A Way to Fix all this Nonsense with the Sanctioning Organizations

[chairmanchris90]

Heres an easy way that Boxers could fix this mess with all the sanctioning organizations.
1. Unify the Titles in all divisions, and if one sanctioning organization strips the unified champion of his title, then no one should fight for it (unrealistic option )
2. All the boxers agree to only fight for one sanctioning organization, (while current champions work to unify) The boxers would simply not pay fees to any organization and not fight for any organization that was no the one agreed upon. So for example all the boxers agree to fight for the WBC, then all the other alphabet soup organizations would simply fall apart, or have to unify with the WBC

[mdoe]

destroy all the organizations, and have one belt for each weight class signifying the true champion, hire a commissioner like the NFL, NBA, or MLB to watch over the product to make sure everything is running properly. I don't know who to blame more for the decline in boxing popularity, the organizations, the promoters, or PPV, although I am very happy that this was a good yr for boxing, hopefully it continues.

[-Swizzy-]

Heres an easy way that Boxers could fix this mess with all the sanctioning organizations.
1. Unify the Titles in all divisions, and if one sanctioning organization strips the unified champion of his title, then no one should fight for it (unrealistic option )
2. All the boxers agree to only fight for one sanctioning organization, (while current champions work to unify) The boxers would simply not pay fees to any organization and not fight for any organization that was no the one agreed upon. So for example all the boxers agree to fight for the WBC, then all the other alphabet soup organizations would simply fall apart, or have to unify with the WBC

that would be the greatest thing for boxing. but its wishful thinking. it'll never happen. the best thing in my opinion would be for a multi billionaire to come in and buy the top 4-5 organizations and make them into one. Like AFL-NFL, WHA-NHL and ABA-NBA.

[mrpain81]

http://www.thesportsgod.thesportsmonitor.net/15-rounds/one-real-champion-per-division-ill-dispute.html

There seems to be this belief that for boxing to go back to its glorious roots, it needs to have one champion per division. They believe that this is some sort of pugilistic panacea that will have boxing back on the major networks and arenas will be filled across the country.

The reality is that boxing's title quagmire was just a part of the industry’s downfall, but far from all of it. Folks, I hate to break it to you, but that particular era wasn't as idyllic as some want to recall. If you didn't play ball with those in charge (the mob), didn’t have the right connections or weren’t willing to dump a fight or two, you were frozen out of the picture. Yeah, you can argue that the sanctioning mobs have replaced the real mob, but guess what, it's a necessary evil and a system that allows more fighters to make more money.

You hear this all the time from blowhard pundits, 'This is a meaningless belt.' Well, last I checked, when fighters win these trinkets they almost always make more money than they did before. That's pretty meaningful if you ask me. Hey, there's a reason why they never dump these belts - it's the only thing really making them money. Unless you have an HBO contract, you're holding on to that thing for dear life.

You think Daniel Ponce de Leon makes $300,000 this past weekend without his belt?

Boxing, like baseball, is bound by tradition, and it wasn't too long ago that when the beleaguered commissioner Bud Selig set into place the three-division format and instituted a wild-card. There were some traditionalists who felt that this was just a precursor to Armageddon. Surely the sanctity of the pennant races would be gone forever. If the designated hitter didn't kill baseball, this surely would.

Well, guess what, interest in baseball has never been higher (just look at their record-setting revenue of $6.2 billion) and it turns out that the wild-card format has allowed more teams to stay in post-season contention into late August and September. Yeah, there will never been another 'Miracle at Coogan’s Bluff', but this isn't 1951 anymore.

Some traditions are meant to die. Boxing has done OK without the 15 round title fight and being able to stand over your opponent as you knock them down. Some have labeled these occurrences ‘progress’.

Ever been on a one-lane highway when an 18-wheel big-rig flips over? Or the grocery store as the express checkout line is out of service and you're stuck behind four mothers who are did a month’s worth of shopping on that day? Well, that's what it would be like for fighters today if they had only one title to fight for.

Think about it - in this era, when boxers perform only two or three times a year (if they're really, really active) at the world-class level, could you imagine being the sixth or seventh ranked contender? And if you can actually fight, well, fugghetaboutit. At least having four major titles (WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO) is like opening a few more lanes on the freeway and opening up a few more cashier lines at Vons. Ask Marvin Hagler if he enjoyed being consciously avoided for all those years? Without his IBF belt in the mid-90's, just how many fights could Bernard Hopkins have procured? His early legacy centered around the number of successful title defenses he racked up. Without his belt, he's just another tough, black middleweight from Philly that couldn't get to the mountaintop.

