With So Many Titles, Can We Really Know Who is the Best?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Obviously the numerous titles allow for more ducking than in the old days. Ducking has always been around, but when there was one title in eight classes, eventually a fighter had to fight the man in order to be at the top.

Nowadays, we have so many champions who make enough money to get by, what are the real odds that we ever see who is the best?

Clearly, the 2000s and 2010s seem to be missing something the earlier decades had. Boxing is still around, but there's little excitement about it compared to past times.

There are probably many reasons for the slide, but multiple champions plays a big role. You can say the belts don't matter but it's what the boxers fight for and the first way to get respect in the business. Since they matter, there should be fewer of them.

It's hard to picture the sport thriving with so many trinkets around.

[boliodogs]

Unless they fight each other you just have to guess. I think GGG is by far the best middleweight in the world but others think Cotto would beat him. I can't prove them wrong unless GGG and Cotto fight each other and GGG wins. They are just as sure Cotto would win as I am that GGG would win. All you can do is go by what your eyes tell you and hope they fight each other someday.

[HURTFEELINGS]

This is "PRIZE" fighting, so all of the other ideal "stuff" takes a backseat to $$$. Titles mean many titles mean different organizations make even more money off of more matches, but the fans are also to blame, because every single match won by points is labeled a "robbery" by fans of the loser, or someone was paid off. No one accepts a loss and 1 loss youre labeled as a "hype-job" by the same fans. Fans only watch the big fights not the fights that make a fighter better. Fans dont watch free boxing and complain about having to pay for ppv's. Its all about the fans of the sport, and of course NO ONE thinks they are the problem...but its the fans fault for their fan-dom and non support.

[NEETzsche]

this is why unification is so important, but apparently wlad, golovkin and arguably kovalev are the only ones even trying to do that

[bigjavi973]

check out their resume and who they have beaten. Also who they lost to and/or how they lost/won a fight. just imo

[MDPopescu]

check out their resume and who they have beaten. Also who they lost to and/or how they lost/won a fight. just imo

... start checking with Stevenson's resume (just before the Dawson fight)... and come back here.

[Rip Chudd]

check out their resume and who they have beaten. Also who they lost to and/or how they lost/won a fight. just imo

Hmm, I don't know about that man. I mean it makes an awful lot of sense...but this is NSB

[bigjavi973]

... start checking with Stevenson's resume (just before the Dawson fight)... and come back here.

stevenson got ktfo by boone.....

now go bother someone else.

[bigjavi973]

Hmm, I don't know about that man. I mean it makes an awful lot of sense...but this is NSB

[Luilun]

Obviously the numerous titles allow for more ducking than in the old days. Ducking has always been around, but when there was one title in eight classes, eventually a fighter had to fight the man in order to be at the top.

Nowadays, we have so many champions who make enough money to get by, what are the real odds that we ever see who is the best?

Clearly, the 2000s and 2010s seem to be missing something the earlier decades had. Boxing is still around, but there's little excitement about it compared to past times.

There are probably many reasons for the slide, but multiple champions plays a big role. You can say the belts don't matter but it's what the boxers fight for and the first way to get respect in the business. Since they matter, there should be fewer of them.

It's hard to picture the sport thriving with so many trinkets around.

Remove Al Haymon ( The Fight Blocker ) and you probably could