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

[pacphobia]

Belts are just trinkets.

The lineal title is what matters. The TBRB awards the only true championship in boxing today.

Very true and TBRB has the best rankings in boxing compare to any boxing rankings today

[Scipio2009]

If we tried to have 1 belt total; you’d have a hundred Punchy fighters waiting for years to get a shot. ( Archie Moore) was #1 contender for 10 years. “Injustice.” https://t.co/KOEDIBlwJO

— George Foreman (@GeorgeForeman) July 30, 2019

4 is too many, but there are clear issues with one.

The solution is pretty clear though, and it's almost in practice now, tbh; three belts, organizations respecting each others rules, and becoming unified champion leading to a mandatory cycle that everyone respects.

You'll have certain fighters be happy to simply give up belts to make certain fights (everyone sees you, Golovkin), but you set up a framework to make the sport a bit more orderly.

[boliodogs]

If we tried to have 1 belt total; you’d have a hundred Punchy fighters waiting for years to get a shot. ( Archie Moore) was #1 contender for 10 years. “Injustice.” https://t.co/KOEDIBlwJO

— George Foreman (@GeorgeForeman) July 30, 2019

One belt per weight class and the champ fights at least twice a year preferable more often barring injury. The champ fights the number 1 contender at least once a year and top 5 guy in any other title fight. Hagler was the only middleweight champ for many years and foght 4 times a year and no top guy had to wait long to fight him, If Moore was number 1 for ten years with no title shot then the rules were not being followed. You could have 4 champs or 10 champs and if the rules are not followed a top contender could still be ducked.

[aboutfkntime]

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.

no..... If unification was always a priority... (along with a good ranking system and 2x mando's a year)... having one belt isn’t that bad of a thing.

[aboutfkntime]

Very true and TBRB has the best rankings in boxing compare to any boxing rankings today

they had Canelo ranked the #1 middleweight in the world.....

despite Canelo never having fought above 155, and despite Canelo never having fought a middleweight opponent

at the same time..... they had Adonis Stevenson #1 ranked ahead of Kovalev

ranking by lineage is HORRIBLY flawed.....

also..... they do not mandate, and they do not sanction..... making their "opinion"..... just another opinion

[Boxing_1013]

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.....

To be clear to everyone...I'm not the guy making that claim.

But I mean...Manny is an ATG just like SRL...and beating 30 yo Thurman at 40 years old is a great win...Thurman wasn't some paper champ and resume wise was probably the top dog at 147...though Spence and now Crawford are pretty clearly the top 2 imo...but yeah Manny has had an incredible career and is/was an incredible fighter just like SRL.

[aboutfkntime]

To be clear to everyone...I'm not the guy making that claim.

But I mean...Manny is an ATG just like SRL...and beating 30 yo Thurman at 40 years old is a great win...Thurman wasn't some paper champ and resume wise was probably the top dog at 147...though Spence and now Crawford are pretty clearly the top 2 imo...but yeah Manny has had an incredible career and is/was an incredible fighter just like SRL.

FACT: if there was only one title at welterweight..... that muppet, along with any other muppet who thinks that Pac is greater than SRL..... would need to use someone a lot better than Keith Thurman as justification

that is all you needed to say

[Real King Kong]

no..... If unification was always a priority... (along with a good ranking system and 2x mando's a year)... having one belt isn’t that bad of a thing.

Well if there was one belt, there’s nothing to unify. As a fan I don’t disagree with the idea of one belt, but most fighters love the belts cuz it creates more opportunity for them.

[techliam]

Two belts maximum

There is something special and therefore promotable about a unification fight. I suppose you could do this with the lineal championship instead and have just 1 belt

It will add a lot more prestige to the contender status and allow for match ups to be made more. The Champion has 1 mandatory fight a year against the highest ranked contender.

[techliam]

Very true and TBRB has the best rankings in boxing compare to any boxing rankings today

People need to understand, a championship system isn’t there to display who’s the best. It’s there to display who the champion is.

In a lot of sports, the world championship and the world rankings are different things. Just off the top of my head, snooker, we have a world snooker champion, and a snooker world number one.

In boxing’s case, we need to decide what we want. In the current system, the champion and the no.1 contender are not necessarily the best or most accomplished fighters in the division. In a ranking system, the world 1 and 2 would be