Quick, off the top of your head, list every linear titlist today? Betcha can't do it. And guess what? You shouldn't care. I know I don't, because it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things. Boxing fans want to see good fights, and while many times these sanctioning organizations have prevented bouts from happening and ordered mis-mandatories, they have also had a hand in making sure notable fights took place. Antonio Tarver's upset of Roy Jones was basically mandated by the WBC, as he was not only the mandatory, but they ordered a direct rematch. Paul Williams, a fighter that most managers and promoters avoid like the plague, got his crack at WBO welterweight titlist Antonio Margarito because he was his mandatory. Now, even in victory, it seems that Williams can't buy a fight from the other blue-chip 147-pounders, but imagine what type of difficulty he would have without the WBO strap. His scheduled date against Kermit Cintron, the IBF titlist, was made in part because it was a unification tilt. Let's be very honest, if both guys were just top ten contenders, neither man even contemplates a fight against each other. Certainly, Emanuel Steward and Cintron would have no real interest in facing a 6'2 southpaw with a reach as long as a city block, unless he had some hardware on him.

Disagree? OK, well tell me the last time two top-ten contenders fought each other, when it wasn't a box-off that was sanctioned by one of the alphabet organizations?

It doesn't happen often.

Any manager or promoter that says that they don't like multiple titles hanging around for the taking is absolutely lying through their teeth. Trust me, I've had these conversations with these individuals off-the-record. They may not want to say it publicly, risking the wrath of the politically correct bandwagon. But just watch how any young prospect is brought up and developed. They rarely, if ever, go after the strongest or most dangerous 'champion' but the one they feel is the most beatable.

Then you have the case of Antonio Tarver, whose most recent bout came against the dreadfully overmatched Danny Santiago on Showtime. Both Tarver and the network were excoriated for calling this bout - which was for the lower-tier IBO belt - a championship bout. Well, they weren't technically lying, this was an IBO championship bout. It's like if ESPN decided to telecast the Big Sky Championship Game (which I don't think exists by the way in football, but humor me here) and folks ripped them for telecasting it. Hey, they never said that the winner is the equal of the SEC or Pac-10. Last I checked, Showtime wasn't the network that made it their policy of not recognizing sanctioning bodies or that attempted to expunge them. To the contrary, they were way ahead of the curve when it came to the WBO in the '90's. But it's funny, I do recall a Lennox Lewis fight or two that was contested for this same IBO belt on HBO, along with a few others. And they've had plenty of fights in the past that were billed as 'championship fights' that everyone knew (including them) wasn't for the 'real' title. Not that there's anything wrong with that - except of course their continued hypocrisy, which seems to have stopped recently, to their credit.

But give the fans some credit here. No matter what the delusional rantings of Tarver are, nobody has forgotten what Hopkins did to him in June of 2006. They know who the 'real' light heavyweight champion is. Basically, on this night, the IBO version of the 175-pound belt has all the prestige of the Big Sky conference in college football.

As for the casual fan, let's be honest, they stopped giving a damn a long time ago. They don't care. They know less than five fighters (four, if they realize that Mike Tyson has actually retired for good) and won’t watch boxing unless it involved Oscar De La Hoya or a heavyweight.

This whole system is arcane and way too rigid. Anyone really think Joel Casamayor is the 'real' lightweight champion, especially in light of his early Christmas gift against Jose Armando Santa Cruz in November? Yeah, but c'mon, he beat Diego Corrales in an over-the-weight bout and then spent much of 2007 turning down lucrative fights and basically corroding. C'mon, lineage, trumps all, right? Meanwhile, Juan Diaz has gotten more belts than the GAP and has begun to clean out the division.

Casamayor is the 'real champion', but not in the real world, where common sense should prevail.

[mrpain81]

And oh, by the way, the rematch that has now been mandated for Casamayor-Santa Cruz? Ordered by a sanctioning body. It wasn't done by any publication or pundit - they simply don't have the power to do so.

Back to Hopkins. Okay, he beat the recognized champion in Tarver, but since then he's decisioned Winky Wright at a catch-weight of 170-pounds (which is either the lt.-lt. heavyweight division or the super-super middleweight division) and now there is talk of him facing Joe Calzage in 2008. What if that fight takes place at 170-pounds? Shouldn't there be some expectation of a fighter to box at a real weight class? All of this leaves a guy like Chad Dawson (the WBC's champ) in limbo, as he'll most likely never get his crack at 'the Executioner'. But if he should go through a gauntlet of real light heavyweights and Hopkins goes through the seniors tour or 170-pound limit contests, who's the 'real' light heavyweight champion at that point?

