Are Paper Champions good for boxing ?

[FLINT ISLAND]

All these paper titles out there - IBA , WBF, WBU , WBO, , etc, etc..........even WBA, IBF and WBC have been lost alot of their worth into todays crazy World title climate.

On one hand these paper titles they are cluttering up the sport and confsuing fans and completly devaluing what it is to be a "World" Champion: I dont know of any other sport in the World where being a World Champion can come so cheaply.

On the other hand they give fighters - from these shores - the chance to call themselves "World" Champions and make a decent living off the back of their new found status as a "World" Champion - when the reality is they can never be really competitive at World level.

So are you for or against these numreous low rent cheap "World" titles ?

[DG.]

Are pointless threads any good for the forum?

[damianhucker1]

The only thing im against is someone holding the wbu title calling themselves world champion , no your not world champion , your wbu champion , theres a big difference , the only time you can call yourself world champion is to win wba , wbc , wbo , ibo , ibf even then sometimes its a bit daft , as in some titles its the fighter that makes the title . if matthew hatton won the wba , he wouldnt be able to call himself world champion unless he beat world level opponents . i know technically hed be world champion , but if then say pacman challenged him and he avoided him and fought say ndou again , and then avoided mosley and fought malignaggi and then avoided .... and so on , he would only be a paper champion as to me a champion is more than just holding a belt. at least thats how i see it nowdays

[bigjack]

All these paper titles out there - IBA , WBF, WBU , WBO, , etc, etc..........even WBA, IBF and WBC have been lost alot of their worth into todays crazy World title climate.

On one hand these paper titles they are cluttering up the sport and confsuing fans and completly devaluing what it is to be a "World" Champion: I dont know of any other sport in the World where being a World Champion can come so cheaply.

On the other hand they give fighters - from these shores - the chance to call themselves "World" Champions and make a decent living off the back of their new found status as a "World" Champion - when the reality is they can never be really competitive at World level.

So are you for or against these numreous low rent cheap "World" titles ?

I'm all for fighters earning money from so called 'world titles'.true hardcore fans know who the real champs are,but the general public can be fooled into thinking that say for instance khan is the best in his weight division.

[MrBoxingUK2]

are paper champions good for boxing? bit of a stupid question

[banjo]

No.

[stujones]

I actually think having more than one world champion per devision IS good for boxing..... although it shouldn't be more than 4. These Super/Normal/Interim mess and these other sanctioning bodies.

Could you imagine these days if there was only one champion - there would be so many criticisms of the champion (he should take him, no him).... plus you cannot beat the feel of an unification match.

[jimb0d]

They are terrible.

Fans just want to know who the best fighter is.

[MrBoxingUK2]

I actually think having more than one world champion per devision IS good for boxing..... although it shouldn't be more than 4. These Super/Normal/Interim mess and these other sanctioning bodies.

Could you imagine these days if there was only one champion - there would be so many criticisms of the champion (he should take him, no him).... plus you cannot beat the feel of an unification match.

i disagree. 4 is way too much. 2 max for me. boxing will never be all about the best fighting the best. because the ufc have only 1 belt per weight class they have the best fighting the best and you have to fight real contenders before getting a shot at the title instead of beating 20 journeyman then getting a undeserved shot.

[stujones]

UFC is run differently though - one major promoter (isn't it?)it didn't work like that in the olden days of boxing - the term "bum of the month" was invented in the days of one champion.

I just in boxing these days, with multiple promoters, multiple tv channels some fighters need belts to get some power - good fighters. I don't think in a talent fueled Light Welterweight devision - guys like Tim Bradley would never get the opportunity to fight for the world title.

[whicker]

Perhaps they need to rethink the concept of "Champion" - so the winner of a contest at WBU level at least is acknowledged, without the phoney "World Champion" flim flam.

Even just calling them "beltholder" and not "Champion" could be a start.

[winkveron]

This poll coming from an Enzo Mac/Joe Calzaghe fan, how ironic!

[TempleSlave]

No, they're not. Those 'lower class' boxers should just fight for national/continental/intercontinental titles within just one (I have a dream...) federation and still get paid some decent money but those many paper 'world champs' are just confusing for general public and put people off the sport.

[dondada]

There are plenty of decent titles available for 'average' boxers or those on the up (or indeed, down) - if it's Britain we're talking about. Area, Celtic, English. I don't even object to the Masters, really. But even then they have to push it and have a bag of jizz International Masters.

The proliferation of bodies and their terrible belts is the biggest problem in boxing for so many reasons.

Good thread - always worth highlighting.

[hitman_hatton1]

for the fighters they serve a purpose.

and no real alternative has ever been come up with.

unfortunately the sanctioning bodies got greedy and ruined there own reputations.

hence the reason the belts are so lightly regarded these days.

[hitman_hatton1]

UFC is run differently though - one major promoter (isn't it?)it didn't work like that in the olden days of boxing - the term "bum of the month" was invented in the days of one champion.

I just in boxing these days, with multiple promoters, multiple tv channels some fighters need belts to get some power - good fighters. I don't think in a talent fueled Light Welterweight devision - guys like Tim Bradley would never get the opportunity to fight for the world title.

yep.

for good honest fighters like bradley the belts more than serve a purpose.

and that's why promoters will never turn there backs on the sanctioning bodies.

bradley of course should be a double champion right now but for the politics of the sanctioning bodies.

