Biggest changes in Boxing if/when the UFC/WME comes in? Sanctioning Bodies dead?

[Phenom]

It would be bad for boxing if PBC adopt the UFC model

Boxing is global UFC is not

[USMCer]

It would be bad for boxing if PBC adopt the UFC model

Boxing is global UFC is not

Is PBC more or less global than the UFC?

[Phenom]

Is PBC more or less global than the UFC?

PBC fighters compete with other boxers in the world UFC only compete in the UFC

UFC is like wrestling in the old days when they had wwf wcw etc ...

[Eff Pandas]

As far as I can tell, Boxing's "sanctioning bodies" are just made up, they're nothing "official."

Who's going to make something an official sanctioning body?

I mean there is some comparison argument here that a dollar is worth as little or as much as we as a society agree its worth. A title is worth as little or as much as boxing agrees its worth. And right now boxing agrees titles are worth more than not having a title is worth.

So if you invent a new title you'd need the boxing world as a whole to agree that new title is worth more than these old 4 titles. And idk that you can necessarily do that just cuz you created your own lil world...unless you got all the best guys in that lil world with you & can maintain that situation.

Or in other words if you got DAZN & ESPN saying these 4 titles people have accepted are "the real titles" & PBC saying "nah this new belt is the real belt" I'm assuming more people are gonna side with DAZN & ESPN being the real belts cuz they got history on their side & they'll have more competition for their belts cuz they got a nice scope of top talent themselves. Best case its a hard sell even if you got some argument 126, 147 & 154 "PBC" belts do represent the best guy.

ABC is the organization of the different State Athletic Commissions, not the "Sanctioning Bodies" right? What obligations do the State Athletic Commissions have to the WBC, IBF, etc?

The state commissions don't want nothing to do with rankings & world titles if thats where you are going. Or they haven't in a long ass time. And honestly most of them I doubt would do any better than the current ABC Groups do.

MMA is regulated/overseen by the ABC. MMA puts on fights all over the country, all over the world, without being "sanctioned" by any third-party organization.
They have Champions, they have rankings, they make quality matchups (for the most part).

Thats because they aren't bound by the MAA currently. If the MAA for MMA gets passed the whole MMA world could be flipped on its head.

Read my previous post, above... the U.S. Congress findings in the Ali Act does not reflect well on the Boxing's "sanctioning" organizations.

Well no sh^t. Show me anyone who likes the ABC Groups who aren't working with the ABC Groups. Only people who like them are fighters, promoters & platforms. But thats the only people you need to like them is the problem for fans.

Maybe a third-party is worth having in the sport, but at what expense? In the current state of affairs, "sanctioning bodies" are just money grubbers more than anything (like people in the IOC in the Olympics, Bowl Game committees in College Football, but I digress).

SOMEONE needs to run a sanctioning body no? Who do you want running a sanctioning body? Bob Arum? DAZN? Haymon? You need an impartial party. And yes you will need to pay them something to pay the people doing the job.

What do those "sanctioning fee" go to in Boxing? If you don't pay them, they "take your belt"... what do you call that? Ignoring these mutherfugger would raise the issue and open more people's eyes.

If you ignore ABC Groups unless you are one of a few giant names in the games you get ignored more. Thats the issue. Its a symbiotic relationship.

You're ignoring that there is some quid pro quo going on here. The ABC Groups sanction fights & take the money. The boxer wears the belt & gets more attention & more money cuz he's wearing the belt. The promoter is able to easier sell the product cuz its a "championship fight" & his guy is a
3 time champion" cuz of these ABC Groups. And the platforms gets better ratings cuz of all of this.

Its not like the ABC Groups are just smashing old ladies in the face & doing harm all over. The reason they exist is cuz they do so much good for people with skin in the game in the world of boxing.

Sure you can suggest "well why doesn't someone else less corrupt do that?" & thats a legit question that plenty of us have asked. But the problem isn't us asking the question from a distance its the people actively involved in the sport making a move towards that change that would be combative & harsh for many parties in the business if some new ent^ty did come upon the scene.

[Eff Pandas]

Is PBC more or less global than the UFC?

Less.

Last I heard the UFC has 400 odd fighters under contract.

I believe Haymon has deals with around 200ish last I've heard.

And I think PBC has a much larger % of those 200 from the US then the UFC has from the US.

The UFC does shows in idk how many countries at this point. A couple dozen I'd guess easy. PBC has done fights almost exclusively in the US with a couple outlier fights in other countries.

The UFC is bigger & broader with its roster + its scope.

[USMCer]

PBC fighters compete with other boxers in the world UFC only compete in the UFC

UFC is like wrestling in the old days when they had wwf wcw etc ...

Do they?

