Title Holders should be immediately be stationed as a Mandatory for other Holders.

[Thraxox]

So that we wont get any hostage Belts. If 1 contender has taken a belt from a Champion, he should have an obligation to whether or not he enforces his mandatory position, so that we wont get any ducking or unification fights.

If Fighter A gets a Belt he would have the obligation to be a mandatory then Title Holder B, C, and D would have to fight him unless fighter does not enforce his mandatory position and a unification fight in a split depending on the negotiations, and a Fighter who as the bigger draw should automatically be obligated to have the 75/25 split, if neither negotiated till the deadline then the team who failed to give enough in the negotiations must vacate a belt (If B-side Fighter refuses the default 75/25 split for 60/40 or A-side refuses 75/25 and wants 90/10),

So that we dont have this Hostage belt taking. And Ducking

[LoadedWraps]

So that we wont get any hostage Belts. If 1 contender has taken a belt from a Champion, he should have an obligation to whether or not he enforces his mandatory position, so that we wont get any ducking or unification fights.

If Fighter A gets a Belt he would have the obligation to be a mandatory then Title Holder B, C, and D would have to fight him unless fighter does not enforce his mandatory position and a unification fight in a split depending on the negotiations, and a Fighter who as the bigger draw should automatically be obligated to have the 75/25 split, if neither negotiated till the deadline then the team who failed to give enough in the negotiations must vacate a belt (If B-side Fighter refuses the default 75/25 split for 60/40 or A-side refuses 75/25 and wants 90/10),

So that we dont have this Hostage belt taking. And Ducking

No.

That basically creates more hostage situations than the way it is now.

There should be eliminator/qualification fights for mandatory rights to challenge the title. Let the champions attempt unifications amongst themselves in parallel.

The only thing that will stop ducking entirely is all of boxing under one unbrella, and PBC is the closest to this.

[Elroy The Great]

to add in networks and contracts and venues......

[Citizen Koba]

No.

That basically creates more hostage situations than the way it is now.

There should be eliminator/qualification fights for mandatory rights to challenge the title. Let the champions attempt unifications amongst themselves in parallel.

The only thing that will stop ducking entirely is all of boxing under one unbrella, and PBC is the closest to this.

Certainly unifying boxing under one banner or at least one governing body would be a positive which is why I view PBC with guarded optimism, but it's gonna be a long road, man. PBC is making inroads in the States and the increasing signing of non-America talent is an encouraging sign, but we're talking about a global sport here. And 'ducking' won't be eliminated, though it should be reduced, protection of 'stars' will still be a factor as well as personal risk / reward calculations on the part of the fighters - you can't make guys get into the ring after all.

PBC can in some ways be seen as an evolution of the increasingly blurred lines between management, promoter and broadcaster that is already well established, so I don't really hold that against the enterprise but my concerns are principally that it will cause years of division in the sport before we see a positive outcome (if indeed there is a positive outcome), both at a US and international level. Not that it shouldn't be attempted of course, merely that it may suck for a bit.

[soul_survivor]

So that we wont get any hostage Belts. If 1 contender has taken a belt from a Champion, he should have an obligation to whether or not he enforces his mandatory position, so that we wont get any ducking or unification fights.

If Fighter A gets a Belt he would have the obligation to be a mandatory then Title Holder B, C, and D would have to fight him unless fighter does not enforce his mandatory position and a unification fight in a split depending on the negotiations, and a Fighter who as the bigger draw should automatically be obligated to have the 75/25 split, if neither negotiated till the deadline then the team who failed to give enough in the negotiations must vacate a belt (If B-side Fighter refuses the default 75/25 split for 60/40 or A-side refuses 75/25 and wants 90/10),

So that we dont have this Hostage belt taking. And Ducking

This is a good idea although the rules you put forward are shabby.

It should be simple. Fight A wins one of the belts, he has 90 days to negotiate a fight with either his no. 1 contender for that organisation or with one of the other 3 major belt holders. If both sides fail negotiations both organisations should strip them of the belt.

Eventually, within a few months even, you'd get fighters who would be willing to fight for belts and fight each other in unifications. HOwever this requires a tough, judicious approach which has been missing in boxing from it's conception.

[boliodogs]

Should be an is are two completely different things. Champions should defend their titles a minimum of twice a year and against a boxer ranked in the top 5. What good does it do a boxer to work his way up to being the number 1 contender when the champion only fights guys ranked 20th or even 40th? As long as champions can get away with this things will probably never change. Cotto went a full year without defending his middleweight title with no excuses or apologies. Wilder has yet to defend his title against a top 10 guy. Garcia went way over a year without defending his 140 pound title. I would settle for world champions being good champions but only a few of them are good champions these days..

[Rip Chudd]

Or just have one champ per division.