BoxRec

Now I don't mean league in a traditional sense. But every 2 years, the top 8 in each division could be selected to take part in a straight knock out tournament. After the final we'd know who the best in the division was. This is sort of inspired by the Super Six, but I think that format is flawed.

If you were injured or pulled out, you'd lose your place, so it wouldn't mess things up like it does in the super 6.

All the QFs could be on the same bumper bill, the same with the 2 semis. The final could showcase fighters who may be in the next tournament to gain them a bit of exposure.

So rather than fighting for belts people would be fighting to get in / stay in the top 8 and then once they are in it they strive to win it. This would also bypass the belt politics and mean the best fight the best, regularly.

There could also be a relegation. The 2 lowest rank would drop out, plus you might get retirements or people moving up weights.

No it wouldn't work. At all. Have you been watching how hard it is to even make 1 fight?

Simpler - Is the 4 belt holders fight each other

3 fights & you have a unifed champion within 12 months & you could do that right through the divisions.

So simple all 4 belts haven't been unified in any division since Hopkins-Taylor?

These visions are too idealist. Who is organising it? There isn't a single governing body to oversee it and promoters don't work together.

Kilsby wrote:Simpler - Is the 4 belt holders fight each other

3 fights & you have a unifed champion within 12 months & you could do that right through the divisions.

That's still like a league system though, where pull outs would affect it, as they wouldn't in a straight knockout tournament. Plus in a league format, you run the risk of the last round of fights being meaningless. The reason I chose 8 instead of 4 is because it gives others the incentive to break into the top 8, and gives them a crack at the bigtime if they can win 3 massive fights on the spin.

If a champ has more than one belt you go to a independant ranking system (like the Ring mag) & find the highest rated challenger without a belt to make up your 2 semi finals.

Once you have your champ - you make him defend his mandatory at least once a year against the number one contender which is determined by a fight between the two highest rated challengers

Scottrf wrote:So simple all 4 belts haven't been unified in any division since Hopkins-Taylor?

These visions are too idealist. Who is organising it? There isn't a single governing body to oversee it and promoters don't work together.

It's a bit of fun and a bit of 'what if'. Not saying it is going to happen. Just looking for alternatives to the belt politics. Any suggestions?

And it wouldn't be about 'belts' or 'unifying the division'. It'd be about every 2 years finding the BEST fighter in each division.

The Bantamweights are doing a 4 man straight knockout for Showtime and that's about as good as it gets. Too much politics for anything too elaborate, and it's unlikely you will get the 4 best entered into that in many divisions at all.

Sorry for the negativity, I know it's a what if, but we get suggestions often about 'change to one belt in every division', 'get rid of super-weight classes' and none are going to happen.

Not been unifed since Calzaghe Vs Kessler you mean.......

got to keep it simple.... 3 fights...... 2 semis & a final.

If the organistions veto the fight & strip their champ - who cares??

We know he's the champ right.... 3 fights, 1 champion...... 12 months.....

Done!

Should put me in charge.

Kilsby wrote:Not been unifed since Calzaghe Vs Kessler you mean.......

No. I meant what I said.

Your idea is happening with the Bantams, and would be nice but isn't so simple as having the idea!

^^^

blow me down with a feather

Never knew Calzaghe got stripped of the IBF for fighting Manfredo!

Kilsby wrote:Not been unifed since Calzaghe Vs Kessler you mean.......

got to keep it simple.... 3 fights...... 2 semis & a final.

If the organistions veto the fight & strip their champ - who cares??

We know he's the champ right.... 3 fights, 1 champion...... 12 months.....

Done!

Should put me in charge.

Maybe that's better. So it'd be yearly. Like a trophy every year, like in the amateurs, rather than a belt. For example Joe Calzaghe might have been the Super Middleweight Champion of a certain year, and he can either decide to defend it or move up in weights/retire. No politics, you are either in or out of it, no messing about. The losing semi-finalists each year could drop out giving 2 new fighters a chance!?!

PS Kilsby, it's my organisation, we're not putting you in charge. Stop trying to steal the limelight

Why isn't it so simple as having the idea though?

If boxing politics get in the way... just give up the belt - say why your giving up the belt... to go head to head against the other champions to find out whos number 1 & the belts have no credability!

Everyone respects the champion the rest are then just contenders.... even if they lose & then pick up a "world" title...

As long as the main man does his mandatery once a year.... the other belts are irrelevant

Plus if certain fighters choose not to take part, we'll know that they are avoiding certain people.

It's not just the organisations though, it's promoters, fighters, TV stations, venues.

Some boxers need a title belt to give them credibility/money. If they 'just give up the belt' and lose they may have nowhere to go!

scottrf...

my idea my friend, but i will let you share it 8)

I did a piece on this very subject 10.12.09


http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=22211&more=1

By Stuart Young -The WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO - Do we really need them? To confuse matters even worse we now have 'new' organisations on the scene like the WBU & WBF contributing to further 'muddy the waters' to the casual boxing fan, we have multiple belt holders in the same weight class & ridiculous 'titles' bestowed upon fighters such as 'champion in recess,' or 'super champion' & 'champion emeritus' whatever the hell that means!

