now, in each division nothing has changed. The difference is that now they will be champions, and should someone unify they will be WORLD champions. Exactly how it was with Floyd being super mega hyper champion and Trout was the "normal" champion I think it was the WBA with this dumb sh*t. The entire point is now they are simply recognizing THE MAN in a certain weight division and now they all get a piece of the pie. Nothing is really changing at all, except for the fact that they found a way to make money and leech off of fighters while still keeping some intergrity in the sport. The last guy I can remember unifying a lot of titles was Hopkins I believe he had 3, or the Klits I guess but let's use Hopkins. Just say he is currently the "man" at MW he is the world champion. Well he can't be fighting just some guy from Japan anymore his next mandatory would be Martinez/Cotto/Golokin. (just using an example.) This is basically what the bodies are ensuring, basically no more gimme fights for guys like Berto, but they somehow manage to get their cut as well. Look at Peter Quillin's joke of a reign and the abysmal ratings he already does. Now imagine this had already been implemented with Martinez, Golovkin, Geale, Murray, all fighting eachother in 2013 while Quillin tries making paper defenses on Showtime against Konecny bringing in 300K viewers on a undercard. If you're a TV network are you going to want to air his fights? If you're a sanctioning body would you want the miniscule 4% of his purse or would you rather strip him and have someone like Murray hold a title while facing the #1 organizational challenger then face the World Champion and get 800K, 1 million, 1.2 Million viewers on HBO earning a much larger purse and commanding a larger 4% fee for that sanctioning body? I understand your pessimism but there really is more monetary profit available for these sanctioning bodies and TV networks if they do this that's why i would take it serious. If this happens and boxers and promoters don't want to go along with it their fighters won't ever be considered top 5 in the division, won't be on TV and won't make them money. Top Rank and Golden have alot of young talent and will have to develop it properly which they already do for the most part particularly Top Rank. Golden Boy will approve in this regard with Schaefer and Haymon no longer running things with a Berto or GRJ approach to bringing guys along. Oscar knows how a prospect should be developed he was challenged coming up, he's doing the same with Canelo and he's never had a problem letting guys take reasonable risk. I think I get you guys. Maybe it's a little late for me to comprehend all this sh*t right now. Lol Or maybe I'm so used to the way it is now and the corruption that I don't see it changing. :dunno:

I dont see them combining. Greed. Too much money for them to make if they're individually. Why share your earnings with others when you can still make money and keep it yourself? That's what I think...they honestly don't care about what goes down, just filling their pockets.

Wbo is nothing more than Bob arum's own personal belt organization, just look at how every mandatory is always a top rank fighter Frank Warren fighters also seem to always go the WBO route.