"Having a belt doesn’t mean you deserve a big fight!" - I agree. So why does Bud?

[Combat Talk Radio]

They've lost credibility because more guys aren't intent on unifying.

If holding 1 belt made it more likely for guys to fight the guys who held the other belts, the belts would be a great addition to boxing, but too many guys are happy to hold belts hostage and fight nobodies while there's another guy in the same weight class they should be fighting.

Unification isn't as simple as you imply.

Back when fighters were doing 4+fights a year, maybe. But with two fights how can you possibly meet 4 different mandatory schedules? You can't.

I wouldn't want to unify either for that very reason. You either try to fight off mandatories while keyboard warriors criticize you, or you ignore mandatories and keyboard warriors criticize you. All to say you have all four belts.

I'd rather just do away with titles.

[The D3vil]

Unification isn't as simple as you imply.

Back when fighters were doing 4+fights a year, maybe. But with two fights how can you possibly meet 4 different mandatory schedules? You can't.

I wouldn't want to unify either for that very reason. You either try to fight off mandatories while keyboard warriors criticize you, or you ignore mandatories and keyboard warriors criticize you. All to say you have all four belts.

I'd rather just do away with titles.

I'd be fine with doing away with all titles, but the ceremonial Lineal & Ring titles.

But titles do exist and if you want to be a champion, there shouldn't be somebody else calling himself the champ in your division if you're a real champ.

[SplitSecond]

Because there is demand for it.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I'd be fine with doing away with all titles, but the ceremonial Lineal & Ring titles.

But titles do exist and if you want to be a champion, there shouldn't be somebody else calling himself the champ in your division if you're a real champ.

I don't agree, I just think there's a better way than what they're doing.

Back in the olden days of wrestling you'd have different territory champions in the same division. That was a regional thing though.

With boxing, the orgs are 'kinda' regional, like IBO is basically the Africa champion at welterweight.

If the main four had that going on, say IBF is the "Intercontinental", WBA is the "Americas", WBO is the "Orients" and WBC is global, then it might be better.

Basically, if you hold WBO, you defend it in Korea, Japan, China, etc.

So on and so forth.

Because there is demand for it.

Fabricated demand. Yes.

If a belt doesn't do it, what else is left but fabricated demand by hypemasters?

[SplitSecond]

I don't agree, I just think there's a better way than what they're doing.

Back in the olden days of wrestling you'd have different territory champions in the same division. That was a regional thing though.

With boxing, the orgs are 'kinda' regional, like IBO is basically the Africa champion at welterweight.

If the main four had that going on, say IBF is the "Intercontinental", WBA is the "Americas", WBO is the "Orients" and WBC is global, then it might be better.

Basically, if you hold WBO, you defend it in Korea, Japan, China, etc.

So on and so forth.



Fabricated demand. Yes.

If a belt doesn't do it, what else is left but fabricated demand by hypemasters?

Fabricated? The fight sells well and It’s a super fight that every fan wants. All that matters.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Fabricated? The fight sells well and It’s a super fight that every fan wants. All that matters.

Nice to know that you personally met millions of people worldwide who told you this.

But let's get real.

Vast majority of the world doesn't know or care who Terence Crawford is.

Spence is known internationally because unlike Crawford, Spence actually went overseas to stop Kell Brook on HIS turf.

Now, if you say the name "Manny Pacquiao", everyone knows who that is.

Which means, Spence/Pacquiao is a MUCH bigger fight.

It's fine for you to say that YOU feel a fight with Crawford is huge. You're entitled to your wrong opinion.