Comments Thread For: Challenge To Authority: Building The Perfect Sanctioning Body

[aboutfkntime]

Neither are the grand slams in tennis. Doesn't change the fact that Wimbledon is more prestigious than the Australian Open.

when a wimbledon champion loses to an australian open champion..... nobody is surprised, and nobody really cares

usually the wimbledon champion does not win all of the other championships in the same year..... and again, nobody cares, or is surprised

they are only tournaments, not ranking organisations

boxing is not tennis, there are no justifiable comparisons

[aboutfkntime]

Neither are the grand slams in tennis. Doesn't change the fact that Wimbledon is more prestigious than the Australian Open.

it is flawed logic, and a little bizarre..... to inflate something/someone that you know is wrong

the WBA have more current champs than the WBC, and they are not definitive either

two turds in a punchbowl

[aboutfkntime]

Lyle Fitzsimmons needs to look up the history of sanctioning bodies, clubs, schools, and amphitheatres.



It's very much like reading someone's case for democracy being made based on ancient Greek democracy. We've done this. We've done every suggestion. Where do y'all think sanctioning bodies got their authorities? Have you never heard of champion's prerogative? You are calling for boxing to return to the 18th century.

Just a quick recap over the flow of boxing authority.

Figg's Amphitheatre, Tailor's Amphitheatre, Broughton's Amphitheatre. Broughton and Tailor fought for supremacy, Slack and the Fancy( The fancy is an olden term you've probably guessed the meaning of, rich folk who enjoy boxing. King George was the man who first awarded a champion a belt. it was lionskin and given to Tom Cribb in 1810), The pugilistic club, The national sporting club, newspapers(Police Gazette etc), athletic commissions(NYSAC), then sanctioning bodies(IBU).

Do you really think we do not have a wealth of history that spans over a century and speaks to how champions behave when they control boxing themselves? Of course that's the origin. What else did you expect to see?


You know what would be really interesting Lyle? If y'all authors did a little research and explained to these kids how much the sanctioning bodies actually cleaned up boxing rather than doing piss poor research on the subject and enforcing their assumptions.


Champions controlling boxing is the absolute worst thing any fan can hope to see happen to the sport. Boxing invented WWE style shows under Champion's Prerogative.


Other than that good read though.

most writers/historians comment on the modern era

the gloved era

I understand why

not saying that you are wrong, just that I understand why most writers start at Sullivan..... the waters get very murky pre Sullivan

[Lion81]

problem is.....

1) none of them are definitive
2) we do not even need one org that is not definitive, let alone four

Haymon/Hoya could have done it

PBC + The Ring

Haymon's smarts/money + Oscars organisation/position

they would have to literally buy the belts, and contract all of the top fighters..... and then burn the belts all at once, all on the same day, on the same stage..... while issuing notice to the sanctioning bodies and the sport in general as they announce a new single organisational structure

but yea, dreams are free

been thinking about this for years, decades actually..... because it is obvious that having 4x sanctioning org's is the main problem with boxing..... so I noticed that Haymon/Hoya were the combination that may have been able to pull it off

Or reorganize the belts like NCAA did with the bowl games. They have a new meaning and still work for something. Rose Bowl, Orange bowl have new meaning, and become roads to the final or semifinals, depending on year.

Maybe the IBO, WBO, IBF after you buy them out can become levels you reach to challenge for the WBC title.

One champion per weight division.

[Lion81]

Neither are the grand slams in tennis. Doesn't change the fact that Wimbledon is more prestigious than the Australian Open.

How I see the WBC and WBA vs IBO, WBO, etc.

[xxlefthookxx]

How do you stop it? Easy. Way too easy. Money. If the networks involved (DAZN, PBC, ESPN, etc.) stated that they would only televise and advertise a 'World" championship bout that involved a champion and challenger rated in the top 15 in their division, bogus title bouts would disappear. Anything 'interim', involving a fighter outside the top 15, etc. would not be billed as such, the announcers would not discuss it as such, and the intros would not be shown on TV except for the opponents and their records (which should be done anyway...). It would not stop mismatches, but they would not be labeled title bouts. The only exception would be in the instance of tournaments such as the WBSS where there is a progression toward the best fighter being determined in the ring. Sure, Donaire may not be thought to be top 15, but if he is---it will be proven over the course of the tournament. if he isn't...he will soon disappear and a more worthy challenger continues to the next round.

