FIFAish?

[Taansend]

Would you rather have the current multiple alphabets with their rules...

Or

A FIFA type world governing body which was obviously corrupt but you knew what was what. 10 weights, 1 champ at each

[Wales]

1 champ, one governing body. All day long.

Champ made to fight the #1 contender or someone in the top 15 which is a genuine top 15 and not one that any old tom dick or harry appears in as #15 the week before the champions fight is announced

[gilgamesh]

1 champ, one governing body. All day long.

Champ made to fight the #1 contender or someone in the top 15 which is a genuine top 15 and not one that any old tom dick or harry appears in as #15 the week before the champions fight is announced

No doubt. I'm all for Regional titles like European Champion, British Champion, Canadian Champion, North American Champion...etc. but there should only be ONE World Champion.

[Wales]

1 champ, one governing body. All day long.

Champ made to fight the #1 contender or someone in the top 15 which is a genuine top 15 and not one that any old tom dick or harry appears in as #15 the week before the champions fight is announced

No doubt. I'm all for Regional titles like European Champion, British Champion, Canadian Champion, North American Champion...etc. but there should only be ONE World Champion.

It's embarrassing seeing likes of Charles Martin being called heavyweight champion of the world when actually there were easily 15HWs who would've beaten him.

A lot of the time (almost all the time) we don't know who the #1is, so what chance does Joe public have

[Boxing Prospect]

I'm actually fine with 4 world champions, but I'm not fine with the WBA having 4 champions themselves! And the boards should all push for unification when they can.

When the titles get split up (when a fighter vacates) then it'd be nice to see the bodies work together for unification in 8 man style tournaments and things

[Wales]

Proven it can be workable too - look at the super middleweight super 6. Absolutely superb at the time and even better in hindsight

[gilgamesh]

I'm actually fine with 4 world champions,

Such words should never be spoken by a Boxing fan.

[Wales]

I could live with 4 if they had to fight the #1 contender, not random fellas who appear in the top 15 AND fought each other!

The HW division could get interesting in next 18months. Only so long the 4 champions, or top 8, can go without facing each other.

I genuinely believe Joshua will fight 2 out of Ortiz Klitschko and Parker in 2017. Although a disproportionate amount of HW title fights get postponed recently due to injuries

[Covfefe]

I don't care about multiple champions or belts, whatever helps boxers get paid more is good as far as I'm concerned. I know generally who the best in a division is, other people holding versions of the same title doesn't detract from the sport for me.

[tigermoth87]

I'm fine with 4 world champs. It means we get good fights we wouldn't otherwise have got. Take tonight's fight, would we have really got to have seen Sosa vs Smith if it wasn't for so many world titles doing the rounds?

I'm not fine with the WBA having super champ, champ in recess, interim champ type bollocks though. Have 1 title for each organistion and Ring Magazine for the actual best in the division.

[Wales]

I know generally who the best in a division is.

I generally kniw, but most divisions are out of 2 or 3 and it becomes very debatable doesn't it. Opinion versus Fact.

Who's best Heavyweight? Not on paper, but who'd be #1 had they all fought each other to get to #1 spot then fought the champ
No clear #1 cruiser?
We'll find out LHW next week, although up until recently Stevenson was always in mix
SMW pretty unclear
Find very few that'd argue it isn't GGG at MW

And so on....

[Covfefe]

I'm fine with 4 world champs. It means we get good fights we wouldn't otherwise have got. Take tonight's fight, would we have really got to have seen Sosa vs Smith if it wasn't for so many world titles doing the rounds?

I'm not fine with the WBA having super champ, champ in recess, interim champ type bollocks though. Have 1 title for each organistion and Ring Magazine for the actual best in the division.

Yeah, it's hard to excuse an organisation having multiple world champions of their own. I don't mind an interim while they wait for their title shot but a regular and then a unified champion and an interim is just a joke.

[Wales]

I'm fine with 4 world champs. It means we get good fights we wouldn't otherwise have got. Take tonight's fight, would we have really got to have seen Sosa vs Smith if it wasn't for so many world titles doing the rounds?

.

