Only one Champion.

[SBleeder]

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.

You can't shut down an organization. We have to pick one and decide that it's the only organization that we as fans will recognize as legitimate.

[Humean]

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.

I wasn't forgetting the ranking system in tennis and golf, I already mentioned it in this thread!

Surely one difference in tennis is that none of the players are ever claiming, at least not publicly, that they are number one.

Anyway as I have already said in this thread of course the number one ranked tennis/golf player desires to get to that number one position but not more so that winning each of the four majors. The number one ranked position comes as a consequence of performance in the four majors and the other tournaments.

Now even if you say that the number one ranked tennis/golf player is the 'world champion' it can still be the case that there were four different champions during the season/year. Is that really different than there being four different champions in boxing? After all we are not all sitting wondering whether Peter Quillin or Felix Sturm is truly the middleweight champion of the world. We don't need a formal ranking system to tell us that nor do we need to see more than one belt around either Martinez's or Golovkin's waist to tell us that one of them is the middleweight champion.

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.

Who are 'we'?

Each of the four major world sanctioning bodies are made up of the boxing countries/domestic bodies in the same way as other sports.

Other problems to your thinking ShouldeRoll is that you would need a mandatory system to work quickly to get the sort of match ups fight fans want and also give the highest ranked fighters their opportunity but why would a champion want to have to keep fighting less financially lucrative opponents? If boxers could fight every week or month then it could work but they can't fight that often. And besides is the fight between the champion and the most deserving necessarily what the fans always want? Sometimes yes but often no, what fans want is a good fight and that certainly doesn't always come between the champion and the most deserving/highest ranked contender even with a great and reasonably accurate ranking system.

[Holywarrior]

Why would anyone even be against 1 champion? Is this real life?

[Humean]

You can't shut down an organization. We have to pick one and decide that it's the only organization that we as fans will recognize as legitimate.

It is not just about what the fans recognize as legitimate but what the fighters, promoters, television networks and domestic governing bodies recognize.


Think about this scenario, you only have one sanctioning body and the champion at welterweight is easily the best welterweight in the world, practically nobody disputes this but the mandatory system tells him to fight an opponent who is less financially lucrative than the opponent he wants to fight. The welterweight champion vacates his belt to earn more money and the one organization organizes the top two contenders to fight for the vacant belt. Who now is the champion in the fans eyes? The new less fighter with the belt or the old champion? Diehard fans will end up saying (correctly in my opinion) that it is the old champion but if that is the case then why does the sanctioning bodies matter, whether there are four, three, two, or one?

[joeandthebums]

Think about this scenario, you only have one sanctioning body and the champion at welterweight is easily the best welterweight in the world, practically nobody disputes this but the mandatory system tells him to fight an opponent who is less financially lucrative than the opponent he wants to fight. The welterweight champion vacates his belt to earn more money...

The champion fights his mandatory and then goes for the money opponent.

Champions do not vacate their titles when there is only one crown after they've fought their entire career to achieve it. It's too prestigious to just give up.

[Humean]

The champion fights his mandatory and then goes for the money opponent.

Champions do not vacate their titles when there is only one crown after they've fought their entire career to achieve it. It's too prestigious to just give up.

If the champion has acquired a large fan base then he does not really need the title. He will go for the money. Once you have won the title then you have won it. On one hand you can keep a prestigious title and 200k, or on the other hand you can get 1 million. Which would you choose?

The mandatory system would have to be very quick or else many strong contenders would be hanging around for years. That happened in the past when there was only one champion and it was a terrible system then and it would be just as terrible now.

[ShoulderRoll]

Other problems to your thinking ShouldeRoll is that you would need a mandatory system to work quickly to get the sort of match ups fight fans want and also give the highest ranked fighters their opportunity but why would a champion want to have to keep fighting less financially lucrative opponents? If boxers could fight every week or month then it could work but they can't fight that often. And besides is the fight between the champion and the most deserving necessarily what the fans always want? Sometimes yes but often no, what fans want is a good fight and that certainly doesn't always come between the champion and the most deserving/highest ranked contender even with a great and reasonably accurate ranking system.

A champion is allowed to have optional defenses. They can sprinkle those in between their mandatories. In this way they can fight more lucrative opponents, or take a breather against an easy foe, while still giving the top ranked fighters their deserved shot at the title.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a "one champion" system that works well.

The hard part is making all the sanctioning bodies go away or making them agree to consolidate into just one entity.

[Humean]

A champion is allowed to have optional defenses. They can sprinkle those in between their mandatories. In this way they can fight more lucrative opponents, or take a breather against an easy foe, while still giving the top ranked fighters their deserved shot at the title.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a "one champion" system that works well.

The hard part is making all the sanctioning bodies go away or making them agree to consolidate into just one entity.

Why bother even keeping the title if you can make more money on every fight by making the fights they want rather than being mandated? Fighters only fight 1-4 times a year at the world level, it could take forever to get into the top ranked position and then get a mandated shot at the title.

It is not hard to come up with a one champion system? Why don't we have it then, why did the time there was one (and even that time had periods of splits) not endure? Nobody actively involved in the sport actually wants a one champion system.

[ShoulderRoll]

The title is reserved for the best fighter in the world as long as he does what is required to prove it. If you can make so much money without it then stay at the contender level and knock yourself out fighting whoever you want.

One reason a "one champion" system might not endure is because people feel left out due to how exclusive it is. But passing out multiple world championships just to make everybody happy takes away from the specialness of it.

[Humean]

The title is reserved for the best fighter in the world as long as he does what is required to prove it. If you can make so much money without it then stay at the contender level and knock yourself out fighting whoever you want.

One reason a "one champion" system might not endure is because people feel left out due to how exclusive it is. But passing out multiple world championships just to make everybody happy takes away from the specialness of it.

The fans will always declare who they think is the champion, belt or no belt. It is the fighters who actually win the belts, surely it follows that they are happy with it. Who then is being deprived of the 'specialness' of it, you? me?