Lennox Lewis 'there should only be one belt in each division' but is it actually good

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RlCKY
    Grade 10
    Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
    • Nov 2009
    • 5492
    • 231
    • 575
    • 12,611

    #21
    Originally posted by Skittlez
    Lennox Lewis in an interview said that even during the 90's he felt 3 belts cheapened the titles, now there are 4-6 and that totally devalues the champions.

    Initially I tend to agree, but is that actually a good thing? One belt per weight class?

    I think 2 is perfect tbh. Because we can have a unification match. One champion cleans up half the division, the other champion takes the 2nd half. They meet.
    There really is pros and cons to having multiple belts though.
    You say that 4-6 champions devalues the championship, but are still in favor of having multiple world champions, albeit only 2,for the purpose of having a unification; which would essentially just be the champion vs the number one contender.

    Comment

    • Ryn0
      Undisputed Champion
      Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
      • Feb 2007
      • 11139
      • 310
      • 269
      • 20,767

      #22
      Originally posted by JoeWbbmest311
      Robert....
      haha, cheers for picking that up. Completely missed that.

      Comment

      • Ryn0
        Undisputed Champion
        Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
        • Feb 2007
        • 11139
        • 310
        • 269
        • 20,767

        #23
        Originally posted by kiaba360
        Would the champion automatically vacate in cases of injuries? If so, does he get bumped to the front of the line when he's healthy again, or does he have to fight the current #1 contender to get a title shot again? I feel that having one belt offers a lot of benefits. There'd be no more cherry-picking and guys wouldn't be able to jump weight-classes and jump to the front of the line for a title shot. I just don't know how easy it would be to implement. What role would the networks play? This kind of system would also allow champions to exploit their back-yard advantage, unless there's incentive for them to travel.
        The same way it used to work, If a champion is injured today they wait until he comes back from injury, obviously if there was a HUGE layoff he would have to vacate.

        And back yard advantage could be a problem but when Ali was champion of only one belt (later two but he held both) he fought in Vegas, Texas, Toronto, England, Germany, New York, Vancouver, Ireland, California, Indonesia, Malaysia, Puerto Rico, Congo.

        Ray Robinson fought all over the USA, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, England, Scotland, Austria, Dominican Republic.

        I think the point is that when the best fight the best boxing's popularity goes through the roof as it once was and that attracts a more global crowd and more money from abroad. Then it makes it worthwhile for champions to do fights all over the world.

        Comment

        • elfag
          Alpha fäggot
          Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
          • Jan 2008
          • 15430
          • 3,423
          • 302
          • 65,929

          #24
          Originally posted by kiaba360
          Would the champion automatically vacate in cases of injuries? If so, does he get bumped to the front of the line when he's healthy again, or does he have to fight the current #1 contender to get a title shot again? I feel that having one belt offers a lot of benefits. There'd be no more cherry-picking and guys wouldn't be able to jump weight-classes and jump to the front of the line for a title shot. I just don't know how easy it would be to implement. What role would the networks play? This kind of system would also allow champions to exploit their back-yard advantage, unless there's incentive for them to travel.

          You still have the same thing today, but with 4 major belts. You can only keep the title without fighting for so long until you must vacate it. All of that happens now anyways, you cant keep an ABC title for ever either. The title just is worth more with only 1 instead of 4.

          Vitali had to vacate and when he came back he was automatic challenger or something like that for his ABC belt .I feel all of the small details can be worked out because they have the same thing anyways whether there are 4 belts or 1 belt, its just worth more if its one belt.

          Ali lost the title due to no fault of his own and joe frazier was the new champ. I think they were just starting to have 2 belts at that point? anyway after a long lay off the ex champ just fights the new champ and it should happen reasonably soon and if the ex champ never lost the title in the ring then yeah I think he jumps up near the front of the line.

          For example, what if calzaghe came back just prior to the froch vs ward fight, well he needs to wait because froch vs ward needs to happen but then he can face the winner.
          Last edited by elfag; 11-12-2012, 04:49 PM.

          Comment

          • Dr Rumack
            I Also Cook
            Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
            • Oct 2012
            • 11870
            • 683
            • 303
            • 22,101

            #25
            In an ideal world, with a well run and accountable organizing body, one belt and one champion would be the way to go.

            Given how riddled with corruption the sport is however, I don't know if you could ever trust one organizing body with ranking and with opponent selection for champions. Imagine Don Sulaiman having that power.

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP