traditional 8 weight classes.one belt in modern times.

**Southpaw Stinger** · 10-01-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by ANTONIM

how would the boxing landscape look today,what if roy jones didn't bulk up to 200 pounds would he be heavyweight champion? give other ideas and your thoughts on my question it would be interesting to know the thoughts of other boxing fans regarding [what i believe to be] boxing's biggest problems.

No.. One belt would ensure that guys like Ruiz would never become champ so it would pass from Len, to VK and later to Wlad and guys like Jones wouldn't compete with those monsters.

**Brunswick Assassin** · 10-08-2007, 10:16 PM

Without a doubt there should be 8 divisions and one belt for each! There's way too many chumps holding bull**** alphabet belts ABC, DEF...XYZ which is causing so much fricken bull**** with no one knowing who the fricken champ is! There's 4 Heavyweight Champs claiming they're the real champ! Old School warriors sometimes wouldn't fight for the Title until their 60th or 70th pro fight! You start calling yourself a real fighter once you've had 50 or 60 pro fights. There should be a new rule stating that no pro fighter should be able to fight for the title once they've fought 50 or 60 pro fights. Today's chumps go 20-0 with a paper belt and want to be called 'Legends'? Pbbbbbbbbbtttttttt

8 Divisions
1 Belt for each division i.e. Ring Magazine Belt
Mandatory 50 pro fights before being eligible to fight for the Title

**HeartAttack** · 10-12-2007, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Southpaw Stinger

No.. One belt would ensure that guys like Ruiz would never become champ so it would pass from Len, to VK and later to Wlad and guys like Jones wouldn't compete with those monsters.

Really to VK and then Wlad? Um, neither have won the belt or linear title. But thats is irrelevant. The one champion per division and only a handful of divisions is what makes UFC fighters recognziable. I mean not that many people follow all of MMA and know who the contenders are, so it is also hard to know who the champs are, unless there is only one champ, and UFC has that. It also helps marketing and helps erase some doubts about corruption in the sport. But sanctioning bodies are too deep in pockets to be removed. its a sad state that they have left things in. Its a true testament to the sport of boxing that it has even thrived in spite of the sanctioning bodies.

**DELETED ACCOUNT 06** · 10-12-2007, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by sleepingtime

Without a doubt there should be 8 divisions and one belt for each! There's way too many chumps holding bull**** alphabet belts ABC, DEF...XYZ which is causing so much fricken bull**** with no one knowing who the fricken champ is! There's 4 Heavyweight Champs claiming they're the real champ! Old School warriors sometimes wouldn't fight for the Title until their 60th or 70th pro fight! You start calling yourself a real fighter once you've had 50 or 60 pro fights. There should be a new rule stating that no pro fighter should be able to fight for the title once they've fought 50 or 60 pro fights. Today's chumps go 20-0 with a paper belt and want to be called 'Legends'? Pbbbbbbbbbtttttttt

8 Divisions
1 Belt for each division i.e. Ring Magazine Belt
Mandatory 50 pro fights before being eligible to fight for the Title

50 or 60 pro fights?...... They're are vewry few fightersin modernety who reach half a century of bouts. Therefore not one of todays champions deserves legend status?

I think the real problem with boxing lies in the desires to keep a fighters record immaculate.

1 belt for each division - and fights should be made by the governing bodies of the organisation for all fighters.

**mickeyb** · 10-12-2007, 10:18 AM

it's all down to the TV companies to sort out, they have the money to buy out WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO and so on.

Then form one organization and governing body and refuse to show any other boxing other than than thiers, the UFC is a billion dollar franchise and the TV companies could get together and double that and share the profits.

i'm not sure on the 8 weight classes though, they should have about ten split evenly in weight. too big a gap in the heavys and too small a gap in the lower to middle.

boxers can only fight for a title if they hold a continental title such as european, asian, N.American.

unless some stinking rich dude is prepared to buy out these alphabet titles then my theory is the TV execs should do it.

boxing is losing fans because of the ****** amount of titles and weights, how many champs can you name from the 16 or 17 weights of the 4 main belts??

**-CANE-** · 10-12-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by britbulldog

it's all down to the TV companies to sort out, they have the money to buy out WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO and so on.

Then form one organization and governing body and refuse to show any other boxing other than than thiers, the UFC is a billion dollar franchise and the TV companies could get together and double that and share the profits.

i'm not sure on the 8 weight classes though, they should have about ten split evenly in weight. too big a gap in the heavys and too small a gap in the lower to middle.

boxers can only fight for a title if they hold a continental title such as european, asian, N.American.

unless some stinking rich dude is prepared to buy out these alphabet titles then my theory is the TV execs should do it.

boxing is losing fans because of the ****** amount of titles and weights, how many champs can you name from the 16 or 17 weights of the 4 main belts??

Agree with you in theory, but in principal this is never gonna happen. The presidents and other executives of these organizations are never gonna let this happen becuase of all the money they are making out of it.

**Brunswick Assassin** · 10-18-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by mickeyb

50 or 60 pro fights?...... They're are vewry few fightersin modernety who reach half a century of bouts. Therefore not one of todays champions deserves legend status?

I think the real problem with boxing lies in the desires to keep a fighters record immaculate.

1 belt for each division - and fights should be made by the governing bodies of the organisation for all fighters.

I understaand that fighters want to protect their legacy but today's fighters need to be active! Isn't boxing about learning your craft??? Paying your dues??? 90% of fighters want to be trained cash registers! Look at the great Billy Conn's record. Even though he had a few blemishes earlier in his career his coach deliberately put him in against guys that were more older and had more experience so Conn could ivaluable experience that made him the fighter that he was during his peak and eventually challenging Joe Louis for the Heavyweight title and don't forget that Conn was a welterweight and eneded up losing that fight due to his 'Hot-Head' style in wanting to trade with Louis! This was a very close fight until Louis Kod him! Conn's foundation is built on concrete and not sand like today's fighters who collect all the bull**** alphabet paper belts and want to be known as 'Legends'! I think NOT!

**StarshipTrooper** · 10-18-2007, 10:00 PM

I'm very much an "old-school eight" guy. Too many alphabet groups, too many superfilous weight classes. It all makes for confusion that turns potential fans off. The only reason these weight classes exist is to create more "championship" fights for the sanctioning bodies to leech sanctioning fees from. This is only one of many problems boxing has though.

Poet

**American_Ninja** · 10-18-2007, 10:17 PM

8 weight classes was ok, but... some of the Jr. weight classes
were, and are good.
Jr. Middleweight, 154.
Jr. Welterweight 140.
These divisions produced some great fights.
As far as there being multiple champions, thats always
been, and always will be. As far as I'm
concerned, the only belts that are legit
are the WBA, WBC, IBF, and the NABF: USA only.

traditional 8 weight classes.one belt in modern times.