BoxRec

What boxing fans want, what almost all boxing fans want, more than just about anything (boxing related), is that there should be one unified champion in every division, right?

There was a time when fans used to yearn for the days when there were only eight weight divisions and most sports fans could name most of the champions. Get rid of that namby-pamby Junior Middleweight, Super-Bantamweight, Light-Flyweight shite and get back to how it was. I think we are almost exclusively in favour of the betweenerweight divisions now aren’t we?

So back to unified champions. It sounds appealing. I suppose it is absurd to imagine a new governing body interested only in the welfare of boxers and boxing knowing that their own survival will be assured by being seen as a force for good in the sport. Sorry I’ve always been a bit of an idealist, so let’s imagine the WBC, as the purported senior body, get to regulate the whole sport and the other alphabet boys wither up and die of lack of attention/ income. How are we going to feel about each champion fighting twice a year as an average?
How much more scope is there for the stand-out contender to get permanently ducked because the champion is a bit shy, or maybe the governing body don’t like him or his national commission etc?.

It would make things much easier for casuals to keep track of who’s champ and they may help expand the fanbase, but do we really care about the casuals? We know who is the best or at least we have our opinions, that do occasionally get put to the test. The beauty is with an abundance of champions there is always something going on and exciting match-ups on the horizon.

In the nineteen-****ies the top fighters would always be fighting other top fighters, there was always something happening but can we be sure that unified champs would bring that situation about again in this day and age, or would it just mean a wholesale decrease in the number of quality fights?

I don’t have any answers but I’m not entirely sure that the “perceived wisdom” is as unquestionably desirable as we all tend to take for granted.

I’d be interested in your thoughts about it …

Twelve weight divisions would be optimum.
Catch-weights should be forbidden.
One division - one champion.

I can not see the solution of problems with judges and refs. It is, and unfortunately it will be, cancer for boxing.

How do you see the possible drawbacks i suggested, notably fewer title fights, possibly fewer elite level fights generally, longer waiting lists for a title shot and generally fewer opportunities?

I don't know if this is a frequently discussed topic on this forum but I was both surprised and disappointed by the spontaneous outburst of indifference.

Thank you for your input ValMar, I appreciate it.

candyslim wrote:How do you see the possible drawbacks i suggested, notably fewer title fights, possibly fewer elite level fights generally, longer waiting lists for a title shot and generally fewer opportunities?

I don't know if this is a frequently discussed topic on this forum but I was both surprised and disappointed by the spontaneous outburst of indifference.

Thank you for your input ValMar, I appreciate it.

You are welcome.
I suppose that you as a Brit can not imagine that in the same time there are three or four champions of Europe in football (let as say : UEFA - Barcelona, EUFA - Real Madrid, UEFC - Bayern, EUFC - Arsenal). It would be a pure farce, and would never been accepted by fans.

If there is only one champion per weight division, paper champions and milking titles would be avoided, it would be fewer title fights, but I do not think it would be fewer elite level fights generally, on the contrary....The genuine champions would be more recognizable, and boxing would become more popular world-wide.

Seventeen divisions x 4 belts = 68 world champions --- this is really crazy, surrealistic scenario. I will repeat that 12 divisions is optimal number, so it would be perfect - 12 champions for 12 divisions, or I would rather say on this way - one absolute champion (HW) plus eleven champions per divisions.

As I said before, I can not see "modus operandi" to solve the problems with corrupted judges and refs, and without the solution, boxing will become dying sport, slowly, but surely.

The fighter's weight difference between night of weighing and fight night weight should be strictly limited - maximum 5 % of weight in order to avoid situations where, for example, fighter boxing at LMW-154, on the fight night weighing 180 - CW.......

If we're talking about ideal worlds, ideally there would be real quality rankings fights to have the privilege of being the number 1 contender. Which intodays world is an alphabet champion.

It certainly would put a lot more emphasis on the meaning champion, and the meaning of being number 1 contender

One World Champion per division is the way it should be, I have no issue with their being regional titles though.

European Champion
British Champion
North American Champion
Australian Champion
Canadian Champion
United States Champion

etc.

But there should only be ONE World Champion.

And as for weight classes. No I don't think we need 17 weight classes.

The following weight divisions could all get the axe tomorrow, and I wouldn't miss 'em at all.

Jr. Flyweight (108 pounds)
Jr. Bantamweight (115 pounds)
Jr. Featherweight (122 Pounds)
Jr. Lightweight (130 pounds)
Jr. Welterweight (140 pounds)
Jr. Middleweight (154 pounds)
Super Middleweight (168 pounds)

The rest could stay.

I wouldn't mind if Super Middleweight stayed either. The smallest of these bunch seem completely unnecessary.

candyslim wrote:How do you see the possible drawbacks i suggested, notably fewer title fights, possibly fewer elite level fights generally, longer waiting lists for a title shot and generally fewer opportunities?

I don't know if this is a frequently discussed topic on this forum but I was both surprised and disappointed by the spontaneous outburst of indifference.

Thank you for your input ValMar, I appreciate it.

Fewer title fights would be good because it would mean they're that much MORE significant when they do happen. As it is, most people don't care who over half the "Champions" in the sport are because they're not really Champions.

As for "Possibly fewer elite level fights"...I highly doubt that would be the case. In fact I'd say it'd be the opposite. If there was only ONE Champion, then the contenders would have to actually EARN their title shot instead of just protecting an unbeaten record long enough to get offered a title shot. Guys would have to actually beat the other contenders to be considered a top contender worthy of his shot at the crown.

There's basically no negatives, only positives to having one champion per division. The only negatives would be for the sanctioning bodies that would be losing money...and those pricks deserve to lose money.

gilgamesh wrote:One World Champion per division is the way it should be, I have no issue with their being regional titles though.

