40 Years of Watering Down

[Tony Trick-Pony]

In 1976, there 23 recognized "world" champions.

In 1986, there were 45.

In 1996, 50 men claimed a "world" title.

In 2006, there were only 66 "world" champions.

And today, there are 71 boxers who can say they are "world" champions.

Without Kovalev and Golovkin, the numbers go up and by this Saturday night, there will be 72.

At this rate, by 2026, there will easily be 80 "world" champions.

Doesn't say much about our sport.

[b00g13man]

You're foing to have to get over "the old days" at some point. That's pretty much what all your threads are about.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

You're foing to have to get over "the old days" at some point. That's pretty much what all your threads are about.

Well, that's a lie. But 71 "world" champions is ludicrous. If you don't have a problem with that, you probably don't care about the sport's future. This is laughable compared to the "old days" and to UFC even.

[b00g13man]

Well, that's a lie. But 71 "world" champions is ludicrous. If you don't have a problem with that, you probably don't care about the sport's future. This is laughable compared to the "old days" and to UFC even.

I do have a problem with the number of champions, but you do seem to do a fair bit of complaining about boxing now vs then.

[low blows]

In 1976, there 23 recognized "world" champions.

In 1986, there were 45.

In 1996, 50 men claimed a "world" title.

In 2006, there were only 66 "world" champions.

And today, there are 71 boxers who can say they are "world" champions.

Without Kovalev and Golovkin, the numbers go up and by this Saturday night, there will be 72.

At this rate, by 2026, there will easily be 80 "world" champions.

Doesn't say much about our sport.

Back when there were only 8 divisions contenders fighting each other was meaningful and required to earn a title shot. These days it only happens in box offs or when a purse is too big to pass up ie Haye vs Chisora or Fury vs Chisora II.

I would take 34 champions if they had routine unification fights but they don't happen unless the money is too huge to pass up.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I do have a problem with the number of champions, but you do seem to do a fair bit of complaining about boxing now vs then.

It's an interesting topic. I think the more fair a sport is, the better off it is and the less corruption there is, the better. So yes. I do side with the old school 8 divisions and one champion per division. It's simple, easy to keep up with and puts a lot of the best against the best, who can really duck each other as they wish nowadays. In the old days, there was ducking, but they couldn't get a title shot with ducking. If they wanted to be the man, they had to step up. No other sport has so many claimants to titles. At the end of every basketball, baseball and football season, there is one champion- just one. If I were a fan of those sports, I wouldn't be complaining. It would be more about observation, which I also enjoy. But to not bring up the inconsistencies and corruption, is pretty hard for me to do. This is an open forum and I like bringing this up. Many agree with me.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Back when there were only 8 divisions contenders fighting each other was meaningful and required to earn a title shot. These days it only happens in box offs or when a purse is too big to pass up ie Haye vs Chisora or Fury vs Chisora II.

I would take 34 champions if they had routine unification fights but they don't happen unless the money is too huge to pass up.

Yes, it's just beyond ridiculous. But I mean, even picture the '90s. With one title, Bowe would have had to fight Lewis and all the big boys would have fought each other. It wasn't even a big problem in the '70s with two world titles recognized, but four and with super titles, five per division? Come on, now. That is ludicrous.

[ИATAS]

It's a big mess no question. It's why we see guys who are 3-4 division champs without fighting anyone really. Broner and Santa Cruz are a couple recent examples (at least Broner did fight one legit champ/#1 guy). Fair to say they wouldn't have accomplished that if there was only one champion per division.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It's a big mess no question. It's why we see guys who are 3-4 division champs without fighting anyone really. Broner and Santa Cruz are a couple recent examples (at least Broner did fight one legit champ/#1 guy). Fair to say they wouldn't have accomplished that if there was only one champion per division.

I didn't even realize that about Santa Cruz. I always think of him as the guy who hasn't fought anybody(besides Mares). Haha.

Yes, it's ridiculous. Even look at who Cotto beat to get his four divisions. Morales would have never gotten there without the gimme Cano fight. This is the problem. Big claims with little substance.

[jypehob]

I don't view silver, super, interim, diamond or regional tittles of great merit and anyone that has SOME knowledge of the the sport wouldn't either. These "watered down" belts not only bring in revenue for the boxing organizations that issue them but bring some warmth and happiness to hard working athletes in an otherwise cold and brutal sport.