How to fix the problem of all these belts in boxing?

[Boxtime]

Lots of casual fans out there are confused as to who the real champion is. We have 4 organisations, with some having 2 world titles per division.

People talk about merging all the 4 organisations into 1, but that will never happen due to the reduction in sanctioning fees, control and politics, amongst other problems.

Then I looked at other sports out there, who don't have a single World Champion, or a World Cup to denote who the number one fighter in the World is. This brought my attention to the sport of Tennis.

In Tennis, there isn't one major title or honour, similiar to boxing where we have 4 world titles, they have four major tournaments/grandslams. Wimbledon, US Open etc.

The number one in the World is that individual who holds most number of points. Grandslams win you 2000 points, and the Masters wins you 1000. In the end, the person who has won the most of the 4 grandslams per year, is the person who is ranked number 1.

So in boxing, whoever holds the most titles, out of the 4 main sanctioning bodies at any one time would be the World Champion / Number one. Points will also be distributed for beating a ranked fighter etc.

The only way such a system could work, is that there is only one set of ratings/rankings per division. The question is, who would set these rankings/ratings.... boxing organisations or the major commisions around the globe?

[techliam]

I think the sport should have something similar to snooker and tennis - a world no.1 by merit, which may be different to the world champion. In most cases the world champion is also the world no.1, but where they aren't a pretty exciting fight can happen.

The lineal system and the ABC systems have totally failed

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It tends to spoil any kind of recognition of a single world champion. Yes, it is truly confusing and would drive away more fans than bring them in.

I'd love to see them all go out of business, to be honest. If they didn't get their sanctioning fees, I'm pretty sure they would go under. However, I also don't see it happening. Fighters fight their hearts out to get a world title, even when it's one of four instead of the only one. Once you are a champion, you will forever be recognized as a champion which means a hell of a lot as far as reputation, legacy, money, etc. So fighters will still try to win them no matter how many are out there.

One solution I had was make three of them regional belts with one major body being the world belt. The only problem is, which one is it gonna be? However, this would resolve the issue of who the real champion is along with the organizations still getting their sanctioning fees. A fighter's natural rise then would be to fight for the various regional straps with the ultimate prize of the world title being the biggest accomplishment and much more celebrated and respected.

[juggernaut666]

Why not glue all the belts together in each division and create the "super bad azz " belt that only ONE fighter gets to have? Each sanctioning body will work together at the negotiating table and live in sync happily ever after and still own a piece of the super bad azz championship belt

[-Hyperion-]

It would take a promoter with a huge stable like Haymon to start ignoring belts...the problem is he has no stars to lead by example.....maybe Wilder could do it now if the WBC doesn't suspend Povetkin....then fight Joshua and Fury but ignore the belts...the problem is, he'd need to win....

[jas]

dont tune in to watch garcia salka

[techliam]

It would take a promoter with a huge stable like Haymon to start ignoring belts...the problem is he has no stars to lead by example.....maybe Wilder could do it now if the WBC doesn't suspend Povetkin....then fight Joshua and Fury but ignore the belts...the problem is, he'd need to win....

Yeah thats the problem with Wilder... the belt makes it seem that he's more than he really is. Without it, the truth becomes bare... he's just a contender, and not the front running one at that