Why One Champ Per Division Will Never Again Work

[JakeNDaBox]

who was to blame back then? How about boxing wasn't legal in every state and was regulated in even less, not too mention the Great War, the collapse of capitalism, the Great Depression, and then separated with WWII.

Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that over the course of that 30-year stretch, that no other division was put on ice? Or that Harry Greb managed more middleweight title defenses in three years than Jack Dempsey did in seven -oddly enough Greb's entire reign taking place during Dempsey's stretch of inactivity.

[Iceta]

Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that over the course of that 30-year stretch, that no other division was put on ice? Or that Harry Greb managed more middleweight title defenses in three years than Jack Dempsey did in seven -oddly enough Greb's entire reign taking place during Dempsey's stretch of inactivity.

You've had to discuss this story with a lot of people, and I asked you a question earlier that went unanswered because of it. Is Golden Boy really trying to set up a fight with JMM and Hatton? JMM needs to go back down to 135 and fight Katsidis like he's obligated to by the WBO.

[jmflame]

4 champions is not bad

4 champions is not bad, because it easy the way for the young boxer that are emerging. the bad things is that it is no been carried the way it is suppose. Major League has 4 champions, NBA has 4 champions, NFL has 4 champions and every year each divisional champion fight each other for the real world champion. In boxing must be the same , let these 4 champions make they thing but every year they must face each other , to know who the undisputed champion really is. The word unification is something in danger of extinction in the boxing world, that is a shame !!!.

[Guest]

4 champions is not bad, because it easy the way for the young boxer that are emerging. the bad things is that it is no been carried the way it is suppose. Major League has 4 champions, NBA has 4 champions, NFL has 4 champions and every year each divisional champion fight each other for the real world champion. In boxing must be the same , let these 4 champions make they thing but every year they must face each other , to know who the undisputed champion really is. The word unification is something in danger of extinction in the boxing world, that is a shame !!!.

The money is not there to go around like that. If it was, it would be great.

[JakeNDaBox]

You've had to discuss this story with a lot of people, and I asked you a question earlier that went unanswered because of it. Is Golden Boy really trying to set up a fight with JMM and Hatton? JMM needs to go back down to 135 and fight Katsidis like he's obligated to by the WBO.

Oh sorry...

Sadly, Hatton's name has been seriously mentioned. I thought it was just bait, but it appears as if JMM has officially entered that phase of his career where it will be nothing but big fights (read: against big names, not necessarily against the best) from here on out.

I agree that he needs to go to 135, which seems to be the highest weight class in which he can still be effective. Beating Hatton in 2010 will only lead to false hope that he can compete at 140 this late in his career. I'd rather see a return to 135, even if it means spending the rest of his career runningt through Golden Boy's endless reservoir of mid-level lightweights.

[Iceta]

Oh sorry...

Sadly, Hatton's name has been seriously mentioned. I thought it was just bait, but it appears as if JMM has officially entered that phase of his career where it will be nothing but big fights (read: against big names, not necessarily against the best) from here on out.

I agree that he needs to go to 135, which seems to be the highest weight class in which he can still be effective. Beating Hatton in 2010 will only lead to false hope that he can compete at 140 this late in his career. I'd rather see a return to 135, even if it means spending the rest of his career runningt through Golden Boy's endless reservoir of mid-level lightweights.

You think JMM could beat Bradley and Alexaner? That would give him his fourth belt.

[HeartAttack]

Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that over the course of that 30-year stretch, that no other division was put on ice? Or that Harry Greb managed more middleweight title defenses in three years than Jack Dempsey did in seven -oddly enough Greb's entire reign taking place during Dempsey's stretch of inactivity.

Money. Simply put. We both know the big boys got the HUGE bucks and purses. And it was usually only those that made it in the mainstream (in that time really, any) media. But that also diminishes your argument. So what if one division drags it's feet a bit, the rest of the sport led by Greb really battled all the time to make ends meet. So even then we had the best fighting the best on a regular basis and then the others on a insane track to make sure they kept sharp and well compensated.

[JakeNDaBox]

Money. Simply put. We both know the big boys got the HUGE bucks and purses. And it was usually only those that made it in the mainstream (in that time really, any) media. But that also diminishes your argument. So what if one division drags it's feet a bit, the rest of the sport led by Greb really battled all the time to make ends meet. So even then we had the best fighting the best on a regular basis and then the others on a insane track to make sure they kept sharp and well compensated.

