BoxRec

N.B - I'm not saying this will ever happen, it's just a thread about the possibility.

You always see people comparing Boxing and MMA make the point that "MMA is better because the best fight the best" or even "UFC is better because the best fight the best." The UFC's branding and promotion is so good that it has become synonymous with MMA as a sport to the extent that many casual fans don't know the difference. They see the UFC and MMA as the same thing, when in fact the UFC is similar to a boxing governing body such as the WBC, WBA etc aside from the fact that boxing governing bodies don't sign fighters to exclusive contracts.

My question is if a boxing governing body, I used the example of the WBC as it is probably the most prestigious, copied what Zuffa did in buying about other organisations (Strikeforce, WEC, PRIDE/WBA, IBF, WBO), would they be able to have a similar effect on boxing? Would one governing body even have the money to do this, if they have, why haven't they tried it? Also, what is stopping a huge company buying all 4 boxing governing bodies and starting up as their own Zuffa/UFC style company - surely the potential profit would be astronomical if implemented properly with the best fighters under one roof?

Again, I KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, anyone who posts to tell me it's a stupid idea is hereby pre-emptively declared a moron.

The WBA (and ultimately from that the IBF and WBO) was an offshoot of the WBC. What causes the sanctioning bodies to exist would not cease to exist - the need to have world champions for promoters to, you know, promote. You have to understand; every promoter that sits there and blathers on about how there are too many belts is full of it. They want as many belts as they can promote fighters holding them. If the WBC buys out other bodies, then there will simply be new belts and more sanctioning bodies.

zorndeslammes wrote:The WBA (and ultimately from that the IBF and WBO) was an offshoot of the WBC. What causes the sanctioning bodies to exist would not cease to exist - the need to have world champions for promoters to, you know, promote. You have to understand; every promoter that sits there and blathers on about how there are too many belts is full of it. They want as many belts as they can promote fighters holding them. If the WBC buys out other bodies, then there will simply be new belts and more sanctioning bodies.

Not to contradict you, but I believe that the WBA is the older of the two organizations.
It evolved from the old NBA with dated back to the '20s & the WBC was formed by several smaller organizations back in the early '60s.

sweetviolenturge wrote:

zorndeslammes wrote:The WBA (and ultimately from that the IBF and WBO) was an offshoot of the WBC. What causes the sanctioning bodies to exist would not cease to exist - the need to have world champions for promoters to, you know, promote. You have to understand; every promoter that sits there and blathers on about how there are too many belts is full of it. They want as many belts as they can promote fighters holding them. If the WBC buys out other bodies, then there will simply be new belts and more sanctioning bodies.

Not to contradict you, but I believe that the WBA is the older of the two organizations.
It evolved from the old NBA with dated back to the '20s & the WBC was formed by several smaller organizations back in the early '60s.

You are correct the WBA is the older of the two

Yeah but the wbc evolved from the nysa which was previously in agreement with the wba on who was champion!

fanman wrote:Yeah but the wbc evolved from the nysa which was previously in agreement with the wba on who was champion!

nope. you had separate titlists going all the way back, and nysac was ALWAYS the real champ
and the nba was an alternative title formed by promoters who didn't want new york to have
a monopoly on title fights. if they had already fought,the nysac world champ had always already
beaten the nba and if they hadn't already fought and there was a unification bout the nysac
world champ always beat the nba. think willie pep and sal bartolo, but there are many more
examples. when the nysac joined the BBBofC and EBU and asian and latin commissions to
form the wbc, the nba just changed their name to the wba and became an alternative title
again (same deal on head to head meetings). the ibf (usba) and wbo (PR+DR+carib) broke
away from the wba after the wba was taken over and moved to panama and got really corrupt
(as if they all aren't corrupt.)

ElJefe wrote:anyone who posts to tell me it's a stupid idea is hereby pre-emptively declared a moron.

gee willikers, and do they get noogies, too?

I think that we're seeing a version of this happen in Boxing right now with Haymon and the PBC. Instead of acquiring the various alphabet organizations, it appears Haymon's goal is to acquire all of the boxers and book all of the main venues on preferred dates ahead of time to block others out. Eventually, Top Rank, Golden Boy and smaller promotion arms of boxing will be out of business and will be unable to compete with Haymon. It will happen in the next 5 years and that's why Arum, Oscar, Duva have tried suing Haymon to stop what is inevitable.

It's my opinion that at some point in the next couple of years, the PBC will introduce another Word Title- The PBC Championship. He will then not allow any of his boxers to pursue other world titles. The PBC Championship will end up being the one and only true championship belt and the alphabet titles will cease to exist and i'm all for it. With one title in each weight class, the game is changed forever and now you will see UFC type model with fight nights every month on PPV with several title fights on each card between the best boxers in each division. HBO and SHOWTIME would jump on board with this idea in a second and we'd be off to the races and boxing will be better than its ever been.

All I want you to do is explain to me and every-one else how the fu.k does the WBC hold the most prestige :?? :?? do you earn more money defending the WBC then you would if you was defending the WBA/WBO/IBF I DOUBT IT

campfire wrote:All I want you to do is explain to me and every-one else how the fu.k does the WBC hold the most prestige :?? :?? do you earn more money defending the WBC then you would if you was defending the WBA/WBO/IBF I DOUBT IT

The belts are not prestigious. The champion makes them prestigious

campfire wrote:All I want you to do is explain to me and every-one else how the fu.k does the WBC hold the most prestige :?? :?? do you earn more money defending the WBC then you would if you was defending the WBA/WBO/IBF I DOUBT IT

in the 60's, 70's, 80's the wbc was definitely THE title, but by the time they were faced with liquidation
after the rocchigiani court ruling, they were shamelessly breaking all their own rules. after usba president
bob lee broke his organization away from the wba when the wba became a cesspool, and formed the
ibf, bob lee got caught money laundering, evading taxes, and taking bribes to corrupt the ibf's rankings
and title situation and was indicted, fined, convicted, and jailed. all 4 major titles these days are competing
with each other to see who can be the lowest down dirty rats in boxing. ibf is still to this day under investigation
for doing the exact same stuff and the wbc, wba, and wbo probably wouldn't even deny doing it all. saying
the ufc should be the model is just like saying one of these dirty rat organizations should monopolize all of
boxing the way they monopolize the MMA "sport" with maybe 20 pros in it at most making their living off of
fight purses over very short careers.