Tweet
nothing below 112lbs.
this isnt the circus, go get some buttermilk biscuits bro.
this isnt the circus, go get some buttermilk biscuits bro.
-
-
Weight divisions are their for a reason. Belts however are not.
90% of the belts could be scrapped, and a true boxing governing body should be installed.Comment
-
Keep the weight classes as is and just have one belt per class. Also, no catch weights for the title. If you can't fight at the division limit or feel you need some type of advantage then don't fight for the title, take your behind to another weight class.Comment
-
they should go back to the original 8, and readjust the weights.Comment
-
KEEP Cruiserweight, in fact the LHW and CW limits should soon be extended a bit.
Eliminate the WBO belt and only have the 3 other major belts (they were first).
Eliminate all the inbetween divisions. The fighters can either make the class above or below or they can't. Just confuses the **** out of lb for lb.
You cannot point to a boxer anymore and clearly say, he was a middleweight or a welterweight cause they go through up to 8 divisions now!Comment
-
I'd eliminate everything below bantamweight, I'd also eliminate light middle (you're either a welterweight or a middleweight) and I'd probably get rid of super featherweight. Most likely keep the rest.Comment
-
One weight class. Everyone is a Heavyweight.
Belts will be under one organization. The ranking of belts will be:
THE Super World Champion
Super World Champion
World Champion
Champion
Champ
Regular Champion
Interim ChampionComment
-
Id keep two belts per division
Unification fights can be very exciting
They should be enforced thoughComment
-
115 is useless as ****.
I'm fine with 4 belts. More belts for those that aren't going to chris John or Sven Ottke it.Comment
-
201- (Heavyweight)
175 (Light Heavyweight)
160 (Middleweight)
147 (Welterweight)
135 (Lightweight)
126 (Featherweight)
118 (Bantamweight)
WBC is corrupt AF but I would pick their belt as the only belt cu I think it's the beat looking one.Comment
Comment