[Marchegiano]

most writers/historians comment on the modern era

the gloved era

I understand why

not saying that you are wrong, just that I understand why most writers start at Sullivan..... the waters get very murky pre Sullivan

That's just their excuse to be lazy.

Most of the books you need, most of the books you are going to see in bibliography after bibliography, are free and online.

The newspapers are largely online and free as well.

It doesn't seem like the members of orgs like IBRO, CBZ, or IBHOF are not that interested in everything a primary text has to say.

I'll do a relatively well known for an example.

I'm sure you've heard it be said there is no surviving record of James Figg actually boxing. That's because Egan doesn't include a record and Boxiana is the basis for most of your history books. Boxiana references Lord Byron quite often as the author of Boxiana, Egan, wasn't alive when Figg was champion. It is Byron who is the primary source for Figg. If you look in Lord Byron's book, I believe it's called treaties for defense, if you're interested I can look it up to be sure, anyway right in the primary text you'll find the account of Figg vs Sutton the sword fight that is used to prove Figg is more of a sword fighter and just a few pages away an account of Figg having boxed Ned Sutton as well.

At that point you have to ask yourself what's so murky about Figg being a boxer. At best, they're lazy and don't read the entire primary. At worst they're charlatans, plagiarists, and liars.

Even one of my favorite authors who does a lot of myth busting Christopher James Shelton starts his Bare-Knuckle 1722-1888 by talking about how Figg is more of an MMA fighter than a boxer. That's all a bunch of hogwash. Figg was very much a boxer as much as he was anything else and there is no reason to claim he was "more of a" anything. Read Byron's book in total and you'll see it's fair to call him a swordsman, early almost MMA is fair too, clubs, sticks, bit of wrestling, yeah Figgster did it all, but he did box just as much as any of it.

[Eff Pandas]

• If You Ignore it, Maybe They Won’t Come: Fans, analysts, countrymen… don’t acknowledge anything other than the basics. Concurrent fights between contenders are just that. Not interim title fights. Diamonds may be a girl's best friend. But they've got no place in boxing. As for the media, anyone acknowledging such imposters should be subject to permanent credential suspension.

Idek how you could do this. Are you trying to get a mfer fired from his Boston Globe job if he mentions IBO?

I'm no ABC Group fanboy, I'm firmly on the side of hating ABC Groups, but this seems undoable & extreme if you could do it.

• A Common Set of Rankings: Rather than a half-dozen groups with a half-dozen Top 20s, how about one unified set compiled either by a disinterested machine or a media consortium not wholly owned by a promotional company? Let the sanctioning bodies pluck their challengers from a common list, at least moving toward a guaranteed legitimacy for all participants in title bouts.

Under a multiple belt regime this would for sure be superior to what is happening now. If there was a top twenty list that was compiled by various boxing media & pundits that all 4 primary ABC Group title holders had to pick an opponent from boxing would be a whole lot better out of the gate.

I really like this idea.

And I'll add some sh^t on. It'd be even better if whoever is the #1 guy at lets just say on Jan. 1 of every year got to pick any title holder he wanted to fight within 4 months or 4 months after their next fight if they got something scheduled. That'd insure the #1 guy w/o a belt doesn't get avoided.

• Mandatory, with a Twist: Require champions to defend twice per year, once against a common No. 1 – or highest available – and once against a Top 10 foe. If a champion elects to fight more in a year, other opponents should be chosen at his whim. An anonymous hometown kid, a big-money foil 25 pounds lighter… makes no difference. And anyone who can win multiple titles and meet defense requirements in multiple classes, go right ahead.

I don't like forcing ANYONE to fight x times a year. I say thats on them & as long as you fight once a year you are good.