[stujones]

No, they're not. Those 'lower class' boxers should just fight for national/continental/intercontinental titles within just one (I have a dream...) federation and still get paid some decent money but those many paper 'world champs' are just confusing for general public and put people off the sport.

I aint talking about the lower class fighters. The domestic level fighters winning world titles and then headlining a "world championship bill" is not good for the sport... I just think, there are a number of world class fighters, but not that marketable - who would never have got a shot it wasn't for a window provided by having more than one champion.

Take Welter/Light Welter in recent years.

We've had - Cotto, Hatton, Mosley, Oscar, Floyd, Pacquaio, Williams, Bradley, Campbell, Judah, Kostya, Gatti, Castillo, Witter, Margarito, Santos, Forrest, Malignaggi, etc etc - all "champions" and/or fight for championships... all very worthy to be in the mix.... However, some of them would never have got the chance if it wasn't for there being more than one champion and these needed the belt to elevate themselves to the elite status. With one belt, I don't think it would have happened

Now people are saying that Paul Williams could be the best Welterweight (I doubt he makes the weight myself) and Bradley is the best Light Welter - I don't think either would have got the chance if it wasn't for their being 4 organisations which widens the talent depth.

Years ago it worked somewhat better, but I think in this day an age - in this ages where rematches are so popular - what we would have seen was the likes of Cotto, Hatton, Oscar, Floyd, etc fight it out (several times).... maybe even Manny would have been frozen out.

Guys like Bradley, Williams, Clottey etc would not chairman of the who needs him club and actually never get the chance.

Thats my take.

[FLINT ISLAND]

This poll coming from an Enzo Mac/Joe Calzaghe fan, how ironic!

Hey I never said I was a fan of Enzo Mac or Joe Calzaghe - they are just Welsh fighters thats all - and I happen to be from Wales - so have followed their careers with interest..

Although - yes true - they were both "Paper" Champions - but in Calzaghes case - he went on to win the IBF and WBC and WBA - and beat Hopkins and Roy Jones in the USA at Light Heavyweight so he was obviously a World Class Champion.

But yes - Calzaghe for much of his career - is a example of someone making a living defending a phoney World title.

However in Calzaghes case he was different in that he was much much better than most paper champions - as he proved when he fought proper World class fighters and cleaned up the other belts.

[FLINT ISLAND]

are paper champions good for boxing? bit of a stupid question

Yes but the flip side of it is this - it has allowed fighters like :

Gary Lockett
Enzo Maccarenelli
Takloo
Anthony Farnell
Gavin Rees
etc
etc

to have "World" Champion status which gives them a bit of celebrity and allows them to cash in and make alot more money than if they were just a run of mill fighter.

Dont get me wrong - you should be able to make a good living as a British Champion - but these days its not as attractive as being a World Champion

We all know the above fighters when they have really stepped up have never been real World Class Champions

Takloo acquitted himself ok against Daniel Santos but was never gonna win

Maccarenelli and Lockett were both destroyed when they fought the NO 1 in their division.

Gavin Rees done ok - but was found out against Kotlenik

And Anthony Farnell never fought a World Class fighter because he was found out before he got a chance too.

But even though they got exposed at World level - they still managed to have a World title and make a good living in the mean time - more money they would have made without one.

So there is a plus side to having these bogus World titles about.....................for the fighters at least.

[oliverfennell]

The lower-tier titles (WBU, WBF, etc) don't bother me because everybody knows their real place. What does rile me is the increasing trend of interim belts.

[oliverfennell]

I dont know of any other sport in the World where being a World Champion can come so cheaply.

Most sports have multiple world champions, and among professional combat sports, boxing is actually the best-run. At least the competitors aren't tied to individual companies. It might take a lot to make Pacquaio-Mayweather happen, but theoretically it IS possible. However you will never see the UFC champ vs the WEC champ, WKA vs K1, WWE vs TNA, and so on.

[Captain Hook]

Are pointless threads any good for the forum?

x2 WTF?

[Captain Hook]

are paper champions good for boxing? bit of a stupid question

Yes but the flip side of it is this - it has allowed fighters like :

Gary Lockett
Enzo Maccarenelli
Takloo
Anthony Farnell
Gavin Rees
etc
etc

to have "World" Champion status which gives them a bit of celebrity and allows them to cash in and make alot more money than if they were just a run of mill fighter.

Dont get me wrong - you should be able to make a good living as a British Champion - but these days its not as attractive as being a World Champion

We all know the above fighters when they have really stepped up have never been real World Class Champions

Takloo acquitted himself ok against Daniel Santos but was never gonna win

Maccarenelli and Lockett were both destroyed when they fought the NO 1 in their division.

Gavin Rees done ok - but was found out against Kotlenik

And Anthony Farnell never fought a World Class fighter because he was found out before he got a chance too.

But even though they got exposed at World level - they still managed to have a World title and make a good living in the mean time - more money they would have made without one.

So there is a plus side to having these bogus World titles about.....................for the fighters at least.

Rees was WBA champ fair and square so what are you talking about?

[Chris W 1982]

More emphasis should be placed on Area and English Titles.

[tonyevs]

Too many champions are looking for pay days rather than worthy challenges.

So the title can get put on hold, thus denying top guys ever getting close to a title shot.

In an ideal world there would be an independant commision sancioning who fights who. If a guy wants a soft route to the top ... then he`d be wasting a lot of years .
The down side then though would be title reigns would be shortened significantly ... you could guarantee there wouldn`t be an undisputed champ longer than a couple years.