BoxRec

$5 says the one world government lot will be on soon.

It all depends how the organisation was run. If it was one terrible organisation it'd be even worse.

Therealjudge wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:It all depends how the organisation was run. If it was one terrible organisation it'd be even worse.

It would have to be a strong outfit that could be held accountable! Anything less would be a sham! So many bad and confusing decisions across the board at the moment.. Something's gotta change for the good of the sport!

Have you seen how bad FIFA is? Trouble is how would any of his happen? Surely they'd need to merge. And what's to say that the WIBPCFO or whatever it's called wouldn't be as bad as everyother before it, especially since it's the same idiots in charge, and then we'd just get a new one, and it all start again.

Therealjudge wrote:

Evander wrote:$5 says the one world government lot will be on soon.

Are you talking about boxing mate or in general? It was a question more for the boxing purest / big fans... By the way a fiver is not a strong bet in my book!!

Just cracking a joke but interesting you said that.

BitPlayer wrote:

Therealjudge wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:It all depends how the organisation was run. If it was one terrible organisation it'd be even worse.

It would have to be a strong outfit that could be held accountable! Anything less would be a sham! So many bad and confusing decisions across the board at the moment.. Something's gotta change for the good of the sport!

Have you seen how bad FIFA is? Trouble is how would any of his happen? Surely they'd need to merge. And what's to say that the WIBPCFO or whatever it's called wouldn't be as bad as everyother before it, especially since it's the same idiots in charge, and then we'd just get a new one, and it all start again.

Any single federation can be bad, but four is always worse. At least there aren't 4 world champion soccer teams, and Germany/Spain/France/Italy/etc. is not allowed to defend a title against Luxemburg/Andorra/Monaco/San Marino. ... and Uzbekistan can't buy themselves an interim world title.

It would be better for the fan's if there was only one World Champion but for the boxer's i'm not quite sure because the fighter's won't have a World Title belt to negotiate a bigger purse when a BIG fight is on the table

Therealjudge wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:It would be better for the fan's if there was only one World Champion but for the boxer's i'm not quite sure because the fighter's won't have a World Title belt to negotiate a bigger purse when a BIG fight is on the table

I don't necessarily much less belts.. Just an organisation that can hand out punishments were there needed.. And basically regulate the sport fairly.. For example.. It would have the power to make amends were there needed.. No robberies etc..More strict rules and punishments for bad officials.. Stuff like that..

That's true and to be fair I was just thinking from a pro boxer's view it would be good one governing body surely that would help boxing overall

yes. one mega organization, one champion in each division. more transparancy. the best fight the best, any time.

I'd be happy if the WBA and their ridiculous amount of "interm champs", "super champs", "champ in recess" nonsense caved. Seriously, they have interim champs even when the regular champ is still active...

Wouldn't shed a tear if the IBF and their shitty mando/eliminator choices disappeared for good too.

Chepppaaa wrote:yes. one mega organization, one champion in each division. more transparency. the best fight the best, any time.

That is exactly what can't happen.

In many ways it is the best it has been since with, multiple champions (8 in some divisions) no right minded boxing fan takes much notice. Multiple titles serve the TV companies, their schedules and help more boxers earn a living. There are a lot of positives to the way it is.

World champions today realise they make the really big money by fighting the other champions.

The top 15 in each organisation really adds up to 50 available fighters in each weight class as challengers.

The best organisation is the IBO, by far the worst is the WBA, the WBO and IBF are pretty bad which leaves the WBC as the best.

Yep one governing body will solve it.

It would never work.

world ranked wrote:It would never work.

And the current scheme does?

boxers have actually never had it so good, more titles mean more money for the boxers, the purists dont like it but they aint the ones taking the punches

littlepug wrote:boxers have actually never had it so good, more titles mean more money for the boxers, the purists dont like it but they aint the ones taking the punches

Every boxer is a champion. Every kid wins a ribbon. Welcome to the 21st century.

Tony1244 wrote:

littlepug wrote:boxers have actually never had it so good, more titles mean more money for the boxers, the purists dont like it but they aint the ones taking the punches

Every boxer is a champion. Every kid wins a ribbon. Welcome to the 21st century.

sort of, newcomers are gonna find it hard work but the knowledgable fans know who the real champs are

littlepug wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

littlepug wrote:boxers have actually never had it so good, more titles mean more money for the boxers, the purists dont like it but they aint the ones taking the punches

Every boxer is a champion. Every kid wins a ribbon. Welcome to the 21st century.

sort of, newcomers are gonna find it hard work but the knowledgable fans know who the real champs are

That's true, but it's difficult for a sport to thrive if newcomers can't understand it.

foxdog1923 wrote:

world ranked wrote:It would never work.

And the current scheme does?

No, but what organization could even work worldwide. PBC might be the close thing kinda like UFC getting all the main guys but it will always be a secondary market

good point tony, what a bloody mess

...in theory, not a bad idea...ain't gonna happen though...too late, the pie has been cut, too many interests involved..no one's gonna give back what is "rightfully" his...

Yes.

I just don't know how it's enforced. What keeps someone with a few dollars and no scruples to anoint a new "champion?"

Even on boxing boards with supposedly knowledgeable fans, you see people refer to Joshua-Martin as a title match.

There should only be 1 Champion per division if that's what you're asking, and we could lose at least 6 or 7 weight classes easy.

Yes for loads of reasons mainly as there would be a legitimate no 1 at each weight that people would want to fight with no alternative to ducking to call them selves champion IE people not fighting Rigondeaux or targeting the weakest champion.

It would also make regional titles much more important too IE British, European etc.

IBF is the one. Others just offshore organisations. Their local titles and bodies in some cases are not even registered correctly. Where is the office of WBC CISBB? Where they pay taxes?

Because of the nature of the sport (individual vs. team), it would be very difficult to have one body to govern it. So how does boxing become more "fair"..? For starters, a refusal by all fighters to pay sanctioning fee's. the greedy organizations will implode and the ones who really care about the sport will flourish. Secondly, the boxing public will have to stop recognizing the most corrupt of organizations. Boxing will take care of itself and go in a better direction, but the fans also have to do their part. But, if we keep buying ppv's, recognizing trinket titles, etc., those who run the sport will take full advantage of it. I equate boxing with American politics. If you don't like either candidate, but go out and vote for the "lesser of two evils", you're not allowing yourself a third option, and are actual empowering the very governing body you have a gripe with. The power is always there in numbers, you just have to utilize those numbers (boxing fans) and harness the power.