Critics Of Boxing

[Fightnight Scores]

The best don't fight the best. They don't want to.

They should be made to. Not given a choice just told. Man Utd don’t choose to play Liverpool. They have to. Djokovic doesn’t choose to play Nadal. He knows he has to.

Boxing is the only top sport where the choice of fighting your competitors is optional. And there is no consequence to not doing so.

This only works if there was one overseeing body.

[coneye]

All this bollocks about handpicking and not fighting each other could be eliminated very very easy , by PROMOTERS , they simply should just not put them on , and its starting at grass level just goes up the ladder to the top ,

Its the promoters fault simple has that , if the promoter refuses to put Young Hatton on UNLESS he fights a 50-50 , young Hatton does'nt stink the place out unless he fronts his own money and promotes himself easy fix but will not happen

[Miguello]

•The inability for promoters to regularly make exciting 50-50 fights even at non champion level.

•The lack of depth of the current crop of boxers who can't sell themselves. Not a lot of inspiring personalities around (too many planks of wood).

•The pervasiveness of youtube boxing media which has emasculated the sport. Too many 1 hour podcasts and sit downs with fighters who aren't even active, giving their opinions on unrelated topics and gossiping about boxers who they aren't even due to fight.

[tonyevs]

I see the benefit of having more than one world title belt; but stick to the contemporary 4.
That way we get to see who the top contenders are. But I think every 2 years, 3 years max, there should be a set 4 fight tournament within a 12mnth period to identify who the Real worlds champion at that weight is.

A time limit set like the Olympics. If a belt holder is ill or injured his mandatory takes his place. The former belt holder takes mandatory as default .. no holding up the division and stopping others who are prepared and eager to fight earning a living, no just maximising personal wealth by sitting on belt.

The winner holds only the belt he previously held but has recognition of being undisputed, but only till next cycle. If he loses in the interim the 'undisputed' is vacant.

Of course that ignores TV/promoters/egos.
But when boxing has starved itself and boxers are fighting for grub tickets and a plastic trophys, or a couple hundred quid to lie down in a pretend fight with a Big Brother D-list celebrity or Tyson Fury's daughter then maybe boxing will get a reset and it will be able to generate proper fights again.

[maverick23]

I see the benefit of having more than one world title belt; but stick to the contemporary 4.
That way we get to see who the top contenders are. But I think every 2 years, 3 years max, there should be a set 4 fight tournament within a 12mnth period to identify who the Real worlds champion at that weight is.

A time limit set like the Olympics. If a belt holder is ill or injured his mandatory takes his place. The former belt holder takes mandatory as default .. no holding up the division and stopping others who are prepared and eager to fight earning a living, no just maximising personal wealth by sitting on belt.

The winner holds only the belt he previously held but has recognition of being undisputed, but only till next cycle. If he loses in the interim the 'undisputed' is vacant.

Of course that ignores TV/promoters/egos.
But when boxing has starved itself and boxers are fighting for grub tickets and a plastic trophys, or a couple hundred quid to lie down in a pretend fight with a Big Brother D-list celebrity or Tyson Fury's daughter then maybe boxing will get a reset and it will be able to generate proper fights again.

What’s the benefit in having potentially 4 world champions in the same weight?

The main issue for me is that it makes the sport more niche. We’re diehard boxing fans yet I’d probably struggle to name every boxing champion. I do know every UFC champion though. Men and women. I know UFC is only 1 organisation but it’s pretty much universally considered to be the best.

None of the benefits in having multiple guys claiming to be the best outweigh that aspect for me.

If there was one champion then they should have a mandatory to fight every 12 months against the number 1 contender and can make voluntary defences against guys in the top 10 or 15 outside of that.

There’d be no bullshit rankings with guys like Trevor Bryan becoming mandatory which should improve the quality of voluntary title and mandatory title defences.

[tonyevs]

The benefit of having multiple world champion belt holders is that it allows guys who are motivated to fight to earn money by fighting.

The contemporary way is for the top guys to fight 1-2 fights against safe opposition a year once they are in an established position.

We see how the division has been held up by Fury/AJ/Wilder who are all just sitting on their positions to earn even more money at the expense of the new guys in division. It's pure greed.

Multiple belts keep things moving. Add in other rules of a champion has to fight his mandatory within 6 months of winning title or forfeit, as the mandatory position gets forfeited if they pull out too, and things keep moving .. it's naive to suggest I know.

[maverick23]

The benefit of having multiple world champion belt holders is that it allows guys who are motivated to fight to earn money by fighting.

The contemporary way is for the top guys to fight 1-2 fights against safe opposition a year once they are in an established position.

We see how the division has been held up by Fury/AJ/Wilder who are all just sitting on their positions to earn even more money at the expense of the new guys in division. It's pure greed.

Multiple belts keep things moving. Add in other rules of a champion has to fight his mandatory within 6 months of winning title or forfeit, as the mandatory position gets forfeited if they pull out too, and things keep moving .. it's naive to suggest I know.

I think inactivity for boxers in general has never been as bad as it is now. I looked a few weeks back and in the years that Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather won their first world titles they fought 5 and 7 times respectively. Now, if a world champ fights twice a year, they’re considered fairly active.

The middleweight division has never been less interesting to me. The WBC champ last fought almost 2 1/2 years ago and the WBA champ last fought 18 months ago. Both opponents were underwhelming too.

If there was one sanctioning body then a world champ should be stripped if they go 6 months without fighting and fighters would drop out of the rankings with inactivity (as what happens in the Ring magazine rankings I think).

[tonyevs]

The benefit of having multiple world champion belt holders is that it allows guys who are motivated to fight to earn money by fighting.

The contemporary way is for the top guys to fight 1-2 fights against safe opposition a year once they are in an established position.

We see how the division has been held up by Fury/AJ/Wilder who are all just sitting on their positions to earn even more money at the expense of the new guys in division. It's pure greed.

Multiple belts keep things moving. Add in other rules of a champion has to fight his mandatory within 6 months of winning title or forfeit, as the mandatory position gets forfeited if they pull out too, and things keep moving .. it's naive to suggest I know.

I think inactivity for boxers in general has never been as bad as it is now. I looked a few weeks back and in the years that Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather won their first world titles they fought 5 and 7 times respectively. Now, if a world champ fights twice a year, they’re considered fairly active.

The middleweight division has never been less interesting to me. The WBC champ last fought almost 2 1/2 years ago and the WBA champ last fought 18 months ago. Both opponents were underwhelming too.

If there was one sanctioning body then a world champ should be stripped if they go 6 months without fighting and fighters would drop out of the rankings with inactivity (as what happens in the Ring magazine rankings I think).

I agree.

I just think (although aware it's wishful thinking) that by having a set 2-3year cycle of 4 main belt holders having to fight each other with recognition as Undisputed champion would keep the divisions moving instead of one belt holder sitting and stalling to maximise their wealth at expense of everyone else in their division.

This would be better for the sport and help share the prize money .. but understand it wouldn't enable one champion or one promoter to dominate the money pot.

[leejonesjnr]

Why do people use words when they don’t know what they mean?

[maverick23]

The benefit of having multiple world champion belt holders is that it allows guys who are motivated to fight to earn money by fighting.

The contemporary way is for the top guys to fight 1-2 fights against safe opposition a year once they are in an established position.

We see how the division has been held up by Fury/AJ/Wilder who are all just sitting on their positions to earn even more money at the expense of the new guys in division. It's pure greed.

Multiple belts keep things moving. Add in other rules of a champion has to fight his mandatory within 6 months of winning title or forfeit, as the mandatory position gets forfeited if they pull out too, and things keep moving .. it's naive to suggest I know.

I think inactivity for boxers in general has never been as bad as it is now. I looked a few weeks back and in the years that Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather won their first world titles they fought 5 and 7 times respectively. Now, if a world champ fights twice a year, they’re considered fairly active.

The middleweight division has never been less interesting to me. The WBC champ last fought almost 2 1/2 years ago and the WBA champ last fought 18 months ago. Both opponents were underwhelming too.

If there was one sanctioning body then a world champ should be stripped if they go 6 months without fighting and fighters would drop out of the rankings with inactivity (as what happens in the Ring magazine rankings I think).

I agree.

I just think (although aware it's wishful thinking) that by having a set 2-3year cycle of 4 main belt holders having to fight each other with recognition as Undisputed champion would keep the divisions moving instead of one belt holder sitting and stalling to maximise their wealth at expense of everyone else in their division.

This would be better for the sport and help share the prize money .. but understand it wouldn't enable one champion or one promoter to dominate the money pot.

I get that but if we had one champion and they had to keep active then that should keep the divisions moving.

Either way I think we can agree that the current system is helping things.

[tonyevs]

I think if there is just 1 recognised world title belt holder it's easier for things to stall as we see with Tyson Fury to a large degree.

At least Usyk has kept things moving .. if only by a trickle.

We seen how long Whyte had to wait as mandatory .. there were/are other guys just as worthy too. One world title belt holder who fights 1-2 a year, often against the softest contender (or novelty fight) is not going to help the sport or other guys in division make a living.

If recognition, and financial value, could be developed in establishing a 2-3 yearly tournament to establish the Undisputed champion I think that would solve the decline .. but, it's wishful thinking.

[maverick23]

I think if there is just 1 recognised world title belt holder it's easier for things to stall as we see with Tyson Fury to a large degree.

At least Usyk has kept things moving .. if only by a trickle.

We seen how long Whyte had to wait as mandatory .. there were/are other guys just as worthy too. One world title belt holder who fights 1-2 a year, often against the softest contender (or novelty fight) is not going to help the sport or other guys in division make a living.

If recognition, and financial value, could be developed in establishing a 2-3 yearly tournament to establish the Undisputed champion I think that would solve the decline .. but, it's wishful thinking.

Yeah. If it were a sole champion then there would have to be rules on activity to ensure the belts are active.

I’m thinking something like a mandatory every 12 months and that they can’t go something like 180 days without fighting. Pretty much ensures they fight at least twice a year against good opponents.

A universal ratings system whereby the champion had to fight someone in the top 10 or 15 as a voluntary should reduce the chances of a really poor voluntary. I don’t think any independent ratings body would have Chisora in their top 15 for example. Also it should mean the mandatory challengers are tougher as there’s no way guys like Trevor Bryan, Bogdan Dinu or even Daniel Dubois would become mandatory.

I always thought it’s stupid how poor some mandatory fights have been. Kevin Bizier and JoJo Dan in particular for Kell Brook whilst no independent organisation would think they should be even top 15, let alone number 1.

[Spud]

Wow some some damn good posts om
This thread.

[Monzon83]

The best don't fight the best. They don't want to.

They should be made to. Not given a choice just told. Man Utd don’t choose to play Liverpool. They have to. Djokovic doesn’t choose to play Nadal. He knows he has to.

Boxing is the only top sport where the choice of fighting your competitors is optional. And there is no consequence to not doing so.

This only works if there was one overseeing body.

True but at one point there was. The 4 governing bodies are all offshoots of each other.

Why can’t they be merged? If it’s all about money as long as the same people get their cut what does it matter? What do the governing bodies actually do for the sport or fighters apart from taking their cut of any fight and where does that money go?

[Ezzard]

Boxing's biggest and only issue is TV. They have the money. They could simply freeze out any governing body they wanted to. But they don't do it. It suits them. They can pay peanuts for a "world title" fight. Keep their big earners on long contracts and put them in against crash dummies for as long as they like. All the time accusing the alphabet boys as being the bad guys.

The WBO was essentially given a foothold by ITV.

If TV said we'll only pay to see a certain fight it would get made. TV holds all the aces.

[tonyevs]

Boxing's biggest and only issue is TV. They have the money. They could simply freeze out any governing body they wanted to. But they don't do it. It suits them. They can pay peanuts for a "world title" fight. Keep their big earners on long contracts and put them in against crash dummies for as long as they like. All the time accusing the alphabet boys as being the bad guys.

The WBO was essentially given a foothold by ITV.

If TV said we'll only pay to see a certain fight it would get made. TV holds all the aces.

I agree to an extent .. but look what we hearing about what made the (potential) Usyk v Fury fight. Saudi money .. the TV companies will fight amongst themselves who get the best of that.

If boxing starves itself of interest and viewers by having rubbish such as Tracey Smith who holds all the females world boxing titles, or 59 yr old Sunny Edwards defending his CBA world middleweight title for the 73rd time against Colin Thwait (who played Little Tommy in Emmerdale Farm) is all they showing then it's gets no viewers.

Boxing needs to get back it's respect and recognition. Whilst boxing will always likely be around, being able to make a living at it, let alone your fortune, is certainly not guaranteed if it's no longer attractive to view.

Shin kicking contests have been around more or less since Prizefighting in the 17th century .. it too was popular until the early 20th century .. now nothing but a gimmick sport.

[CaptainSpacerod]

Far too many weight divisions. I heard somewhere this week that the UFC only have 8 whereas boxing have 17. It all adds to the dilution of what it means to be a world champion. Merge 122 & 126, 130 & 135, 140 & 147, 154 & 160, fighters move up these divisions at will when the money’s right anyhow.

68 potential world champions - madness.

[maverick23]

Far too many weight divisions. I heard somewhere this week that the UFC only have 8 whereas boxing have 17. It all adds to the dilution of what it means to be a world champion. Merge 122 & 126, 130 & 135, 140 & 147, 154 & 160, fighters move up these divisions at will when the money’s right anyhow.

68 potential world champions - madness.

I don’t think the volume of weight divisions would be an issue but it’s heavily exacerbated by the 4 champs in each division. I’d get rid of Bridger for a start and probably super flyweight.

[CaptainSpacerod]

It’s just another illustration of how rampant greed and selfishness are ruining boxing. Sanctioning bodies would have a different weight division every two pounds of weight if they could … all they care about are the sanctioning fees.

I don’t think just removing two divisions, one of which even some hardcore boxing fans might not be aware of, goes nearly far enough.

[olij999]

Why do people use words when they don’t know what they mean?

Come on, Lee, give us some examples!

On a separate note, my complaint is people waffling about the rules of boxing without actually knowing the rules or bothering to look them up. For example, the whole Usyk-Dubois thing on how to define a low blow.

[rhino222]

Social media

Its an avenue of exposure for fighters. Fighters love to have smoke blown up their arses on social media, but they dont like a bit of critique, even in a constructive manner.

But you cant have your bread buttered on both sides. Take the rough with the smooth.

[leejonesjnr]

Why do people use words when they don’t know what they mean?

Come on, Lee, give us some examples!

On a separate note, my complaint is people waffling about the rules of boxing without actually knowing the rules or bothering to look them up. For example, the whole Usyk-Dubois thing on how to define a low blow.

What? A contemporary example?

[olij999]

Why do people use words when they don’t know what they mean?

Come on, Lee, give us some examples!

On a separate note, my complaint is people waffling about the rules of boxing without actually knowing the rules or bothering to look them up. For example, the whole Usyk-Dubois thing on how to define a low blow.

What? A contemporary example?

Any example!

[CaptainSpacerod]

Any example!

Eddie Hearn saying Conor Benn has been “cleared”

[si7dog7]

I see the benefit of having more than one world title belt; but stick to the contemporary 4.
That way we get to see who the top contenders are. But I think every 2 years, 3 years max, there should be a set 4 fight tournament within a 12mnth period to identify who the Real worlds champion at that weight is.

A time limit set like the Olympics. If a belt holder is ill or injured his mandatory takes his place. The former belt holder takes mandatory as default .. no holding up the division and stopping others who are prepared and eager to fight earning a living, no just maximising personal wealth by sitting on belt.

The winner holds only the belt he previously held but has recognition of being undisputed, but only till next cycle. If he loses in the interim the 'undisputed' is vacant.

Of course that ignores TV/promoters/egos.
But when boxing has starved itself and boxers are fighting for grub tickets and a plastic trophys, or a couple hundred quid to lie down in a pretend fight with a Big Brother D-list celebrity or Tyson Fury's daughter then maybe boxing will get a reset and it will be able to generate proper fights again.

Forget Tv, promotors ego

There is no place for more one than one World Champion. Coz it dilutes the achievement.
I was World Champion. “Yeah but Sugar Ray Leonard owned the other 3!” Yeah but but

Innit bollox?

It’s all about money.

Other sports manage it one World champion. Pretty much all sports.

Why not boxing?

We all know the answer. But, like some of the shills on this forum. (There are a couple here, fence sitters who basically have no view ( apart from their own selfish bs). Too gutless to say so.

Boxing needs a complete reboot 101. It is a cesspit.

Why do old guys reminisce about the old days? They can’t. Coz they’re all dead.

One champion. Fair rankings. Contenders having a go to get their shot.

UFC nearly have it right. Nearly.

The tide has to change with boxing. Otherwise we’ll lose the elite even more to the dollar rich sports.

The sport is dying. Reboot needed.
The correct “governing bodies” Need to put in their papers and do one. Burn in the flames.

A Phoenix needs to rise to rescue this BS.