• Catch This: Weight-class boundaries need to be non-negotiable. If a fighter chooses to defend his title two pounds lighter than the limit, so be it. But no title match should be sanctioned “requiring” any fighter to come in at anything other than established weights. Erase this silly promotional loophole and watch how quickly the post-fight “Waaaah… this is why my favorite guy lost” threads dry up.

I hate this idea. I do think the divisions should be reconstructed so there aren't as many divisions as well. There are far too many lil guy divisions.

That said I got no problem with a title holder fighting at w/e weight he wants as a non-title fight or title fight as long as its a voluntary defense & its under the max limit for the division (so I got no problem with all that Mannyweight, Floydweight & Caneloweight sh^t), but you can't mandate that in mando situations & no one has to agree to it (although one would be inclined to I imagine).

• Technological Superhighway: If football has shown nothing else, it’s that sports with a built-in feasibility for instant replay ought to use it. Replay should be used to determine whether cuts are caused by punches, and, if protests are filed over controversial scoring decisions, it should be employed to give three separate arbiters a chance to uphold or vacate the verdict. If it’s the latter, a rematch should be immediate.

1000% agree with this. I even feel like there should be a group of 2 or 3 officials who's whole job is that are watching the fight, can examine a situation & make a call as the fight is taking place. Like if a cut happens & the ref calls it a accidental bunt, but the replay group in the back dial it back & watch it can see that it was a punch they should be able to reverse the ref's call. Idk the details of NFL challenges, but I'm sure there is some sorta situation like that that one could add to boxing where a certain threshold of proof needs to be attained to reverse a ref call. Same deal with low blows or fouls. Would make the sport more fair to what happened then it can be nowadays.

[Eff Pandas]

Isn't the IBO supposed to do a lot of this (I'm not defending the IBO in anyway) . its supposed to be non profit and based on boxrec for rankings.

(Yes I'm aware everyone ignore it).

No wonder I hate the IBO. I love boxrec for what it is, but idk that its an ideal rankings a ABC Group should use. I do like the no bs computer's opinion about schedule strength basically which I find of immense value for basic considerations, but I think there are human intangibles that should be considered in real rankings.

[aboutfkntime]

That's just their excuse to be lazy.

Most of the books you need, most of the books you are going to see in bibliography after bibliography, are free and online.

The newspapers are largely online and free as well.

It doesn't seem like the members of orgs like IBRO, CBZ, or IBHOF are not that interested in everything a primary text has to say.

I'll do a relatively well known for an example.

I'm sure you've heard it be said there is no surviving record of James Figg actually boxing. That's because Egan doesn't include a record and Boxiana is the basis for most of your history books. Boxiana references Lord Byron quite often as the author of Boxiana, Egan, wasn't alive when Figg was champion. It is Byron who is the primary source for Figg. If you look in Lord Byron's book, I believe it's called treaties for defense, if you're interested I can look it up to be sure, anyway right in the primary text you'll find the account of Figg vs Sutton the sword fight that is used to prove Figg is more of a sword fighter and just a few pages away an account of Figg having boxed Ned Sutton as well.

At that point you have to ask yourself what's so murky about Figg being a boxer. At best, they're lazy and don't read the entire primary. At worst they're charlatans, plagiarists, and liars.

Even one of my favorite authors who does a lot of myth busting Christopher James Shelton starts his Bare-Knuckle 1722-1888 by talking about how Figg is more of an MMA fighter than a boxer. That's all a bunch of hogwash. Figg was very much a boxer as much as he was anything else and there is no reason to claim he was "more of a" anything. Read Byron's book in total and you'll see it's fair to call him a swordsman, early almost MMA is fair too, clubs, sticks, bit of wrestling, yeah Figgster did it all, but he did box just as much as any of it.

apart from being a master boxer and a master swordsman, Figg was also an expert with staff/spears and such

basically, if a weapon existed, Figg knew how to stab you with it

he instructed a lot of gentry and upper class because they paid well

in some early references, he is known as Fig, not Figg..... there was some issue over his name, I can't remember exactly now