Are these organisations more a hindrance to our sport than a help?

In days gone by, it was much simpler, the belt used to signify the best man in that particular weight division, the Champion, the Numero Uno - the man to beat.

Now, this is no longer the case, the belts no longer solely represent the best fighter, in some cases, they represent fighters who have the best promoters, or the promoters who have the most money or the most 'contacts' within the sport, or perhaps popular fighters who have the most fans or maybe a guy who comes across as more marketable will be given more opportunities to fight for these belts than a more deserving, but less marketable fighter?

The fact that rival organisations refuse to recognise or even rate fellow 'champions' is a major flaw in their ranking systems, their individual ratings force many 'world champions' into meaningless mandatory title defences against all kinds of no-hopers where, if you refuse to 'play their game' & do as they say, they immediately relieve you of their belt.

This just adds to the confusion of the armchair fan & forces fighters to waste years, in some cases - their peak years, making meaningless mandatory defences in order to keep their 'world title' belt. These organisations are in fact robbing fighters of their career, their hunger & their talent, it must be soul destroying preparing for a bout when you know your opponent isn't on your level. These organisations & the promoters who promote these 'world title' fights should be ashamed of themselves.

If you are an elite world class fighter you are unlikely to fight more than 2-3 times a year, first, you have put your body through a gruelling 10-12 week training 'camp', the rigours of a tough 'camp' are designed to get your body in peak physical condition ready for battle, ready for a 'war', this can't be done half-heartedly or by cutting corners, boxing is a serious sport, you can't 'play' at boxing - if you've not prepared properly for battle it can have grave repercussions.


Then, in the aftermath of a bout it's understandable that fighters want a little time to let their bruises & bumps heal, time to be with their family, time to relax, maybe take a well deserved holiday, after spending close to 3 months in a training 'camp' you no doubt, would want exactly the same, not having to worry about your weight 24/7 or getting up at 5am every morning 'pounding the streets' to do your monotonous (but essential) roadwork.

These meaningless fights waste close to 6 months of a fighters career & considering fighters usually have a limited shelf-life its time that could be better spent cementing a legacy or giving us fans cracking 50/50 pick 'em fights. If you happen to be talented enough to somehow defeat a fellow 'champion' & unify two of these straps you are then expected to fight both of their mandatory’s within a 12-18 month period - or else face the wrath of one of the alphabets boys Presidents, i.e. being stripped of one of your titles.

Talk about ridiculous demands, when you also take into account the risk of injuries in training 'camps' & the voluntary defences then it's easy to see why it's nigh-on impossible to unify & keep the four main belts.

It shouldn't be like this, but this is a pattern that is set to continue whilst there is money to be made with promoters advertising 'world title fights' & these governing bodies can make a quick 'buck' from the sanctioning fees of these 'world title' fights.

The 'Ring Magazine' stands alone like a shining beacon of hope, free from the corruption of the sport, or without any prejudice or bias towards these alphabet organisations, they try to restore a sense of cohesion & clarity to the masses. It has a few simple rules, basically:-

1) You can't become a champion until to you beat the champion

2) Once champion, you can't be stripped of your title unless you lose a fight in the ring, permanently move out of the weight class or retire

Its hardly rocket science is it?

I admire your intentions but it's not up to the fan, it's up to the boxers. If they can get value from holding a 'world title' they will dance to their tune!

Not every boxer is a Mayweather who can tell the organisations where to go, or sell tickets with or without a belt. Belts bring money to a fight and a lot of boxers need the association in order to get prominance and paydays!

Kilsby wrote:1) You can't become a champion until to you beat the champion

2) Once champion, you can't be stripped of your title unless you lose a fight in the ring, permanently move out of the weight class or retire

Its hardly rocket science is it?

Except that the rules of rule 2 make a mockery of rule 1.

Yeah, the ratings scandal in '76 (?) was pretty bad.

I pay them no mind, they somehow think they legitimise the sport by doing rankings and handing belts out, yet as you say, they do exactly what the other organisations do.

The whole lineal thing is nonsense anyway.

orbtastic wrote:

Kilsby wrote:1) You can't become a champion until to you beat the champion

2) Once champion, you can't be stripped of your title unless you lose a fight in the ring, permanently move out of the weight class or retire

Its hardly rocket science is it?

Except that the rules of rule 2 make a mockery of rule 1.

Yeah, I wouldn't agree with rule number 2. In athletics, if you are injured they don't put the olympics on hold until you are fit. You relinquish your title and other people go on to fight for it. Should be the same in boxing. It's a shame if you are injured and can't fight but it's just a fact of life, shouldn't be able to hoard a belt for ages due to injury. My idea of this tournament would sort of alleviate this problem, as come rain or shine someone will be fighting for, and winning the prize every year.

It wouldn't work. Just look at the Super 6; half of the guys who started it are out of it. It could only potentially work if one promotor had all the fighters, which would be unlikely. And that probably would still be a calaminty.