How does it diminish my argument? It was only in recent years in which the heavyweight division is no longer regarded as the sport's centerpiece. "So goes the heavyweight divisions, goes the rest of the sport." You're arguing as if all eight divisions were regarded as equal.

Today, it's more along the lines of the welterweight division if we're to name one that comes close to carrying the sport. If it were 80 years ago, there would be groups who'd still regard Floyd as THE welterweight champ. If anything, he underlines the very problem with regarding one fighter as THE MAN.

Light heavyweight became the same, whether you honor the true lineage (Erdei), or think along the lines of The Ring (Jones-Tarver-Johnson-Tarver-Hopkins-Calzaghe-Vacant). Neither line boasts a leader ever willing to take on all comers. Hell, Hopkins never even fought another LHW after the Tarver fight.

[HeartAttack]

How does it diminish my argument? It was only in recent years in which the heavyweight division is no longer regarded as the sport's centerpiece. "So goes the heavyweight divisions, goes the rest of the sport." You're arguing as if all eight divisions were regarded as equal.

Today, it's more along the lines of the welterweight division if we're to name one that comes close to carrying the sport. If it were 80 years ago, there would be groups who'd still regard Floyd as THE welterweight champ. If anything, he underlines the very problem with regarding one fighter as THE MAN.

Light heavyweight became the same, whether you honor the true lineage (Erdei), or think along the lines of The Ring (Jones-Tarver-Johnson-Tarver-Hopkins-Calzaghe-Vacant). Neither line boasts a leader ever willing to take on all comers. Hell, Hopkins never even fought another LHW after the Tarver fight.

When you reference boxing you take the entire package, not just the main attraction. Heavyweights have always been the big draw; they still are now, even though the division isn't entertaining people still flock to watch them hoping something good happens.
It's like the HBO show true blood, the intro is pretty good and then you wait for the next hour hoping to A) praying that there is some type of decent writing or acting, or B) Anna Paquin shows her ****. You know the show is going to suck, just like most heavyweight fights, but every couple episodes you see the star's breats, and every once in a while the heavyweights give you Adam Richards/Chazz Witherspoon.
OK back to point. Are you placing the decline of popularity of the sport on the biggest division? I don't believe so, but as the heavyweights go the sport goes has always been misleading. Ali/Foreman/Frazier and co. were popular as hell in the 70's, well so was Monzon, Duran, the Lopez boys, and several others. As Holmes the crackheads and Tyson dominated the 80's and made HUGE paydays so did Duran, Hagler, Leornard, Hearns, Yuppies, Coke dealers, and Chavez.
The heavyweights in the 90's were significantly better than the 80's versions, and that was so much truer in the marketability of them and in their bank accounts. Yet, Chavez, Whittaker, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Hopkins, and Jones made a name for themselves and an abundance of cash and the sport didn't thrive just because of the heavyweights. Without the heavyweights the other guys made more than a good living for themselves and that's with the heavyweights taking big chunks of PPV dates and boxing revenue. Even at a low point in the 80's Mike Tyson was still making huge paydays, the majoprity of the money went to the 147lb guys and the sport thrived with or without the big boys. They thrived even though the WBC and WBA were sucking money from them, then it wasn't who was considered the WB whatever title, there was still the champion and they just happened to be holding one of their belts.
The IBF came along and Larry Holmes ran with them, and then the WBO came along and too many groups started vying for chunks of purses and fighters' attention. And we got to where we are now.

[Lord_Krachah]

So there you go. In a period of 28 1/2 years, the heavyweight title - the greatest prize in the sport's biggest division - was at stake 29 times. An average of just over once per year.

Even including non-title fights, the heavyweight champion of the world appeared in the ring 31 times over that same period, still an average of just over once per year.

So who was to blame back then?

Why should the heavyweight title be on the line every other month? Only nowadays every significant fight has to be a world title fight. In the time you mentioned Schmeling boxed before 50.000 fans for a german title. Now every fight has to have some kind of world title treatment to matter. Regional titles just mean ****. This is just wrong.

I really don't get your point here. If a titlist defends the title once a year against the best available opponent it does not hurt the division at all. It is the other way around; over exposure hurts the sport. If a world title fight is on every month, no one gives a damn at all. If it just happens once or twice a year, it is the big event it should be.

A boxing fan should never ever accept our status quo! I am really scratching my head about some of the posts above me. Only interim-belts suck, 4 Titlist are ok? It should be 2 titles? What are you smoking? We have 17 divisions, 1 champion per division is more than enough. Will it be this way in the near future? No I don't think so. Should we strive to change our besieged sport in that way? Damn yes, I'd say!