BoxRec

There is talk the WBC, WBA and IBF are working together with a view to crowning only the one world champion in each weight division.

The sooner the better IMO

AntonS wrote:There is talk the WBC, WBA and IBF are working together with a view to crowning only the one world champion in each weight division.

The sooner the better IMO

No doubt they will all still expect their sanctioning fees. Imagine what the fees will be like in a fight for all 3 titles.

Still be three separate titles and the WBO will still be around, but they're trying to make more unifications happen, good for boxing, but the cynic in me says that they're doing it because unification fight = bigger money, therefore bigger sanctioning fees.

expe wrote:Still be three separate titles and the WBO will still be around, but they're trying to make more unifications happen, good for boxing, but the cynic in me says that they're doing it because unification fight = bigger money, therefore bigger sanctioning fees.

Anyone thinking it is anything other than money driven is kidding themselves.

Like a Boss wrote:

expe wrote:Still be three separate titles and the WBO will still be around, but they're trying to make more unifications happen, good for boxing, but the cynic in me says that they're doing it because unification fight = bigger money, therefore bigger sanctioning fees.

Anyone thinking it is anything other than money driven is kidding themselves.

Course it is, they are losing status and money, UFC is taking their share of the pie.

They cannot go on like this or else boxing will die. Or, it will die as a mass spectator sport.

No one wants to watch one sided undercard bounts and the four champions duck each other.

If the three main bodies merge then the WBO won't matter, they will wither and die into a who gives a fornicate, they
are nothing but an irrelevance anyway. A unified regulatory body will put paid to them and about bloody time too.

never liked the idea of a singular world belt. What happens if there's fighters around between who it's a toss-up? One gets to walk off commanding 6 and 7 figures - and the other one, who might beat him 4 times out of 10, who works just as hard and gives as many years of his life to the sport gets to go off and fight for comparative pea-nuts.
I'm not for alphabet-spaghetti, but I think 4 titles, as it is now, gives more of those fellas a chance to earn, not to mention the contenders and any number of fighters below that something to dream.

magwitch wrote:never liked the idea of a singular world belt. What happens if there's fighters around between who it's a toss-up? One gets to walk off commanding 6 and 7 figures - and the other one, who might beat him 4 times out of 10, who works just as hard and gives as many years of his life to the sport gets to go off and fight for comparative pea-nuts.
I'm not for alphabet-spaghetti, but I think 4 titles, as it is now, gives more of those fellas a chance to earn, not to mention the contenders and any number of fighters below that something to dream.

Don't take it personally. But I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever wondered what the term World Champion is intended to mean? The best in the world is the answer and the grubby manner boxing has been run for so long has had fight fans completely forget that.

If boxing was run as a sport instead of a money grabbing competition the best fights would be made. Take a look at the way the UFC run their system. One title and the best fights do get made.

bash for cash wrote:

magwitch wrote:never liked the idea of a singular world belt. What happens if there's fighters around between who it's a toss-up? One gets to walk off commanding 6 and 7 figures - and the other one, who might beat him 4 times out of 10, who works just as hard and gives as many years of his life to the sport gets to go off and fight for comparative pea-nuts.
I'm not for alphabet-spaghetti, but I think 4 titles, as it is now, gives more of those fellas a chance to earn, not to mention the contenders and any number of fighters below that something to dream.

Don't take it personally. But I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever wondered what the term World Champion is intended to mean? The best in the world is the answer and the grubby manner boxing has been run for so long has had fight fans completely forget that.

If boxing was run as a sport instead of a money grabbing competition the best fights would be made. Take a look at the way the UFC run their system. One title and the best fights do get made.

The UFC also have guys with maybe 10 fights their names fighting it out for world titles! Could you imagine if that happened in boxing! No one would watch that garbage.

Lairdy wrote:

bash for cash wrote:

magwitch wrote:never liked the idea of a singular world belt. What happens if there's fighters around between who it's a toss-up? One gets to walk off commanding 6 and 7 figures - and the other one, who might beat him 4 times out of 10, who works just as hard and gives as many years of his life to the sport gets to go off and fight for comparative pea-nuts.
I'm not for alphabet-spaghetti, but I think 4 titles, as it is now, gives more of those fellas a chance to earn, not to mention the contenders and any number of fighters below that something to dream.

