Should boxing just have 1 belt per division?

[myCoCainE]

Who wouldn't want one boxing belt per weight and fewer weight classes except for the current boxing associations. The odds of a time machine being built than having only one belt and fewer weight divisions is better though. LOL. Therefore, let's just weight for that time machine.

[Pirao]

Ideally, yes, there should only be 1 belt per division. But there should also be fair rankings, and not rankings controlled by promoters, you should get title shots based on your accomplishments in the ring and not on your promoter's connections, you know, like in the other sports.

[FeFist]

Nah, it would leave too much power in the hands of corrupt sanctioning bodies.

[Motofan]

One belt. For sure. But that also should come along with having to defend it at least twice a year. The only reason so many belts exist is for sanctioning fee's. It's bull****.

[Spacey1991]

Yup, it should... but it doesn't and I can't see this changing... unless somebody whos EXTREMELY rich and loves Boxing buys out all of the commissions and merges them into one.

[DLT]

I disagree with people on the weight thing. I mean, you guys act like we have a ton of multiple divison champs. In boxing every single pound counts foreal. Thats what makes guys like Floyd & Pac so special. Everyone isnt doing that **** because its hard to go up even just a couple of pounds. I think having less weight classes would be dangerous and some very good fighters would be trapped in a place they dont belong and force to fight guys that either they shouldnt fight or atleast shouldnt fight yet. I mean there is a genuine difference between 135,140,147,154,160, and so on. Just think about the fighters in those divisions and the size differences. You cant merge them if you ask me. Thats a slippery slope

[bojangles1987]

I'd say two or three is fine, I'd prefer two, because with just one belt it would be much harder for younger up and comers to make a name for themselves and get recognition.

I would be fine with one belt, much more than the crap today, but there is good reasoning for having two or three.

[lfc19titles]

no because then the best boxers wouldnt get the shot. for example if someone like mayweather was the only champ, top boxers like margo, cotto, prime mosley and so on would never get a shot at the belt due to him avoiding the dangerous guys till its the right time to fight them when they are over the hill.

[BoxingTech718]

Man there are billions of different belts people are able to win. If it was up to me they would get rid of all of em and just have ONE belt. Cuz man it gets confusing and 90% of the fighters are CHAMPIONS ...... Ive had casual fans tell me that its confusing. Dana White knows this, thats why he has 1 belt / division
Then everyone wont be ducking eachother

Hell yeah it would cut out a lot of unnecessary bs

[Portman]

Yes, I think so or two at maximum.
If you only have one belt within a division, you'll be the legit champion of the division. With all these ****e belts circling around it's hard to unify and the fighters who usually have these lesser belts are no where near where a fighter should be, to have a belt. It would just give boxing as a sport more credibility and the we would have a lot of exciting fights. Because, before one could claim to be the best, he'd have to beat the best to get the belt to show it.