Or what about Floyd Mayweather? If he takes his extended vacation or gets a rematch with Oscar De La Hoya, it will have been well over a year since he faced an actual welterweight. Isn't part of being a champion in the welterweight division facing real bona fide welterweights? Beating a career journeyman in Carlos Baldomir doesn't give you that much of a cache within the division.

But again, how 'bout just letting all the fights take place and letting the public decide who's the best? Give the boxing fans some credit, they are actually capable of forming their own rational opinions. Demand more of the caliber fights we have seen recently -
whether they are for belts, or not - and murky waters can clear themselves up just fine.

No, this is not a blanket endorsement of the sanctioning bodies and their ills. They can be manipulative, corrupt and what they do at times borders on extortion - and they should be called on their transgressions (of which there are many.) However, on the flipside, it's very dangerous to let a few be the consensus. We here at Maxboxing don't do official rankings. Why? Well, to be honest, we have enough on our plates and what would our rankings really mean? It's not like college basketball or football, where tabulations of the media actually matter. We could thump our chests and say 'Joe Palooka is a top five bantamweight!!!' But what would that really do? Wouldn't we better serve the fighters’ cause if we examined the rankings that count and put the onus on the offending sanctioning body? By trying to ignore them, as many do, they give them leeway to conduct themselves recklessly with no policing.

Yeah, so the sanctioning bodies are nothing more than businesses? Uh, news flash, so is everyone else in boxing. But their existence is better for the game of boxing than what many people want to admit.

Many moons ago there was still a group of people that refused to listen to Christopher Columbus as he told everyone the world was really round. These 'flatlanders’, as I call them, kept clinging to their train of thought for years as evidence mounted against them. Eventually, they were the ones that became out of touch with reality.

Sound familiar?

[TheGreatA]

What if we had fighters hold the belt hostages? What if someone like Casamayor who is the linear champ would just hold on to the belt and win screwed up decisions?

People should just look at a boxer's record like 'who did this boxer beat' rather than 'what titles does this boxer hold'.

EDIT: I just read your post and you practically said the same thing but it's much better and informative. Good job.

[mrpain81]

What if we had fighters hold the belt hostages? What if someone like Casamayor who is the linear champ would just hold on to the belt and win screwed up decisions?

People should just look at a boxer's record like 'who did this boxer beat' rather than 'what titles does this boxer hold'.

EDIT: I just read your post and you practically said the same thing but it's much better and informative. Good job.

I dont buy that "One Belt" stuff, we the fans should know who the real champ is. Plus I like to see the fighters paid, and like to see unification bouts.

[TheGreatA]

I dont buy that "One Belt" stuff, we the fans should know who the real champ is. Plus I like to see the fighters paid, and like to see unification bouts.

Agree with that, when we have a clear number 1 boxer like Mayweather he doesn't need a belt.

Everyone should know that if you beat Mayweather you're the number 1.

Sure I don't take most of the belts seriously and they probably confuse new fans but it's not a real problem for me.

I do have a problem with some boxers going around saying they are 3, 4 or 5-division champions even though they only beat handpicked opposition at best for WBO belts.

Then they compare themselves to a boxer like Henry Armstrong who went up in weight to beat THE number 1 boxer at that division 3 times.

Even Floyd Mayweather should only call himself a 3-division champ. The belts he won from Gatti and De La Hoya weren't worth much. However both wins are important to his legacy.

[mrpain81]

Agree with that, when we have a clear number 1 boxer like Mayweather he doesn't need a belt.

Everyone should know that if you beat Mayweather you're the number 1.

Sure I don't take most of the belts seriously and they probably confuse new fans but it's not a real problem for me.

I do have a problem with some boxers going around saying they are 3, 4 or 5-division champions even though they only beat handpicked opposition at best for WBO belts.

Then they compare themselves to a boxer like Henry Armstrong who went up in weight to beat THE number 1 boxer at that division 3 times.

Even Floyd Mayweather should only call himself a 3-division champ. The belts he won from Gatti and De La Hoya weren't worth much. However both wins are important to his legacy.

Damn man, me and you seem to agree alot.

Your a smart guy