Lennox Lewis 'there should only be one belt in each division' but is it actually good

[1sballotHOF]

Great point. If you never fought the #1, you can not be called a champion.

Plus, it would force fighters from across the globe to fight one another. No more record padding in your native land.

[-Jay-]

In this day and age fighters don't fight frequently enough for there to only be one belt. We'd see two championship fights in each division a year if we were lucky.

[1sballotHOF]

In this day and age fighters don't fight frequently enough for there to only be one belt. We'd see two championship fights in each division a year if we were lucky.

But those 2 championships fights would mean something. It's not like the non title fights wouldn't mean ****. It would mean 2 killers are going at it for a shot at the #1 guy. Like how all sports should be.

If your coming from the perspective of non title fights only being 10 rounds, then adjust it, according to the fight. If it's a main event/headliner fight, make it a 12 rounder.

[Ryn0]

umm...he isn't a 3 weight champion lol

The point of having multiple titles is so that all the countries in the world have a realistic chance of becoming a champion. Multiple titles seem to be a result of politics, not a symptom. One title would do away with the concept of "lineal champion".

Imagine what the middleweight division would look like now if there was one belt
Champion: Martinez
#1 Golovkin
#2 Pirog
#3 Geale
#4 Chavez
#5 Sturm
#6 Quillin
#7 Macklin
#8 Murray
#9 Mundine
#10 Taylor

Then Martinez has to fight Golovkin, and so on and so forth and the ranking wouldno longer be a favoritism contest by organisations but a list of legitimate threats to a title. Imagine if Floyd just went down the list of WBA's top 10 ranked junior middleweights now, it would be embarrassing. Trout holds the regular WBA title, Floyd holds the super title and after that the top10 consists of #2 Cotto, #5 Lara and then no one else of note.

[Ryn0]

In this day and age fighters don't fight frequently enough for there to only be one belt. We'd see two championship fights in each division a year if we were lucky.

Well if champions (and I'd say the majority) fight 3 times a year that's 3 fights against the very very best in their division. And then fight between the number's 3-4 and 2-3 ranked fighters actually mean something. It's the equivalent of say Mares and Rigondeaux fighting today they are prob numbers 1-2 after Donaire who could be the Champ.

Despite what people think of the UFC they constantly match up the best fighters in each division which is why it's popularity grew so quickly. If Boxing could do that again it would be huge.

[1sballotHOF]

Imagine what the middleweight division would look like now if there was one belt
Champion: Martinez
#1 Golovkin
#2 Pirog
#3 Geale
#4 Chavez
#5 Sturm
#6 Quillin
#7 Macklin
#8 Murray
#9 Mundine
#10 Taylor

Then Martinez has to fight Golovkin, and so on and so forth and the ranking wouldno longer be a favoritism contest by organisations but a list of legitimate threats to a title. Imagine if Floyd just went down the list of WBA's top 10 ranked junior middleweights now, it would be embarrassing. Trout holds the regular WBA title, Floyd holds the super title and after that the top10 consists of #2 Cotto, #5 Lara and then no one else of note.

Exactly. That means if the champ can hold onto the belt for years and years, then he is truly a special, once in a generation type monster. Otherwise, he'd lose it eventually, like it should be. Unless of course, your that damn good.

I also think it would eliminate a lot of nut hugging, and give some more fighters exposure, and fans. Since he would be looked upon as the undisputed best of that division. Fans would have no choice, but to respect his skills, and watch his next fight.

[kiaba360]

Imagine what the middleweight division would look like now if there was one belt
Champion: Martinez
#1 Golovkin
#2 Pirog
#3 Geale
#4 Chavez
#5 Sturm
#6 Quillin
#7 Macklin
#8 Murray
#9 Mundine
#10 Taylor

Then Martinez has to fight Golovkin, and so on and so forth and the ranking wouldno longer be a favoritism contest by organisations but a list of legitimate threats to a title. Imagine if Floyd just went down the list of WBA's top 10 ranked junior middleweights now, it would be embarrassing. Trout holds the regular WBA title, Floyd holds the super title and after that the top10 consists of #2 Cotto, #5 Lara and then no one else of note.

Would the champion automatically vacate in cases of injuries? If so, does he get bumped to the front of the line when he's healthy again, or does he have to fight the current #1 contender to get a title shot again? I feel that having one belt offers a lot of benefits. There'd be no more cherry-picking and guys wouldn't be able to jump weight-classes and jump to the front of the line for a title shot. I just don't know how easy it would be to implement. What role would the networks play? This kind of system would also allow champions to exploit their back-yard advantage, unless there's incentive for them to travel.

[1sballotHOF]

Would the champion automatically vacate in cases of injuries? If so, does he get bumped to the front of the line when he's healthy again, or does he have to fight the current #1 contender to get a title shot again? I feel that having one belt offers a lot of benefits. There'd be no more cherry-picking and guys wouldn't be able to jump weight-classes and jump to the front of the line for a title shot. I just don't know how easy it would be to implement. What role would the networks play? This kind of system would also allow champions to exploit their back-yard advantage, unless there's incentive for them to travel.

Good question. I think they'd have an interim belt in place for the winner of the #2/3 guys of the division. Then the injured champ would come back to fight the winner.

[ironmike2012]

It would be better to have one champion per division, but the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO already exist. They would have to join together somehow (not happening). The ring only gives out a belt in a #1 vs. #2 match-up or you beat the champ.
If boxing went back to 15 round fights and one champ per division the sport would benefit.

[RlCKY]

It would be much better if it was just one, then there would be no way of ducking and dodging the best.

And mandatories would become worth something again, there would be way less 3 division champions like Fernando Guerrero (who isn't a bad fighter btw). There would be no easy way to a title in a division either.

Robert....