BoxRec

Nowadays every one thinks he's champion and because belts are handed out like jelly beans, they're probably right. Back in the day when there was only one champ in each weight class being a top 10 contender actually meant something. Guys fought to get ranked up there and move up. And they were compensated. When Champ Ezzard Charles fought Joe Walcott the third or fourth time, he got paid a cool $100,000. When Rex Layne fought Rocky Marciano, each collected 25% of the live gate and any radio and television, which amounted to about $220,000. So two contenders each made more than half of what the heavyweight champion of the world was making. Nice piece of change.

Why has the status of being a top ten contender diminished over the last 30 years or so?

It's getting to be "winners take all"....and a single loss puts you out of the game. It truly does NOT allow for a "work ethic" to develop.

There is a Light Heavy...who may be the last of genuine "journeyman" fighters, who kept the door shut on the LHW division for some. I'm so damn old I can't remember his name. But as I recall, he goofed with Roy Jones, and also fought STacy the "American Clubfighter" fella. Probably the last of the genuine "old school". OK maybe Hopkins can be in that club as well. Only he's a champion.

Ahh...my brain just served it up.....Glencoffe Johnson......can you imagine this guy? Beats RJJ AND STacy in the same career? Now that's the boxing game! IMHO.

The question is, what is a top 10 contender and who determines that these days? The alphabets all have different top 10s, and some of them are positively ludicrous. True, top 10-level contenders don't have to "earn" a title shot by fighting each other because there are 4 to 7 belts per division, so they can fight cupcakes until they get a title shot. "Champions" defend against "cupcakes" on a regular basis and nobody but people like us care.
When you had one champion and one top 10, you generally had to do something to earn it and fights against other contenders mattered and could attract a lot more attention. When there were eight divisions there were eight champions and 80 top 10 contenders. Today there are 17 divisions, 68-80 "champions," and probably 250-300 fighters ranked in somebody's top 10. Everybody's a "champion" and everybody else, including cupcakes, are "contenders." Fights between "contenders" seem to be rarer despite the fact that there are now more "contenders."

Cap wrote:Nowadays every one thinks he's champion and because belts are handed out like jelly beans, they're probably right. Back in the day when there was only one champ in each weight class being a top 10 contender actually meant something. Guys fought to get ranked up there and move up. And they were compensated. When Champ Ezzard Charles fought Joe Walcott the third or fourth time, he got paid a cool $100,000. When Rex Layne fought Rocky Marciano, each collected 25% of the live gate and any radio and television, which amounted to about $220,000. So two contenders each made more than half of what the heavyweight champion of the world was making. Nice piece of change.

Why has the status of being a top ten contender diminished over the last 30 years or so?

8 weight divisions, 1 champ in each = 80 contenders, 17 weight divisons, 4 champs in each and 4 sets of contenders, it isnt hard to work out.

But the game was much more US dominated in those days. I am not sure contenders from other countries got such a good deal.

Gentlemen you all make very good points on this subject and support your claims with facts on why the sport has become a virtual circus with so many people claiming to be champion.

The incessant number of title belts and individuals claiming to be THE TRUE CHAMPION OF THE WORLD make it impossible for the average boxing fan to follow the sport with any chance of making sense of it all.

It is the reason why I rarely watch contemporary boxing any longer with the exception of Bernard Hopkins, Guillermo Rigondeaux, Andre Ward, Manny Pacquiao, and Triple GGG.

The insidious machinations of the Alphabet Organizations is one of the primary reasons why I have fallen out of love with following boxing as a sport, I am now relegated to specific events such as when the fighters I mentioned above are involved .

Sincerely
Mikey Capp

. . . when boxing ruled the world....

mikeycapp wrote:It is the reason why I rarely watch contemporary boxing any longer with the exception of Bernard Hopkins, Guillermo Rigondeaux, Andre Ward, Manny Pacquiao, and Triple GGG.

The insidious machinations of the Alphabet Organizations is one of the primary reasons why I have fallen out of love with following boxing as a sport, I am now relegated to specific events such as when the fighters I mentioned above are involved .

Me too, Mikey, me too.

Once Mayweather and Pacman attend to their business I think I will be done with the sport. The talent pool is too shallow, the belts too plentiful, the sanctioning bandits uncontrollable. It's not worth the effort any longer.

Cap wrote:Nowadays every one thinks he's champion and because belts are handed out like jelly beans, they're probably right. Back in the day when there was only one champ in each weight class being a top 10 contender actually meant something. Guys fought to get ranked up there and move up. And they were compensated. When Champ Ezzard Charles fought Joe Walcott the third or fourth time, he got paid a cool $100,000. When Rex Layne fought Rocky Marciano, each collected 25% of the live gate and any radio and television, which amounted to about $220,000. So two contenders each made more than half of what the heavyweight champion of the world was making. Nice piece of change.

Why has the status of being a top ten contender diminished over the last 30 years or so?

With 4 sanctioning bodies and the rankings a huge joke, the question is why would someone being in the top even merit high status? Often guys holding paper belts aren't even top 5 in their division!

I've now firmly joined you fellas above. Have only casual interest in current boxing. The great featherweight era of 10+ years ago (MAB, Marquez, Morales, Pac) really kept me more involved in the whole state of the game. Now there's not any division that really interests me, and the talent pools have gotten dry to the point of completely uninteresting. Yes I know flyweight and light flyweight have been good in recent years, but it's hard for me to get into divisions where most of the top fights aren't even shown on live U.S. TV.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

mikeycapp wrote:It is the reason why I rarely watch contemporary boxing any longer with the exception of Bernard Hopkins, Guillermo Rigondeaux, Andre Ward, Manny Pacquiao, and Triple GGG.

The insidious machinations of the Alphabet Organizations is one of the primary reasons why I have fallen out of love with following boxing as a sport, I am now relegated to specific events such as when the fighters I mentioned above are involved .

Me too, Mikey, me too.

Once Mayweather and Pacman attend to their business I think I will be done with the sport. The talent pool is too shallow, the belts too plentiful, the sanctioning bandits uncontrollable. It's not worth the effort any longer.

Even if they do fight, it's to the point where it doesn't mean anything. the loser will have the past his prime excuse.

As for giving up on the sport, I'm surprised you haven't given up on it already. I did several years ago, long after everyone I knew did.

Triple GGG? You mean GGGGGGGGG? That's a lot of names.

Whilst we may not like the way the fight game has developed there are still great, entertaining fights happening all the time.

Broomhall wrote:Whilst we may not like the way the fight game has developed there are still great, entertaining fights happening all the time.

I agree... It's not the fighters' fault.

Broomhall wrote:Whilst we may not like the way the fight game has developed there are still great, entertaining fights happening all the time.

Great fights all the time? I would seriously contest that . . .

Easy to blame the governing bodies (and they do very little to help the sport) but TV demanded there be titles. And really the whole sport jumps to what the TV stations want. So the alphabet families are not the only problem.

All sports have changed. Guys like us are considered a captive audience. We know the titles mean nothing. But the average Joe needs to think they are watching something more than the norm. And increasingly being a great fighter is all about devastating wins over opponents a level or three below. That's what the casual fans want.

The Tyson fights that were essentially public executions were big business. But at least Tyson went after every name out there. Roy Jones then made a fortune off beating up postmen. But the average guy didn't care. Jones's showboating was all that mattered to them.

Now we have Mayweather and his cult of apologists who lurk around these boards. A guy who has little to say but makes up for it by saying it loudly. If the guy had a bout of diarrhea they'd call it gravy.

The masses don't care too much for competitive fights. They want a show. Two contenders just don't it for them. Put a title on the line...