Don't take it personally. But I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever wondered what the term World Champion is intended to mean? The best in the world is the answer and the grubby manner boxing has been run for so long has had fight fans completely forget that.

If boxing was run as a sport instead of a money grabbing competition the best fights would be made. Take a look at the way the UFC run their system. One title and the best fights do get made.

The UFC also have guys with maybe 10 fights their names fighting it out for world titles! Could you imagine if that happened in boxing! No one would watch that garbage.

The UFC model is far superior to that of current day boxing. One title per division and on average far better match-ups. The 10 fight thing is not a reasonable comparison as UFC fighters fight far less frequently. Different sport. Better model.

Let's not forget that once upon a time, boxing had one champion per division too.

Lairdy wrote:Let's not forget that once upon a time, boxing had one champion per division too.

It's unlikely anyone who follows boxing passionately wouldn't be aware of that, and know that during those times the best fought the best far more regularly and rankings were more often than not earned. Not gifted or purchased as they are today.

The current day boxing model absolutely sucks and that's part of the reason the UFC has been so successful.

Like a Boss wrote:

Lairdy wrote:Let's not forget that once upon a time, boxing had one champion per division too.

It's unlikely anyone who follows boxing passionately wouldn't be aware of that, and know that during those times the best fought the best far more regularly and rankings were more often than not earned. Not gifted or purchased as they are today.

The current day boxing model absolutely sucks and that's part of the reason the UFC has been so successful.

I understand your point mate but one title is just not enough. I'm not actually convinced it would even rid the game of its shadier side. Fighters sliding up and down in the ratings and either getting ignored - or just as bad - people cropping up like Lazarus or out of nowhere as "soft" opponents.
One title doesn't give enough fighters a chance. Take football (soccer)......there's loads of cups to play for , but most teams only might get a sniff about once or twice in a generation.
How many great fighters would never have won a world title had there only been one top prize?

Also who would run it? What legal foothold if any is even held by those governing bodies who run boxing? What would happen if the fighters simply decide not to include them - such as a catchweight, non-title fight. Leonard vs Hagler for instance? (sorry if I'm mistaken).

Lairdy wrote:

bash for cash wrote:

magwitch wrote:never liked the idea of a singular world belt. What happens if there's fighters around between who it's a toss-up? One gets to walk off commanding 6 and 7 figures - and the other one, who might beat him 4 times out of 10, who works just as hard and gives as many years of his life to the sport gets to go off and fight for comparative pea-nuts.
I'm not for alphabet-spaghetti, but I think 4 titles, as it is now, gives more of those fellas a chance to earn, not to mention the contenders and any number of fighters below that something to dream.

Don't take it personally. But I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever wondered what the term World Champion is intended to mean? The best in the world is the answer and the grubby manner boxing has been run for so long has had fight fans completely forget that.

If boxing was run as a sport instead of a money grabbing competition the best fights would be made. Take a look at the way the UFC run their system. One title and the best fights do get made.

The UFC also have guys with maybe 10 fights their names fighting it out for world titles! Could you imagine if that happened in boxing! No one would watch that garbage.

doesn't sound great does it. So let's say that Carl Froch narrowly lost out to Joe Calzaghe (an outcome I'm beginning to question actually).......HOW LONG does Froch then have to wait for a rematch whilst Joe goes through Arthur Abraham, Mikkel Kessler, Jermain Taylor, Andre Ward? For ANY of these guys it's disaster. You drop out the picture and you're out in the cold for a LONG TIME. You'd have world class guys squaring off and knocking lumps out of each other and they'd be fighting just for a few quid and a "W" on their record.
One champion at the weight? Yuk!

Great idea Back to the good old days? For whoever controls it I suppose!

AntonS wrote:There is talk the WBC, WBA and IBF are working together with a view to crowning only the one world champion in each weight division.

The sooner the better IMO

I don't believe this will ever happen if anything the governing bodies have gotten worse an example being the WBA Super Champion nonsense. I don't envisage boxing ever again having one world champ per division unfortunately.