Yes we would if to climb up the single organisations rankings you had to beat a fighter above you .

[Covfefe]

I know generally who the best in a division is.

I generally kniw, but most divisions are out of 2 or 3 and it becomes very debatable doesn't it. Opinion versus Fact.

Who's best Heavyweight? Not on paper, but who'd be #1 had they all fought each other to get to #1 spot then fought the champ
No clear #1 cruiser?
We'll find out LHW next week, although up until recently Stevenson was always in mix
SMW pretty unclear
Find very few that'd argue it isn't GGG at MW

And so on....

You are right, some divisions need sorting but having just one champ wouldn't change that. If Furyl was the only HW champ and hadn't given up his title would you say he was the best out there? Too many fighters who would deserve a shot as it stands currently. For me though, as I said, the multiple titles get boxers paid. It's a very dangerous sport and anything that can increase their revenue is fine by me. It does get silly though, remember when the super six was about and people genuinely believed Bute was the best about? A fighter who fought the crumbs left out of the super six was genuinely recognised by a lot as the best at 168! The alphabets should work closer together to create tournaments for the whole shebang, not only would it increase their revenue it would create excitement around fights.

[Wales]

I'm fine with 4 world champs. It means we get good fights we wouldn't otherwise have got. Take tonight's fight, would we have really got to have seen Sosa vs Smith if it wasn't for so many world titles doing the rounds?

I'm not fine with the WBA having super champ, champ in recess, interim champ type bollocks though. Have 1 title for each organistion and Ring Magazine for the actual best in the division.

Yeah, it's hard to excuse an organisation having multiple world champions of their own. I don't mind an interim while they wait for their title shot but a regular and then a unified champion and an interim is just a joke.

Exactly. Martin Murray won "the vacant WBC silver middleweight title" - wtf is that?

[Covfefe]

I'm fine with 4 world champs. It means we get good fights we wouldn't otherwise have got. Take tonight's fight, would we have really got to have seen Sosa vs Smith if it wasn't for so many world titles doing the rounds?

I'm not fine with the WBA having super champ, champ in recess, interim champ type bollocks though. Have 1 title for each organistion and Ring Magazine for the actual best in the division.

Yeah, it's hard to excuse an organisation having multiple world champions of their own. I don't mind an interim while they wait for their title shot but a regular and then a unified champion and an interim is just a joke.

Exactly. Martin Murray won "the vacant WBC silver middleweight title" - wtf is that?

A silver title is an area title, a continental thing, I believe.

[Wales]

I know generally who the best in a division is.

I generally kniw, but most divisions are out of 2 or 3 and it becomes very debatable doesn't it. Opinion versus Fact.

Who's best Heavyweight? Not on paper, but who'd be #1 had they all fought each other to get to #1 spot then fought the champ
No clear #1 cruiser?
We'll find out LHW next week, although up until recently Stevenson was always in mix
SMW pretty unclear
Find very few that'd argue it isn't GGG at MW

And so on....

You are right, some divisions need sorting but having just one champ wouldn't change that. If Furyl was the only HW champ and hadn't given up his title would you say he was the best out there? Too many fighters who would deserve a shot as it stands currently. For me though, as I said, the multiple titles get boxers paid. It's a very dangerous sport and anything that can increase their revenue is fine by me. It does get silly though, remember when the super six was about and people genuinely believed Bute was the best about? A fighter who fought the crumbs left out of the super six was genuinely recognised by a lot as the best at 168! The alphabets should work closer together to create tournaments for the whole shebang, not only would it increase their revenue it would create excitement around fights.

Boxing losing lots of young fans to UFC and unless alphabets and promoters start working together that trend will continue.

Money in boxing is a different issue all together. Something like 1% of the fighters make 95% of the money. Wages dependent on how many tickets you can sell . For any fighter below a British title every day is a hassle chasing that dream.

Also no mandatory"tax" that gets paid into a trust or whatever for fighters who get hurt / life changing injuries. Instead families dependent on goodwill and fundraisers. Say fighters pay 2% into fund. That's only £20 on a £1000 purse but it's £100,000 on a £5,000,000 purse.

