George Foreman makes a case for multiple belts. Do you agree?

[DaNeutral.]

Well i suppose when you get things like the PBC who lock their fighters away and block outside fighters the chance to fight their champions and having any chance of taking a belt off of a PBC fighter maybe its for the best we have other belts. Until shady actions of Al Haymon can be squashed 1 belt a division wouldnt work.

We just need Haymon out.

[aboutfkntime]

we currently have a guy running around here insisting that Pacquiao is greater than Sugar Ray Leonard, because Pac beat Thurman making him the oldest welterweight champion.....

the very nicest way that I can put it..... is that having multiple champions could not possibly help boxing, that is the casue of most of the problems

a champion used to mean something, and the word contender used to be much more revered

not all divisional representatives were referred to as contenders, that was reserved for the best-in-waiting

and a champion should have 2x mando's a year..... if he also wants to take a voluntary, then that is up to him

that way racking up 10+ defences is a real feat..... not easy, like it is today

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Not everyone deserves to be a champ. These days, every mu***er on TV can get some type of belt. Being a champ means nothing. Stop giving out belts for participation.

This right here.

Well said, Redd!

[mxtali]

Wonder if there’s any truth to PBC not recognizing the WBO in the future. Also George makes a good point. I hadn’t thought of it that way. When would a guy like Errol spence for example ever going to get a title shot if there was only one belt?

[Motorcity Cobra]

Agreed. For someone like Gary Russell that fights once a year for his WBC belt can you imagine only getting to see the world champ of the division fight once a year? As a fighter can you imagine how many fighters that deserve a world title shot would never get one because there are only one MAYBE two world title fights a year barring injuries and set backs? That would be awful. Three belts is cool with me. Everyone would be able to get a shot if it’s regulated properly

Perfect example. Or Thurman's two year vacation

[Motorcity Cobra]

I think two belts should cover it. And the mandatories would be a lot better.

[andocom]

Pro boxing has always been a business first and a sport second and when viewed through that lens it all makes perfect sense.

From a sports perspective about the best thing currently is the WBSS, which isn't doing so well or so Arum was saying. Imagine a Canelo type name signing up for that, wouldn't happen.

About the only other choice is the dictator model, i.e. UFC which is more likely to match the best against the best, but also will take most of the money for themselves instead of the fighters.

[sicko]

You could do 1 Belt...if they all was under one Brand like the UFC but we all know that will NEVER HAPPEN because it is just too many damn fighters to ever see boxing be monopolized like the UFC

[Real King Kong]

The problem is with promoters/networks as usual. If unification was always a priority, having multiple belts isn’t that bad of a thing. It gives more fighters leverage to land big fights. If everyone was going for a single belt, too many guys would never get in contention...a single loss would set them back much further with less options.

The sanctioning bodies also deserve a lot of the blame of course. If the ranking systems were fair and transparent and there was less corruption, we’d have the right fighters in line for belts and eventually unification fights. This comes back full circle to the promoters again...buying their guys rankings and manipulating mandatories.

[bballchump11]

Two belts are fine with me.