Boxing Overhaul

[Dick-Sucker]

I put forward this new boxing system. Its probably pathetic. But im writing it on the spot.

Boxing Overhaul:

- 1 Belt per division. Royalties for the 4 major boxing organisations/associations are to be divided among the 4 evenly
- 7 Judges. Could even be 10. Leads to more accurate scoring.


P4P System: This is where it gets interesting.

Determining current pound for pound list:

The top fighters from each division fight off at a catch weight. Only in range of the division below or above them. Or 2 below or above.

E.G Middleweight champion fights super middleweight champion at even limit between the two normal weights for the divisions. And when middleweight champion fights light heavyweight champion they fight at SMW weight.

The P4P best fighter for each major category e.g Middleweight, SMW and LHW will be one fighter.

This will narrow down the list to around 5. Then we can choose the best from there.

Conclusion: This is just a theory typed up on the spot. There are flaws in it. No way can a super heavyweight fight a lhw at cruiserweight limit.

But im interested in hearing your thoughts on the 1 belt per division, amount of judges, and P4P fighters.

?

Cheers,

Ult

[dansapien]

i think if anything we need more belts per division, and more divisions.

[Ryn0]

i think if anything we need more belts per division, and more divisions.

are you serious? No way. I don't agree with Ulimateboxa catchweight idea but haveing 1 or 2 belts only would be great we could have the top 2 facing off against each other.

I also like the idea of more judges i never though of that, making the judges different nationality's so to avoid and bias or racism. The ref needs to be sorted out as well I just don't know how to make sure a ref isn't corrupt etc..

[MrZeus]

I think the main problem with the one belt idea comes from the fact it is very easy to put on a world title fight compared to the equivalent in other sports (world cups...etc).

So it doesn't take too much effort for two fighters, who've had enough of the federation or want to make more money, to simply break away and put on their own fight. And lets face it, if the fight is big enough the fans are gonna pay to see it regardless of who's sanctioning it.

[al caPWN]

I put forward this new boxing system. Its probably pathetic. But im writing it on the spot.

Boxing Overhaul:

- 1 Belt per division. Royalties for the 4 major boxing organisations/associations are to be divided among the 4 evenly
- 7 Judges. Could even be 10. Leads to more accurate scoring.


P4P System: This is where it gets interesting.

Determining current pound for pound list:

The top fighters from each division fight off at a catch weight. Only in range of the division below or above them. Or 2 below or above.

E.G Middleweight champion fights super middleweight champion at even limit between the two normal weights for the divisions. And when middleweight champion fights light heavyweight champion they fight at SMW weight.

The P4P best fighter for each major category e.g Middleweight, SMW and LHW will be one fighter.

This will narrow down the list to around 5. Then we can choose the best from there.

Conclusion: This is just a theory typed up on the spot. There are flaws in it. No way can a super heavyweight fight a lhw at cruiserweight limit.

But im interested in hearing your thoughts on the 1 belt per division, amount of judges, and P4P fighters.

?

Cheers,

Ult

Noble, my friend, but misguided.

First, having one belt per division and splitting the proceeds would mean a fighter would either need to give up 12 percent of his purse to the sanctioning bodies, or the sanctioning bodies would get far less money because of it being shared.

Second, having more judges doesn't mean you'd have better judging. I don't see the correlation whatsoever, and it'd just make things more confusing. Can you imagine listening to Michael Buffer read through seven names, including that crooked French ice skating judge who took bribes?

Third, pound for pound was created for mythical purposes. The rankings that people make are for debate purposes only.

[Dick-Sucker]

Noble, my friend, but misguided.

First, having one belt per division and splitting the proceeds would mean a fighter would either need to give up 12 percent of his purse to the sanctioning bodies, or the sanctioning bodies would get far less money because of it being shared.

Second, having more judges doesn't mean you'd have better judging. I don't see the correlation whatsoever, and it'd just make things more confusing. Can you imagine listening to Michael Buffer read through seven names, including that crooked French ice skating judge who took bribes?

Third, pound for pound was created for mythical purposes. The rankings that people make are for debate purposes only.

Well i think this idea of myn has merit.

IDEA: We put faces of the judges up on the big screens. And read out there scorecards slowly. If there dodgy people will start booing a majority of the time.

I think more judges leads to less corruption. And as you say that crooked French judge will look more ****** when 6 judges score it to fighter a and 1 to fighter b.