PBC fighters, according to their website:
125 = from the U.S.A.
39 = not from the U.S.A. (6 from U.S. territories)

[boliodogs]

If Dana is running the show like he runs the UFC then boxers will do as they are told and get paid a lot less. I don't like all the sanctioning bodies but I am not sure the UFC is this great answer to all problems.

[Eff Pandas]

If Dana is running the show like he runs the UFC then boxers will do as they are told and get paid a lot less.

Idk why people always bring the money thing up.

Unless Dana somehow commanded all of boxing he wouldn't be able to control the market like people always suggest he'd try.

It'd be a losing business model & say what you will about the UFC & how its ran, but they didn't succeed just cuz they pay UFC guys less money then boxers make.

The UFC did sh^t better. The UFC made better fights. The competitors the UFC had that paid people better were paying beyond what the market was bringing in & thus went out of business.

If you draw business in MMA you are making 7 or 8 digits a fight. If you are the guy in the 5th prelim fight you aren't making sh^t. So pretty much its more like boxing then people wanna act like with pay, but sure there is less money in play cuz MMA is ran in league form & boxing is ran in event form. Dana coming to boxing would need to flip the current business model to a league & honestly boxing as a league would probably make boxing a huger sport if Dana was running a UFC talent level boxing league so EVERYONE would be making more money not less.

So the pay stuff is being talked about in too simple of a way & not taking the whole situation into play or the realities of what happened in MMA to leagues that "paid fighters what they were worth" allegedly.

[USMCer]

Who's going to make something an official sanctioning body?... [etc]...

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. The State Athletic Commissions are "official." They're the government, you have to deal with them. But who says that these sanctioning orgs have any power, any sway? The IBF and WBO just popped up into existence the 1980s, what made anyone recognize them as anything?

And I'm not saying that the State Athletic Commissions should be ranking fighters. I was distinguishing between them and sanctioning orgs in relation to the ABC.

Rankings in Boxing are a contrivance. Contrived to a point of being silly.
- Wilder is not ranked by the WBO, IBF, or WBA
- Fury is not ranked by the IBF or WBA
If you're supposed to be an independent 3rd party why do you not rank the fighters objectively??? What the fugk are you worth, why do you even exist then?!?

I'm not sure how strong, how committed, how truly independent the new Transnational Boxing Ranking Board really is, but their rankings are at least sensible. There aren't fighters who are completely missing from their rankings.



... TBC (watching the NBA Finals)...

[CauliflowerEars]

One thing I think we could see happening is that the UFC/WME brushes aside the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBC and really put the onus on the "sanctioning bodies" to justify their very existence.

Boxing needed a sanctioning bodies, once upon a time, but not anymore. Now, sanctioning bodies and the politics behind them, they are a hindrance to the sport.

Read the U.S. Congress findings in the Muhammad Ali Act:

(5) The sanctioning organizations which have proliferated in the boxing industry have not established credible and objective criteria to rate professional boxers, and operate with virtually no industry or public oversight. Their ratings are susceptible to manipulation, have deprived boxers of fair opportunities for advancement, and have undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sport.
(6) Open competition in the professional boxing industry has been significantly interfered with by restrictive and anti-competitive business practices of certain promoters and sanctioning bodies, to the detriment of the athletes and the ticket-buying public. Common practices of promoters and sanctioning organizations represent restraints of interstate trade in the United States.

What do they really do?

It appears that at least part of your protest or premise is that, 'there's too many sanctioning bodies in boxing and it's hurting the sport'. Hence, you are thinking of ways that this could somehow, someday, be remedied or rectified. Yes ?

Well, I doubt you would find hardly anyone outside those organizations giving you an argument in that regard. The problem, as you already know, is that promoters/fighters are paying these sanctioning fees, and it's a huge deal to start taking money out of someone's pocket, once they have a hold on it.

What year was that Muhammad Ali Act passed ? Congress even submitted their findings, and things don't appear to have changed.
I know you mentioned the boycott or "ignore" the significance of the belts, but again, a lot of influential bodies would be opposing that stance. And, what Eff pointed out about that.

Another thing is, what year did the WBO and IBF officially start recognizing champions ? What's the history behind that ? Why were they formed or "needed" as you mentioned ?

I think it boils down to basic dollars and cents, or sense. People will do whatever's necessary to hold on to that money, and I have no clue how that's overcome. Maybe UFC involvement could be the start of something, who knows. Unfortunately, and I've said this before, if there's still money to be made I'm afraid we will see an additional sanctioning body, before we see elimination of them. It's one of the main reasons it's hard to draw new fans to the sport.
"What do they really do ?" Nobody knows who the real champion is or what all the weight divisions are. That's what.