Boxing needs to be under one promoter

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I think it should be somewhere in between, UFC had a good model but everything else minus the model was trash once their original top talent left, so I try not to use them as an example, but if there was only one promotional company, or say a federation of promotors that worked together, we would have all the fights we can't have now, we would have legitamate champions, and more network/PPV audiences, because it would all make sense then to the casual fans.

Yes, and I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but I'm in the boxing biz and it's not realistic what you propose.

The athletes should make the most money, not the company, promoters or managers.

So in order for that to happen, it has to be a promotional based system. The problem with that system is what we are seeing now, and the corruption we have seen in the past.

So how do we fix it? We do that by bringing in an outside force to regulate these people who want to cheat the fans. It's simple, and the govt can do it if it gives enough of a ****.

Like they did with the baseball steroid thing.

[VERSION1 (V1)]

Why do you keep bringing up UFC?

and your final paragraph is literally what's being said by me and many others lol wtf is wrong with you?

What are you talking about keep bring up ufc this is the first time i said anything about the ufc think you got me mixed up with another poster.

And the second pargraph was just my opinion only comment about ufc not having a union was dirtect at you

[yaltamaltadavid]

Like others have pointed out, UFC isn't good enough as a model, and 'promoters' shouldn't be making matches. The concept of a 'champion' and even rankings is impossible as long as the representatives of boxers are able to pick and choose fights. We're deluding ourselves if we can't see that the whole structure of promoters, managers, commissions, networks, alphabet rankings.. function to dress up the fact that pro boxing's based on mismatches.

It's pathetic that there's always a few extreme free-market supporters who insist there's benefits of the promoter-ruled model of boxing. Making a fight simply because it's a 'fan-friendly' fight in the short-term is antithetical to competitive fairness and damages the long-term viability of the sport. According to boxing's logic Brazil and Argentina should play in the World Cup final simply because it's the most marquee matchup.

Boxing can only be a proper sport if matches are determined by a set structure implemented by a single international governing body. There's no other option: without the framework of a 'league' a true sport doesn't exist. Without this, corruption remains endemic, boxers aren't able to live healthy, dignified lives, top boxers aren't necessarily adequately compensated, and massive economic inequality is perpetuated.

I don't think a central governing body can develop out of the existing businesses and en****** in pro boxing. Competing promoters have no interest in combining, and the ABCs aligning wouldn't produce a significant change because they don't actually make the fights.

The best solution that's been offered pretty much ever is AIBA's APB that's starting soon. 10 divisions, 1 champion per division, a set matchmaking structure in which 12 world level boxers fight only against each other twice over a six month period, the champion only fighting the number 1 contender, the bottom 4 of the 12 relegated to their continental level as other fighters move up the national and continental ranks, purses based on success rather than celebrity, better use of the 10-point scoring system, universal rules. I love it and think it's exactly what boxing needs. The main point is boxers from top to bottom only compete against others of similar level of success. Obviously the catch is it won't grow without support and money, and that won't happen as long as most fighters aren't involved and top amateurs are lured to the money regular pro boxing brings.

Check out how it works here..

https://www.aiba.org/documents/site1/docs/Rules/APB%20Competition%20Rules%20-%20August%2023,%202013%20-%20OK.pdf

And for fun I drew up an example of how its structure could play out, with ww. I didn't go below 'continental' level, so it's not exactly true, but it shows how fighters move up and down. I based it on my own and boxrec's rankings from a couple months ago. Can you imagine how great boxing could be if these fights happened in a year? By now we'd not just get Floyd-Pac, they'd probably have fought three or four times.

http://drybak.fastmail.fm.user.fm/AIBA/APB%20structure%20example.txt

[Rockin']

"Boxing needs to be under one promoter"

Not true Greb............... Rockin'

[Slick Veteran]

Boxing is a global sport like Soccer, it's ancient and a league is not probable as leagues fall under one sovereign state's jurisdiction and is usually a private organization. It's flawed thinking to say it will be better organized. What you need to realize is that it will condense the sport and limit the talent pool to certain fighters as well as only benefit the people who have shares, investment and ownership of said league.

[yaltamaltadavid]

Of course sports leagues are businesses, and those who control them (and invest in them) profit from them. It probably benefits AIBA owners that they're headquarted in the tax-haven of Switzerland, and if they managed to become the only body they'd be bringing in far more profit than any promoter. No one's under the illusion a league is a socialist utopia. A significant issue with an international body with national sub-en****** is national federations could be favoured, and given kickbacks. The hometown decisions at the Olympics and WSB especially towards Azerbaijan is pretty su****ious.

But like someone else said, the corruption in other sports is like a pimple on an elephant's ass compared to the systemic corruption in current boxing's structure. The owners of the governing body would control the sport as a whole, rather than competing promoters protecting their own interests. Sports teams don't make matches, the league does, just like a central body rather than promoters should make fights. It would be in their best interest for the whole sport to benefit. Individual boxers wouldn't be financially represented by anyone, so it wouldn't 'condense the sport and limit the talent pool to certain fighters'. Whatever flaws a central body might have, fighters would only be rewarded by their success. A business controlling a league is inherently infinitely fairer than a business controlling a competitor! Under a central body, there would also be better opportunities to make money from sponsorship and TV coverage, and sustain the sport.

The number of competitors might be more limited, as licenses wouldn't be handed to some underemployed guy off the streets looking to make $100 in a four-rounder. But there should be qualifications to compete. Get some amateur bouts, then move up the pro ranks from the bottom, like every other sport. And with fair set matchmaking and divestment of resources to smaller national federations, under a single governing body there should be much more chance for the development of boxing skill around the world, and a greater talent pool long-term.

[yaltamaltadavid]

Bump.. At least for the entertainment value of the APB sample draw I wrote up?