Only one Champion.

[IronDanHamza]

I think logically having one belt is the best option so when you win the Title and say "I am the Champion of the world" or the "Best Heavyweight in the world" etc then that's entirely true.

Although, I'm ok with a few belts, 2, perhaps 3.

But 4+? Don't think that's right at all.

[billeau2]

There is precedent for the "trials and tribulations" of the multiple champion scenerio. First: IF one is willing to accept the legitimacy of college Football as a professional game and league....vis a vis a farm system for the NFL, anyway, the problem does exist that because of the division schedules many teams do not get to determine who is the best...So instead teams are ranked....starting to sound familiar?

In general this tends to leave people wondering....Same problem different systemic issues....Boxing is a promotional event therefore someone is responsible for "promoting the fight and when we give people the authority to control that all kinds of interesting things happen!

[kendom]

Personally Im ok with 2 champions, no more.

[Suckmedry]

this is clearly another case where your opinions look silly and impractical to everybody else, and you're not going to recognize it.

*applause*

[ShoulderRoll]

If the problem with multiple champions is all the good fights that fail to materialize, and it is a problem, then it is worth pointing out that the same problems can arise with one champion, such as when a champion holds the title hostage and refuses to fight worthy opponents.

The system should be that there is only one champion and he has to fight his mandatory within a reasonable period of time. The mandatory should always be a worthy opponent because he has to earn his way to the #1 ranking.

If the champ refuses to fight him then he gets stripped of the belt. "Holding the title hostage" is not allowed.

Everyone else that is not champion will have plenty of fights because they have to jockey for position and work their way up the rankings to the top spot.

[billeau2]

There is only one champ....for all divisions as well...

Charlie Z

[Scott9945]

The system should be that there is only one champion and he has to fight his mandatory within a reasonable period of time. The mandatory should always be a worthy opponent because he has to earn his way to the #1 ranking.

If the champ refuses to fight him then he gets stripped of the belt. "Holding the title hostage" is not allowed.

Everyone else that is not champion will have plenty of fights because they have to jockey for position and work their way up the rankings to the top spot.

The only problem is, who is going to administrate this? WBC? WBA? Ring Magazine? NSB Moderators? Very simple question with no apparent answer.

[TBear]

Having "one" offers legitimacy. More than one dilutes the sport on every level. Those of us that have seen one champion in a weight classes, have a hard time accepting anything else.

[soul_survivor]

Do tennis or golf fanatics get bored having to explain that there are four majors every year? Is it different?

I'm not into golf but I watch and play tennis and it's very different compared to boxing but by and large there is still only one championship because what you are forgetting is that there is a ranking system and at the end of every season, anyone who watches tennis knows who the number one guy is.

Federer held that "championship" for a heck of a long time and won more grandslams than his contemporaries in that time period. Right now Nadal is the recognised numero uno.

Why? Because he is winning more slams and tour titles than most others around him, his closest comp is Djokovic.

In boxing, throughout a year, you can have up to 4 (if we're lucky) guys claiming to be the best in the division. Look at the lightweight mess, or the mess at feather/superfeather.

look at welter, the blue ribbon division, with Floyd/Manny claiming to be the best, there was a time when Bradley was factored into that argument and in a few months time, if Porter gets wins over Brook and Thurman, he can start claiming to be the best.

If in tennis, Andy Murray was to retain Wimbledon, he still wouldn't dare claim to be the man. Thats the difference.

[ShoulderRoll]

The only problem is, who is going to administrate this? WBC? WBA? Ring Magazine? NSB Moderators? Very simple question with no apparent answer.

We pick one and make the rest of them close up shop.

Or better yet close them all down and make a new, worldwide governing body. Like FIFA.