Should there only be 1 belt per division?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • GreatestIam
    GreatestIam
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Apr 2006
    • 3392
    • 215
    • 53
    • 11,504

    #11
    WBC has been onthe waste of Ali Forman, Tyson etc.. heritage brother these belts shave graced the waist of many greats!

    Comment

    • southpaw_07
      Undisputed Champion
      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
      • Nov 2008
      • 5140
      • 281
      • 264
      • 18,490

      #12
      Nah..then we wouldn't have any unification bouts

      Comment

      • Tsukiyomi
        Contender
        Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
        • Jan 2010
        • 388
        • 18
        • 6
        • 6,521

        #13
        I think it's probably a turn off to casual fans to get several answers when asking 'who's the champ?', but I think having a few official belts creates an interesting dynamic at times. I think the act of unifying could be even more significant than being lineal champ, if the main sanctioning could hold a high standard and do things in a legit way.

        Think of all the build up and prestige that unifying matches carry, seems more exciting than the champ-challenger dynamic. Of course it often doesn't play out that way, but it has potential.

        Comment

        • Shadow boxer 3
          Ain't no half steppin'
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Oct 2008
          • 8528
          • 502
          • 635
          • 16,216

          #14
          Ring/lineal title is all u need. the other titles are garbage

          Comment

          • minasyan
            Interim Champion
            Gold Champion - 500-1,000 posts
            • Nov 2008
            • 915
            • 20
            • 61
            • 7,175

            #15
            four is way too many have two or three at the most

            Comment

            • Bogig
              Banned
              Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
              • Oct 2009
              • 499
              • 17
              • 0
              • 559

              #16
              There should be less belts for sure, than what we have now. Not sure how many though per each division.

              Just one or up to three.

              Comment

              • bojangles1987
                bo jungle
                Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                • Jul 2009
                • 41118
                • 1,326
                • 357
                • 63,028

                #17
                There should only be one recognized belt as the championship for that weight class. It's too easy for fighters to just go after some paper champion and declare themselves the best without ever having to prove it.

                Comment

                • ILLuminato
                  Don't be a Flo-Bot
                  Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 3358
                  • 146
                  • 38
                  • 10,492

                  #18
                  Originally posted by ~GOAT~
                  Ive heard Floyd Mayweather dicuss his displeasure over so so many belts per division and that there are so many divisions out there!








                  I think personally that they should just keep it to WBC, WBO, WBA



                  Thats it
                  Floyd Mayweather might SAY that but he's made way too much money off the alphabet titles to really oppose it. How do you think he's gotten around fighting guys like Shane Mosley meanwhile winning titles up to 154??

                  Believe it or not, having 3 or 4 titles creates a lot more money for the sport than having only one. Nobody with credibility wants to say it but its true.

                  Comment

                  • Rockin'
                    Banned
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Jun 2004
                    • 23907
                    • 4,461
                    • 12,395
                    • 1,239,562

                    #19
                    Why should boxing change? up to 7 champions per division, sure why not. Rather than boxing changing why dont all of the other sports change instead. 7 different superbowl matches. 7 different world series races. 7 different stanley cup championships. 7 different NewYork marathons.

                    When I hear the title world champion in other sports I know that they did what they had to do to be called that. In boxing being a world champion means that your the best, except for maybe that guy or the other 6 guys with world champion titles. In boxing its about walking the safest route to the title shot against what might not even be the best fighter in the division. Way back in the day you had to fight your way through a handfull of world class opponents before you even got the shot. Today its manuever correctly and take no chances.................Rockin'

                    Comment

                    • BritishBoxing92
                      Lurking In The Shadows...
                      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                      • Sep 2009
                      • 8186
                      • 360
                      • 678
                      • 25,060

                      #20
                      Originally posted by ~GOAT~
                      Ive heard Floyd Mayweather dicuss his displeasure over so so many belts per division and that there are so many divisions out there!








                      I think personally that they should just keep it to WBC, WBO, WBA



                      Thats it
                      floyd actually has a point...i wish it was Just WBA,WBC and IBF.....screw ibo and wbo

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP