BoxRec

Taansend wrote: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

Certainly the latter. I mean imagine if FIFA imploded and a bunch of rival organisations fought to run the game instead? As bad as FIFA can be (and have been), it's far better to have to have one devil than a bunch of competing satans pulling the sport apart.

And that's exactly what has happened to boxing. You need a degree in genealogy just to work out who's the real champion.

Not sure I'd go to just 10 weight classes. I'd scrap Light Flyweight and Super Flyweight and maybe look to remove Super Bantamweight by changing one of the other limits, but from featherweight and above I'd keep it the same.

Aside from that though, I'd have a universal governing body with 1 world champion in each weight. Instantly scrap any silver, international, inter continental type belt. More emphasis on the British, European, domestic North American titles and the like. I'd even consider making winning your nations domestic belt a necessity before challenging for a world title.

ElJefe wrote:Not sure I'd go to just 10 weight classes. I'd scrap Light Flyweight and Super Flyweight and maybe look to remove Super Bantamweight by changing one of the other limits, but from featherweight and above I'd keep it the same.

Aside from that though, I'd have a universal governing body with 1 world champion in each weight. Instantly scrap any silver, international, inter continental type belt. More emphasis on the British, European, domestic North American titles and the like. I'd even consider making winning your nations domestic belt a necessity before challenging for a world title.

Japan have a domestic rule similar to that. A fighter must win either the JBC or OPBF (I think the WBO Asia Pacific may be added next year) before they can fight for a title on Japanese soil

ElJefe wrote:Not sure I'd go to just 10 weight classes. I'd scrap Light Flyweight and Super Flyweight and maybe look to remove Super Bantamweight by changing one of the other limits, but from featherweight and above I'd keep it the same.

Aside from that though, I'd have a universal governing body with 1 world champion in each weight. Instantly scrap any silver, international, inter continental type belt. More emphasis on the British, European, domestic North American titles and the like. I'd even consider making winning your nations domestic belt a necessity before challenging for a world title.

In Taansends dream world there are ten weight divisions.

The lightest is under 50kg

Heaviest over 100kg

Eight others in between.

I prefer the UFC type set up as a boxing fan. However from the fighters perspective I understand it's not ideal. Somewhere in the middle would be good.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

Wales wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote: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?

Using a single ranking system whereby to get a title shot you have to climb the rankings by beating guys above you and champion must fight highest available ranked opponent then he would be. As it stands Fury had beaten nobody in top 10 (15 even?) But got a crack at unified champion.

Batshit crazy

Naandrew wrote:

Wales wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote: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

Ramirez in the mix too?

Wales wrote:

Naandrew wrote:

Wales wrote:
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

Ramirez in the mix too?

I'd have Ramirez Number 1 based purely on his complete dominance of Abraham. I love Degale but Ramirez's win is as agood as any of theirs. I hope to see him against the winner of James v Jack but I know that if Degale wins he'll probably have a fight at home against a Callum Smith.

And if Smith is as good as many think then he v Ramirez would be a potentially fantastic fight.

Taansend wrote:

Wales wrote:

Naandrew wrote:
The winner of Badou Jack v James Degale

Ramirez in the mix too?

I'd have Ramirez Number 1 based purely on his complete dominance of Abraham. I love Degale but Ramirez's win is as agood as any of theirs. I hope to see him against the winner of James v Jack but I know that if Degale wins he'll probably have a fight at home against a Callum Smith.

And if Smith is as good as many think then he v Ramirez would be a potentially fantastic fight.

True Ramirez has the best win now. But the winner or Degale and Jack will have a better victory plus it will be against a prime fighter. Also both Degale and Jack are top 2 in ring magazine so it will be for the ring belt.

Anyone who puts alphabet belts shouldnt even be a fan of the sport,alphabet belts have ruined the sport of boxing

TheDarkDestroyer wrote: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.

Couldn't disagree more. For me multiple world champions hurt the sport more than anything else.

It devalues the term world champion
Confuses most sport fans (ie the market)
Makes it far to easy for the top guys to avoid each other
Consistently results in one sided title fights
Devalues regional belts (poorer standard of fighter contesting them)
Means multi and confused policies on major rules and sanctions (peds testing and suspensions, bout rules, scoring appeals, rankings manipulation,etc)

And that's just the start. Trying to repair a sport with multiple sanctioning bodies is like hearding bloody cats - as good as impossible.

Take the heavys as an example. If there was just one title you'd be looking at fights between Joshua, Klit, Fury, Parker, Wilder and Povetkin next year. That's real quality. At NABA level you'd have Stirvine, Ruiz jnr, Molina, Eddie's Cuban (mind blank!) and at a push Miller. At European there would be Wallich, Pulev, Haye, Ustinov, Chisora and Takam and at British, Price, Fury jnr, Whyte, Allan, Sexton and Cornish.

How does that not look better than the dross and missmatches that will be served up next year? I mean Shannon fu***ng Briggs for f**ks fu***ng sake man!

fizzjambo wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote: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.

Couldn't disagree more. For me multiple world champions hurt the sport more than anything else.

It devalues the term world champion
Confuses most sport fans (ie the market)
Makes it far to easy for the top guys to avoid each other
Consistently results in one sided title fights
Devalues regional belts (poorer standard of fighter contesting them)
Means multi and confused policies on major rules and sanctions (peds testing and suspensions, bout rules, scoring appeals, rankings manipulation,etc)

And that's just the start. Trying to repair a sport with multiple sanctioning bodies is like hearding bloody cats - as good as impossible.

Take the heavys as an example. If there was just one title you'd be looking at fights between Joshua, Klit, Fury, Parker, Wilder and Povetkin next year. That's real quality. At NABA level you'd have Stirvine, Ruiz jnr, Molina, Eddie's Cuban (mind blank!) and at a push Miller. At European there would be Wallich, Pulev, Haye, Ustinov, Chisora and Takam and at British, Price, Fury jnr, Whyte, Allan, Sexton and Cornish.

How does that not look better than the dross and missmatches that will be served up next year? I mean Shannon fu***ng Briggs for f**ks fu***ng sake man!

I bet you were stood up by the end of that weren't you?

Boxing is a dangerous sport, anything that can maximise the earnings of people who contest this sport is good by my book.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote: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.

Couldn't disagree more. For me multiple world champions hurt the sport more than anything else.

It devalues the term world champion
Confuses most sport fans (ie the market)
Makes it far to easy for the top guys to avoid each other
Consistently results in one sided title fights
Devalues regional belts (poorer standard of fighter contesting them)
Means multi and confused policies on major rules and sanctions (peds testing and suspensions, bout rules, scoring appeals, rankings manipulation,etc)

And that's just the start. Trying to repair a sport with multiple sanctioning bodies is like hearding bloody cats - as good as impossible.

Take the heavys as an example. If there was just one title you'd be looking at fights between Joshua, Klit, Fury, Parker, Wilder and Povetkin next year. That's real quality. At NABA level you'd have Stirvine, Ruiz jnr, Molina, Eddie's Cuban (mind blank!) and at a push Miller. At European there would be Wallich, Pulev, Haye, Ustinov, Chisora and Takam and at British, Price, Fury jnr, Whyte, Allan, Sexton and Cornish.

How does that not look better than the dross and missmatches that will be served up next year? I mean Shannon fu***ng Briggs for f**ks fu***ng sake man!

I bet you were stood up by the end of that weren't you?

Boxing is a dangerous sport, anything that can maximise the earnings of people who contest this sport is good by my book.

Even if it means soft matchmaking and a relative lack of fights between the best?

crusader wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:
Couldn't disagree more. For me multiple world champions hurt the sport more than anything else.

It devalues the term world champion
Confuses most sport fans (ie the market)
Makes it far to easy for the top guys to avoid each other
Consistently results in one sided title fights
Devalues regional belts (poorer standard of fighter contesting them)
Means multi and confused policies on major rules and sanctions (peds testing and suspensions, bout rules, scoring appeals, rankings manipulation,etc)

And that's just the start. Trying to repair a sport with multiple sanctioning bodies is like hearding bloody cats - as good as impossible.

Take the heavys as an example. If there was just one title you'd be looking at fights between Joshua, Klit, Fury, Parker, Wilder and Povetkin next year. That's real quality. At NABA level you'd have Stirvine, Ruiz jnr, Molina, Eddie's Cuban (mind blank!) and at a push Miller. At European there would be Wallich, Pulev, Haye, Ustinov, Chisora and Takam and at British, Price, Fury jnr, Whyte, Allan, Sexton and Cornish.

How does that not look better than the dross and missmatches that will be served up next year? I mean Shannon fu***ng Briggs for f**ks fu***ng sake man!

I bet you were stood up by the end of that weren't you?

Boxing is a dangerous sport, anything that can maximise the earnings of people who contest this sport is good by my book.

Even if it means soft matchmaking and a relative lack of fights between the best?

Yes.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote: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.

Couldn't disagree more. For me multiple world champions hurt the sport more than anything else.

It devalues the term world champion
Confuses most sport fans (ie the market)
Makes it far to easy for the top guys to avoid each other
Consistently results in one sided title fights
Devalues regional belts (poorer standard of fighter contesting them)
Means multi and confused policies on major rules and sanctions (peds testing and suspensions, bout rules, scoring appeals, rankings manipulation,etc)

And that's just the start. Trying to repair a sport with multiple sanctioning bodies is like hearding bloody cats - as good as impossible.

Take the heavys as an example. If there was just one title you'd be looking at fights between Joshua, Klit, Fury, Parker, Wilder and Povetkin next year. That's real quality. At NABA level you'd have Stirvine, Ruiz jnr, Molina, Eddie's Cuban (mind blank!) and at a push Miller. At European there would be Wallich, Pulev, Haye, Ustinov, Chisora and Takam and at British, Price, Fury jnr, Whyte, Allan, Sexton and Cornish.

How does that not look better than the dross and missmatches that will be served up next year? I mean Shannon fu***ng Briggs for f**ks fu***ng sake man!

I bet you were stood up by the end of that weren't you?

Boxing is a dangerous sport, anything that can maximise the earnings of people who contest this sport is good by my book.

Not really mate, I've felt that way since I started boxing myself and probably well before that.

I appreciate your point but to be honest I don't agree with it. As things stand it much easier to end up with mis-matches at 12 round level which, for me, is as dangerous as the sport gets. With 4 sanctioning bodies you could have anywhere between top 40-60 boxers ranked in a top 15 to get a voluntary shot over 12 rounds.

Look at Briggs? Slow, old, good chin, and a shite defence - he's in real danger of getting seriously hurt - for me he'd be no where close to a legitimate top 15 so he wouldn't get close to a title shot now and thus another pummeling like he took last time.

Good fighters can make buttons because their weight class isn't fashionable and there are another 60 odd champions to pick from instead. Is that fighters getting properly rewarded?

fizzjambo wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:
Couldn't disagree more. For me multiple world champions hurt the sport more than anything else.

It devalues the term world champion
Confuses most sport fans (ie the market)
Makes it far to easy for the top guys to avoid each other
Consistently results in one sided title fights
Devalues regional belts (poorer standard of fighter contesting them)
Means multi and confused policies on major rules and sanctions (peds testing and suspensions, bout rules, scoring appeals, rankings manipulation,etc)

And that's just the start. Trying to repair a sport with multiple sanctioning bodies is like hearding bloody cats - as good as impossible.

Take the heavys as an example. If there was just one title you'd be looking at fights between Joshua, Klit, Fury, Parker, Wilder and Povetkin next year. That's real quality. At NABA level you'd have Stirvine, Ruiz jnr, Molina, Eddie's Cuban (mind blank!) and at a push Miller. At European there would be Wallich, Pulev, Haye, Ustinov, Chisora and Takam and at British, Price, Fury jnr, Whyte, Allan, Sexton and Cornish.

How does that not look better than the dross and missmatches that will be served up next year? I mean Shannon fu***ng Briggs for f**ks fu***ng sake man!

I bet you were stood up by the end of that weren't you?

Boxing is a dangerous sport, anything that can maximise the earnings of people who contest this sport is good by my book.

Not really mate, I've felt that way since I started boxing myself and probably well before that.

I appreciate your point but to be honest I don't agree with it. As things stand it much easier to end up with mis-matches at 12 round level which, for me, is as dangerous as the sport gets. With 4 sanctioning bodies you could have anywhere between top 40-60 boxers ranked in a top 15 to get a voluntary shot over 12 rounds.

Look at Briggs? Slow, old, good chin, and a shite defence - he's in real danger of getting seriously hurt - for me he'd be no where close to a legitimate top 15 so he wouldn't get close to a title shot now and thus another pummeling like he took last time.

Good fighters can make buttons because their weight class isn't fashionable and there are another 60 odd champions to pick from instead. Is that fighters getting properly rewarded?

There's loads in boxing that I disagree with. Briggs getting a title shot is certainly one of them, though I thought this back when he fought Vitali never mind this many years later. I don't claim to have to have the answers for boxing, no one can but such a simple system is far too open to abuse. We get shocking decisions now, how is anyone going to get a fair shake in a fight when so much money rides on one single fight under this league type system? We can't even get fair judges now, one overall body is open to far more abuse than several. Look at FIFA for Christ sake, one of the single most crooked systems you will ever see. Boxing would be no different, the people who would suffer the most would be boxers.

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

Not sure, but if it involved terms such as "oblivion" and "burny fires of hell" then I'd be satisfied

fizzjambo wrote:
Not really mate, I've felt that way since I started boxing myself and probably well before that.

I appreciate your point but to be honest I don't agree with it. As things stand it much easier to end up with mis-matches at 12 round level which, for me, is as dangerous as the sport gets. With 4 sanctioning bodies you could have anywhere between top 40-60 boxers ranked in a top 15 to get a voluntary shot over 12 rounds.

Look at Briggs? Slow, old, good chin, and a shite defence - he's in real danger of getting seriously hurt - for me he'd be no where close to a legitimate top 15 so he wouldn't get close to a title shot now and thus another pummeling like he took last time.

Good fighters can make buttons because their weight class isn't fashionable and there are another 60 odd champions to pick from instead. Is that fighters getting properly rewarded?

Fizz, is you user name a reference to your football allegiance?

If so, FTH mate.

Ps, your also absolutely bang on the money regarding boxing.

davie wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:
Not really mate, I've felt that way since I started boxing myself and probably well before that.

I appreciate your point but to be honest I don't agree with it. As things stand it much easier to end up with mis-matches at 12 round level which, for me, is as dangerous as the sport gets. With 4 sanctioning bodies you could have anywhere between top 40-60 boxers ranked in a top 15 to get a voluntary shot over 12 rounds.

Look at Briggs? Slow, old, good chin, and a shite defence - he's in real danger of getting seriously hurt - for me he'd be no where close to a legitimate top 15 so he wouldn't get close to a title shot now and thus another pummeling like he took last time.

Good fighters can make buttons because their weight class isn't fashionable and there are another 60 odd champions to pick from instead. Is that fighters getting properly rewarded?

Fizz, is you user name a reference to your football allegiance?

If so, FTH mate.

Ps, your also absolutely bang on the money regarding boxing.

FTH indeed mate! 19/05/2012!!

Not enough Scots on here to pick it up too often though.