How many belts do you think boxing should have?

[Beercules]

At least ten. Top 10 in every division should have a belt, and they should never fight each other.

Here here

[GreyFox]

]1 belt per division with ibf's rules[/B]. 1 belt with wbc/wba idiotic behaviour would be useless. every mandatory fight and eliminator would essentially be what unifications are now. we would get unification quality fights every year in every division (at least two of them). interim title is fine when a champion can't defend for at least a year. any other change wouldn't satisfy me.

This. No BS mcdonald's franchise champion or super duper big Mac champion. One champion per division.

[Marchegiano]

I'm just thinking out loud. But nah Europe is a whole bunch of countries isn't it? I wouldn't be mad at a euro-centric tournament to a title shot, along with other regions doing similar, but nah I don't see the need for titles above national ones besides a world title.

That's a bit old school. Like Sully-Burns eras. For them, the way it ended up working out is star power kind of messing everything up.

Which is kinda true for any system anyway, but, back then if the US champion is the most famous he doesn't really need to prove anything to say the French and Mexican champions. For real, the only reason we call Sully world champion is because he's famous. He actually drew the English champion for the title.

Also, it's interesting that quite a lot of the very best national titlists or world title claimants whose claims are considered national titles today, are often not actually natives to the countries they represent. For example Langford is actually a plethora of national champions but also he's a world champion from England and a world champion from France. Or the Anglo-Franc champion. He's Canadian though.


Anyway, it'd be interesting to see a new take on old ways.

[BritishBoxing92]

I personally think 2 unification can be fun but 4 is way to much your thoughts?

I believe 2 belts per division is the answer and here is my own opinion as to why..

- 2 belts are easier to have unification bouts with

- more belts you have more you have to pay for organizations and have mandatory bouts etc for e.g. if you were to have the WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF/IBO belts you would have to vacate one or more belts sooner or later because off all the fees and face the mandatory challengers..

- Lastly too many belts per division is no good, they should scrap the WBA/WBC and IBO because their off no use..

Instead keep the IBF and WBO belts as they seem the lesser evil out off the five since the WBC and WBA are mostly crooked....plus the IBO well I don't really see the big relevance with them tbh..

Don't get me wrong IBF has a sketchy past too with some off it's past champions but I'd rather them and the WBO remain..

[Eff Pandas]

That's a bit old school. Like Sully-Burns eras. For them, the way it ended up working out is star power kind of messing everything up.

Which is kinda true for any system anyway, but, back then if the US champion is the most famous he doesn't really need to prove anything to say the French and Mexican champions. For real, the only reason we call Sully world champion is because he's famous. He actually drew the English champion for the title.

Also, it's interesting that quite a lot of the very best national titlists or world title claimants whose claims are considered national titles today, are often not actually natives to the countries they represent. For example Langford is actually a plethora of national champions but also he's a world champion from England and a world champion from France. Or the Anglo-Franc champion. He's Canadian though.


Anyway, it'd be interesting to see a new take on old ways.

Well to be fair I think if you are in Ireland now, but are from Germany than you should be fighting for the Ireland belt. I don't think mfers should have to take trips back to their home country to be the champ there over where they live.

Pipedream doe, but I think boxing would be more popular if it was more regionally driven by having state & country titles of real importance that could create fans at the grassroots level & the sport itself would make more sense with 1 "world" champ.