Only one Champion.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Some company lie Golden Boy, needs to follow the UFC model, and be the promoter, and have your own belts.... As you sign up more and more top fighters like UFC did, eventually your belts will be considered the the true world champs just like UFC titles are considered in MMA....
I actually think GBP and Al haymon/Schaeffer are in the early stages doing this with all the recent signings..

[joeandthebums]

You would fight for the most lucrative fights and those would not necessarily be ones where you were fighting the mandatory challengers. If you felt you had 6 fights left in you, why waste one or two large purses on one of two low purse fights against mandatories? The salient point here is that the fans want to see good fights and the fans will always decide themselves who the 'real' champ is and that is the way it has always been. In light of that then what is the problem with having multiple champions?

Mandatory defenses are usually to be signed/fought within a set time period. There are so many possible scenarios that I cannot see any issue in facing a lower drawing mandatory and greater drawing voluntaries.

Where is the need for more than one champion? The title "champion" now does/means nothing for a boxer. It means nothing to us the fans. Example, Adrien Broner is apparently a four weight "World Champion" - Henry Armstrong was a three weight World Champion.

Manny Pacquiao has apparently been a "World Champion" at eight weight classes, yet I'm still more impressed with Armstrong's feat of three.

[Humean]

Mandatory defenses are usually to be signed/fought within a set time period. There are so many possible scenarios that I cannot see any issue in facing a lower drawing mandatory and greater drawing voluntaries.

Where is the need for more than one champion? The title "champion" now does/means nothing for a boxer. It means nothing to us the fans. Example, Adrien Broner is apparently a four weight "World Champion" - Henry Armstrong was a three weight World Champion.

Manny Pacquiao has apparently been a "World Champion" at eight weight classes, yet I'm still more impressed with Armstrong's feat of three.

I have already responded to the first paragraph, so we are going around in circles with that point.

It means nothing to the fighters? Have you seen most fighters reactions to winning their first world title? To say it means nothing to the fighters is complete bull****. As for the fans, fans will always have differing opinions on who is the best regardless of who is or is not crowned a champion.

Nobody thinks Broner's 'four' titles carry more weight than Armstrong's three and I very much doubt anyone actually thinks otherwise other than those who have never heard of Homicide Hank. If a fan cannot work these things out, or if a fan is convinced that Quillin is the middleweight champion rather than a middleweight champion then said fan is just plain ignorant or ******.

What you are saying reminds me of fans who buy the 'hype' that HBO produces over some relatively mediocre fighter and then react with fury when it turns out that said fighter is not the 'next Mayweather' or such like. Such fans are simply behaving like fools.

Who is stopping you from being more impresssed by Armstrong's achievements vis-a-vis Pacquiao's?

[joeandthebums]

I have already responded to the first paragraph, so we are going around in circles with that point.

It means nothing to the fighters? Have you seen most fighters reactions to winning their first world title? To say it means nothing to the fighters is complete bull****. As for the fans, fans will always have differing opinions on who is the best regardless of who is or is not crowned a champion.

Nobody thinks Broner's 'four' titles carry more weight than Armstrong's three and I very much doubt anyone actually thinks otherwise other than those who have never heard of Homicide Hank. If a fan cannot work these things out, or if a fan is convinced that Quillin is the middleweight champion rather than a middleweight champion then said fan is just plain ignorant or ******.

What you are saying reminds me of fans who buy the 'hype' that HBO produces over some relatively mediocre fighter and then react with fury when it turns out that said fighter is not the 'next Mayweather' or such like. Such fans are simply behaving like fools.

Who is stopping you from being more impresssed by Armstrong's achievements vis-a-vis Pacquiao's?

I didn't mean on a personal level for a boxer it means nothing, some are over-the-moon to be a "regular world champion" and other titles. I meant for their status.

I'm not sure what angle you are taking on this. If you were a fighter's manager, could understand your happiness with all these championships. But as a fan...

Nobody is stopping me. Not sure that was point making...

[ShoulderRoll]

Nobody thinks Broner's 'four' titles carry more weight than Armstrong's three and I very much doubt anyone actually thinks otherwise other than those who have never heard of Homicide Hank.

Are you sure about that? Boxing was very provincial during Armstrong's day.

Broner has had to win his titles against an international field of pugilists.

[BennyST]

Those championships in Tennis only affect each ranking, but there is still a definitive ranking and it's one board or ranking system, under one 'commission'.

You always know who the number one player is in Tennis and there is no debate about it. There aren't four or more divisions of tennis player rankings, each one declaring their guy the number one man in the world.


It's completely different.

[Suckmedry]

Are you sure about that? Boxing was very provincial during Armstrong's day.

Broner has had to win his titles against an international field of pugilists.

I hope this is a joke. Broner was the beneficiary of a very well padded road to his titles.

[TBear]

Those championships in Tennis only affect each ranking, but there is still a definitive ranking and it's one board or ranking system, under one 'commission'.

You always know who the number one player is in Tennis and there is no debate about it. There aren't four or more divisions of tennis player rankings, each one declaring their guy the number one man in the world.


It's completely different.

But it should not be.

[Suckmedry]

The number one ranked player in golf and tennis is not usually called the world champion, the Wimbledon winner is called the Wimbledon champion, the US Masters the Masters champion etc. You could think of the WBC as like Wimbledon etc. Just as winning Wimbledon doesn't necessarily mean you are the best tennis player, winning the WBC lightweight title doesn't necessarily mean you are the best lightweight. The WBC lightweight world champion is a lightweight world champion not necessarily the world lightweight champion. The point of this thread was to show that there is nothing strange or unusual about this and therefore too many diehard boxing fans are barking up the wrong tree.




Of course the NBA probably has all the world's best basketball players in the league. I was not talking about having a 'proportionate representation' or anything of the like. The point was that the NBA is not a world organization, can you not see the difference on an organizational level between the NBA and how boxing necessarily needs to be run at the international/world level?

No one even knows what the fck this guy is on about anymore

[J-champ]

There is a big difference between a abc titlist and a champion. I refuse to call anyone the wins 25% of a championship a "Champion" because they are merely a titlist.