[Boxerbeetle]

I don't care about multiple champions or belts, whatever helps boxers get paid more is good as far as I'm concerned. I know generally who the best in a division is, other people holding versions of the same title doesn't detract from the sport for me.

I agree with the general sentiment about belts - I haven't cared about belts for a very very long time, they can make the top 100 boxers in each weight a world champion if it makes them feel better. But there needs to be something in place which forces the various belt holders to fight each other, or we remain in the same pathetic situation where the top boxers can avoid ever fighting each other. So for that reason alone, I'd rather have an overarching organisation which has the ability to enforce the big fights being made.

[crusader]

I don't care about multiple champions or belts, whatever helps boxers get paid more is good as far as I'm concerned. I know generally who the best in a division is, other people holding versions of the same title doesn't detract from the sport for me.

I agree with the general sentiment about belts - I haven't cared about belts for a very very long time, they can make the top 100 boxers in each weight a world champion if it makes them feel better. But there needs to be something in place which forces the various belt holders to fight each other, or we remain in the same pathetic situation where the top boxers can avoid ever fighting each other. So for that reason alone, I'd rather have an overarching organisation which has the ability to enforce the big fights being made.

This

[davie]

Would you rather have the current multiple alphabets with their rules...

Or

A FIFA type world governing body which was obviously corrupt but you knew what was what. 10 weights, 1 champ at each

If we were comparing 1 corrupt organisation with lot's of ethical holier than thou organisations, then it would be a choice.
But we are comparing 1 big corrupt shower of bastards, with lots of little corrupt mini-Fifas then it is a no brainer.

1 organisation, less titles and boxing would be a better place

[Stuarty]

I'd rather boxing was a similar model to UFC. I'm fine with all the weight classes but one champion at each weight and no red tape or politics getting in the way of the big fights happening would only benefit the sport. Of course there has to be a willingness from the fighters as well.

I'm sick or promoters, certain fighters and TV dictating who fights who! Status and form should dictate fights.

[ALI]

Proven it can be workable too - look at the super middleweight super 6. Absolutely superb at the time and even better in hindsight

It amazes that:

1. a lot of people slated it
2. it has never been repeated in any division

It was an amazing thing to happen in boxing, at a time when the biggest fights rarely happen.

Shame its not in every division, every two or 3 years!

[Andrew]

I know generally who the best in a division is.

I generally kniw, but most divisions are out of 2 or 3 and it becomes very debatable doesn't it. Opinion versus Fact.

Who's best Heavyweight? Not on paper, but who'd be #1 had they all fought each other to get to #1 spot then fought the champ
No clear #1 cruiser?
We'll find out LHW next week, although up until recently Stevenson was always in mix
SMW pretty unclear
Find very few that'd argue it isn't GGG at MW

And so on....

The winner of Badou Jack v James Degale

[Andrew]

Same amount of weight divisions

The singleworld title each weight class . This creates bigger stars in boxing. Ask the public people who world champions are they have no idea.

Single champion stops the going a different route excuse for avoiding fights . Most commonly used by Eddie Hearn and Joe Gallagher.

Single world champion then brings greater value to National and regional titles. The British title, European, a United States title should be a big deal. Winning theses should get you high rankings.

Instead of Murray, Macklin and Barker waiting around for someone to pick up a belt they could have had classics for the British and or European titles.

Speaking of which you only get high rankings beating contenders. Paul smith in the modern era can fight journey men and get 4 with the WBO. Promoters can get fights vs absolute wasters for toy belts and then they are mandatory.

The sport needs changing in a big way IMO.

[surfthehurf]

If there was one World Boxing Board, they could have a world champion for each weight, then one silver belt and a junior belt. Then each region/continent can have their belt. And the phrase 'the heavyweight champion of the world' would have more gravitas.

WBA have made it ridiculous with having more than one champion, and to the uninitiated it could be easy to mistake an 'International' or 'Intercontinental' or 'Silver' belt with an actual world title.

Not sure what would happen to the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO as companies though.

Anyone ever wondered if the Olympics will create a platinum medal?