The WBO proves their idiocy

[QueensburyRules]

i read it on a website yesterday. It said there are rumours he has a glass jaw. It is a credible website too.

- - I keep reading man never landed on the moon, but I never read that U got a glass jaw. Is that true or not?

[Ben Bolt]

The sanctioning bodies are a pernicious cancer that ruins the sport.

I mean four 'world' champions at one weight?.

I still think, it's today's boxing journalists who are to blame for making this acceptable.
When referring every alphabet champ as a 'world' champ, they are running the errands of the boxing orgs.

As a journalist, you should have some integrity.
I don't find it among the boxing reporters of today (which includes fight reports I read from the writers on Boxing Scene).
In any other sports domain, they would have been disqualified.

[Willie Pep 229]

I still think, it's today's boxing journalists who are to blame for making this acceptable.
When referring every alphabet champ as a 'world' champ, they are running the errands of the boxing orgs.

As a journalist, you should have some integrity.
I don't find it among the boxing reporters of today (which includes fight reports I read from the writers on Boxing Scene).
In any other sports domain, they would have been disqualified.

I say blame the broadcasters not the print (or even the Internet) journalists.

In the 1980s cable television exploded: HBO, Showtime, USA Network, ESPN—all were hungry for marketable content. A fight labeled “World Championship” attracted viewers, and the sanctioning body alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, later WBO) gave them a convenient excuse to package something as a championship fight.

Broadcasters didn’t care about lineage or legitimacy—they cared about ratings, and if that meant hyping a #5 vs. #7 matchup for a vacant belt as a "world title fight," so be it.

As a result, sanctioning bodies had every incentive to proliferate, because the broadcasters would still promote the event and treat the belt as legitimate, regardless of context.

The most the print journalists could do was challenge legitimacy, which Ring Magazine tried by maintaining its own championship policy. But The Ring didn’t have the market power to override HBO or Showtime. The magazine could call out weak title claims, but the networks still called it a “world title fight” on air.

In many ways, print journalists ended up reacting, not driving the narrative. By the 1990s, you even saw some top writers referring to “three-belt champions” or “undisputed with all four,” because the genie was out of the bottle.

It was the 1980s when all the poisons rose up from the muck."

That’s when boxing lost control of its own legitimacy. The market began rewarding quantity of titles over quality of champions.

IMO journalists had no choice but to go along. It was the broadcasters that called the shot and the journalists could only surrive by capitulation.

[QueensburyRules]

I say blame the broadcasters not the print (or even the Internet) journalists.

In the 1980s cable television exploded: HBO, Showtime, USA Network, ESPN—all were hungry for marketable content. A fight labeled “World Championship” attracted viewers, and the sanctioning body alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, later WBO) gave them a convenient excuse to package something as a championship fight.

Broadcasters didn’t care about lineage or legitimacy—they cared about ratings, and if that meant hyping a #5 vs. #7 matchup for a vacant belt as a "world title fight," so be it.

As a result, sanctioning bodies had every incentive to proliferate, because the broadcasters would still promote the event and treat the belt as legitimate, regardless of context.

The most the print journalists could do was challenge legitimacy, which Ring Magazine tried by maintaining its own championship policy. But The Ring didn’t have the market power to override HBO or Showtime. The magazine could call out weak title claims, but the networks still called it a “world title fight” on air.

In many ways, print journalists ended up reacting, not driving the narrative. By the 1990s, you even saw some top writers referring to “three-belt champions” or “undisputed with all four,” because the genie was out of the bottle.

It was the 1980s when all the poisons rose up from the muck."

That’s when boxing lost control of its own legitimacy. The market began rewarding quantity of titles over quality of champions.

IMO journalists had no choice but to go along. It was the broadcasters that called the shot and the journalists could only surrive by capitulation.

- - TV land Sports Broadcasting and TV in general had integrity then, so when DKing became a major player, they didn't like the literal Comedy of Fraudulent fights and stopped broadcasting fights.

HBO was a startup and DKing delivered what they needed as a startup and the rest history.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - TV land Sports Broadcasting and TV in general had integrity then, so when DKing became a major player, they didn't like the literal Comedy of Fraudulent fights and stopped broadcasting fights.

HBO was a startup and DKing delivered what they needed as a startup and the rest history.

