Voluntary title defences need to be done away with.

[W1LL]

Either defend your title against the mandatory challenger or vacate. Simple.

This would result in a lot more scrutinizing of the rankings, stopping the likes of Frank Warren paying for WBO rankings for his fighters. It would bring the spotlight on all of that.

It would result in organisations having to have a legit top 10 and not a bogus list to give the option of easy voluntary defences.

The only way out of a mandatory defence should be a unification or an exhibition/non-title fight.

[Robbie Barrett]

I'd prefer to do away with the titles.

[Jewish-Reptile]

I'd prefer to do away with the titles.

This. Their is absolutely no call or need for any belt other than say the Ring belt or an award belt such TBRB who are clearly the least biased and run by fans of boxing themselves, are they even for profit organisation ?

[GGG Gloveking]

I'd prefer to do away with the titles.

So true! I could see 2 titles so we can still have the "unification" fights and undisputed status, but we dont need 6 mofos running around saying I'm the world champ in all 17 divisions

[Eff Pandas]

If the rankings were legit I'd be 100% on board with this, but cuz the rankings can't be trusted + we got so many titles too I can't get behind this idea.

If there was one belt & one top ten rankings this would be great doe.

[asgarth]

voluntary defenses would be ok if

1) the rankings represent the real top guys. 4 organisations not ranking champions from other organisations dilutes the rankings.

2) Right now you can fight someone in the top 15 for voluntary defense. They should reduce it at least to the top10 or better top 5.

[Gate keeper]

The thing is there are upsides and down sides to mandatories. Particularly seen in cases involving the IBF. Sometimes the eliminator simply does not end up providing a worthy opponent for the champion. I'd rather not see everyone's time and money wasted in a pointless fight. We saw that with GGG vs Wade and Brook vs Bizier. Then you have ****** title strippings like Tyson Fury who was a lineal champion and end up with people like Martin being champion. And didn't Crawford just drop the IBF belt in anticipation of fighting Pacquiao before moving to 147. That one wasn't as bad though but sometimes mandatories just pointlessly wastes everyone's time and money for no reason. Call the WBC corrupt but they do try not to have pointless mandatories. When the eliminator winner is someone like an Errol Spence, as was recently, then yes I'm all for the mando. When it's Dominick wade vs a p4p fighter, sorry but I'll pass.

[Gate keeper]

I'd prefer to do away with the titles.

Honestly I still like titles for the business side of it. It's easier to market and sell a fight if it's a unification fight.

[W1LL]

3.3 Qualified Challengers. Champions shall defend their titles, either in a voluntary or mandatory defense, against a challenger (each, a “Qualified Challenger”) in one of the following categories:

(a) any of the top ten (10) rated contenders; or
(b) with the approval of or ratification by a majority of the Board of Governors,

i. any boxer rated 11 to 15;
ii. a champion or a highly-rated boxer of another weight division;
iii. Another WBC champion, such as a WBC Diamond or Silver Champion, Champion Emeritus, or Champion in Recess;
iv. a former world champion or other elite challenger;
v. a champion of another boxing organization recognized by the WBC; or

(c) under special circumstances and with the approval of or ratification by two-third (2/3rd) of the Board of Governors, a contender not otherwise listed in one or more of the above categories.

3.4 Voluntary Defenses. In order to fulfill their requirement to defend the title regularly in a timely manner, champions shall propose voluntary defenses against Qualified Challengers as defined above. No bout shall qualify as a voluntary defense other than as permitted by the WBC in accordance with these Rules & Regulations or any WBC rulings. Any bout (voluntary or mandatory) in which a WBC World Champion would compete for or defend a title or status other than his WBC World Championship, even if the WBC title is also at stake, is not permitted absent special circumstances, and then only following a prior written request to and approval by the WBC, which in its sole discretion may approve, deny, or impose such terms and conditions as it may determine appropriate under the facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Nonsense. Too many gray areas open to rule-bending. Fight the mandatory, unify the titles, or gtfo. It's simple, no? There's also no need for anything more than a top 10.