I agree wholeheartedly that 70s TV had some integrity but it was more about protecting their brand from the type of reputation a Don King could give them, then it was about fairness.

Also I think the rise of the NBA (and basketball in general) took away the prized (non-football season) Saturday/Sunday afternoon time slots.

P.S. I have this hypothesis that the 1970 NBA Championship series, Knick-Lakers was a turning point for the NBA and television. Probably broke viewing records for its day. Jerry West's 80' buzzer shot; Chamberlain vs. Reed; Reed hobbling out for game 7; the two biggest national markets; seven games, drama, drama, drama.

I think a bunch of boxing got bumped for college and pro basketball in the 1970s.

[Coverdale]

I say blame the broadcasters not the print (or even the Internet) journalists.

In the 1980s cable television exploded: HBO, Showtime, USA Network, ESPN—all were hungry for marketable content. A fight labeled “World Championship” attracted viewers, and the sanctioning body alphabet soup (WBA, WBC, IBF, later WBO) gave them a convenient excuse to package something as a championship fight.

Broadcasters didn’t care about lineage or legitimacy—they cared about ratings, and if that meant hyping a #5 vs. #7 matchup for a vacant belt as a "world title fight," so be it.

As a result, sanctioning bodies had every incentive to proliferate, because the broadcasters would still promote the event and treat the belt as legitimate, regardless of context.

The most the print journalists could do was challenge legitimacy, which Ring Magazine tried by maintaining its own championship policy. But The Ring didn’t have the market power to override HBO or Showtime. The magazine could call out weak title claims, but the networks still called it a “world title fight” on air.

In many ways, print journalists ended up reacting, not driving the narrative. By the 1990s, you even saw some top writers referring to “three-belt champions” or “undisputed with all four,” because the genie was out of the bottle.

It was the 1980s when all the poisons rose up from the muck."

That’s when boxing lost control of its own legitimacy. The market began rewarding quantity of titles over quality of champions.

IMO journalists had no choice but to go along. It was the broadcasters that called the shot and the journalists could only surrive by capitulation.

To their credit, HBO eventually started walking back their recognition of the sanctioning bodies. Refusing to mention them by name and prioritising quality of matchup over the imperatives of the "corrupt sanctioning bodies" as Merchant once referred to them on air.

[QueensburyRules]

I agree wholeheartedly that 70s TV had some integrity but it was more about protecting their brand from the type of reputation a Don King could give them, then it was about fairness.

Also I think the rise of the NBA (and basketball in general) took away the prized (non-football season) Saturday/Sunday afternoon time slots.

P.S. I have this hypothesis that the 1970 NBA Championship series, Knick-Lakers was a turning point for the NBA and television. Probably broke viewing records for its day. Jerry West's 80' buzzer shot; Chamberlain vs. Reed; Reed hobbling out for game 7; the two biggest national markets; seven games, drama, drama, drama.

I think a bunch of boxing got bumped for college and pro basketball in the 1970s.

- - A more educated and monied populace than the typical boxing lowbrow.

I almost got involved in Riot in the Houston Astrodome when Texas fans of a Mexican lightweight and New York fans of a black lightweight, both hot undefeated prospects started fighting everywhere over the referee's constant breaking of the match. Prior I had been sitting in press row with a dozen bouncers behind me comparing their penile implants, not exactly.

Nah, not for this kid anymore. Don't even watch baseball or football, my 2 favorite sports.

Give me a Utube link of historical fights and boom, I'm all in...

[Willie Pep 229]

- - A more educated and monied populace than the typical boxing lowbrow.

I almost got involved in Riot in the Houston Astrodome when Texas fans of a Mexican lightweight and New York fans of a black lightweight, both hot undefeated prospects started fighting everywhere over the referee's constant breaking of the match. Prior I had been sitting in press row with a dozen bouncers behind me comparing their penile implants, not exactly.

Nah, not for this kid anymore. Don't even watch baseball or football, my 2 favorite sports.

Give me a Utube link of historical fights and boom, I'm all in...

I did not go, but a friend of mine saw Ali-Norton at Yankee Stadium. He said he had to stay in a crowd at all times, because gangs (muggers) were all over exit ramps and restrooms.

He had to hold a leak because he couldn't risk the restroom. Minimum security with people being jumped all over the place.

He grew up in Brooklyn and swore he would never go to The Bronx again.