European Champion
British Champion
North American Champion
Australian Champion
Canadian Champion
United States Champion

etc.

But there should only be ONE World Champion.

And as for weight classes. No I don't think we need 17 weight classes.

The following weight divisions could all get the axe tomorrow, and I wouldn't miss 'em at all.

Jr. Flyweight (108 pounds)
Jr. Bantamweight (115 pounds)
Jr. Featherweight (122 Pounds)
Jr. Lightweight (130 pounds)
Jr. Welterweight (140 pounds)
Jr. Middleweight (154 pounds)
Super Middleweight (168 pounds)

The rest could stay.

I wouldn't mind if Super Middleweight stayed either. The smallest of these bunch seem completely unnecessary.

Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:One World Champion per division is the way it should be, I have no issue with their being regional titles though.

European Champion
British Champion
North American Champion
Australian Champion
Canadian Champion
United States Champion

etc.

But there should only be ONE World Champion.

And as for weight classes. No I don't think we need 17 weight classes.

The following weight divisions could all get the axe tomorrow, and I wouldn't miss 'em at all.

Jr. Flyweight (108 pounds)
Jr. Bantamweight (115 pounds)
Jr. Featherweight (122 Pounds)
Jr. Lightweight (130 pounds)
Jr. Welterweight (140 pounds)
Jr. Middleweight (154 pounds)
Super Middleweight (168 pounds)

The rest could stay.

I wouldn't mind if Super Middleweight stayed either. The smallest of these bunch seem completely unnecessary.

Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

Just one remark - Do we need European and British champion in the same time ? UK belongs to Europe... Or not ?

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:One World Champion per division is the way it should be, I have no issue with their being regional titles though.

European Champion
British Champion
North American Champion
Australian Champion
Canadian Champion
United States Champion

etc.

But there should only be ONE World Champion.

And as for weight classes. No I don't think we need 17 weight classes.

The following weight divisions could all get the axe tomorrow, and I wouldn't miss 'em at all.

Jr. Flyweight (108 pounds)
Jr. Bantamweight (115 pounds)
Jr. Featherweight (122 Pounds)
Jr. Lightweight (130 pounds)
Jr. Welterweight (140 pounds)
Jr. Middleweight (154 pounds)
Super Middleweight (168 pounds)

The rest could stay.

I wouldn't mind if Super Middleweight stayed either. The smallest of these bunch seem completely unnecessary.

Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

140 has been one of the best weight classes in my time as a fan so I'd definitely miss, I just think it'd be better for the sport overall if all "Jr" or "Super" weight classes ceased to exist.

gilgamesh wrote:

candyslim wrote:How do you see the possible drawbacks i suggested, notably fewer title fights, possibly fewer elite level fights generally, longer waiting lists for a title shot and generally fewer opportunities?

I don't know if this is a frequently discussed topic on this forum but I was both surprised and disappointed by the spontaneous outburst of indifference.

Thank you for your input ValMar, I appreciate it.

Fewer title fights would be good because it would mean they're that much MORE significant when they do happen. As it is, most people don't care who over half the "Champions" in the sport are because they're not really Champions.

As for "Possibly fewer elite level fights"...I highly doubt that would be the case. In fact I'd say it'd be the opposite. If there was only ONE Champion, then the contenders would have to actually EARN their title shot instead of just protecting an unbeaten record long enough to get offered a title shot. Guys would have to actually beat the other contenders to be considered a top contender worthy of his shot at the crown.

There's basically no negatives, only positives to having one champion per division. The only negatives would be for the sanctioning bodies that would be losing money...and those pricks deserve to lose money.

Very good post !

ValMar wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:One World Champion per division is the way it should be, I have no issue with their being regional titles though.

European Champion
British Champion
North American Champion
Australian Champion
Canadian Champion
United States Champion

etc.

But there should only be ONE World Champion.

And as for weight classes. No I don't think we need 17 weight classes.

The following weight divisions could all get the axe tomorrow, and I wouldn't miss 'em at all.

Jr. Flyweight (108 pounds)
Jr. Bantamweight (115 pounds)
Jr. Featherweight (122 Pounds)
Jr. Lightweight (130 pounds)
Jr. Welterweight (140 pounds)
Jr. Middleweight (154 pounds)
Super Middleweight (168 pounds)

The rest could stay.

I wouldn't mind if Super Middleweight stayed either. The smallest of these bunch seem completely unnecessary.

Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

Just one remark - Do we need European and British champion in the same time ? UK belongs to Europe... Or not ?

Yes. Europe is ALL of Europe

Britian would only include the U.K. leaving out several fighters

gilgamesh wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:One World Champion per division is the way it should be, I have no issue with their being regional titles though.

European Champion
British Champion
North American Champion
Australian Champion
Canadian Champion
United States Champion

etc.

But there should only be ONE World Champion.

And as for weight classes. No I don't think we need 17 weight classes.

The following weight divisions could all get the axe tomorrow, and I wouldn't miss 'em at all.

Jr. Flyweight (108 pounds)
Jr. Bantamweight (115 pounds)
Jr. Featherweight (122 Pounds)
Jr. Lightweight (130 pounds)
Jr. Welterweight (140 pounds)
Jr. Middleweight (154 pounds)
Super Middleweight (168 pounds)

The rest could stay.

I wouldn't mind if Super Middleweight stayed either. The smallest of these bunch seem completely unnecessary.

Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

140 has been one of the best weight classes in my time as a fan so I'd definitely miss, I just think it'd be better for the sport overall if all "Jr" or "Super" weight classes ceased to exist.

OK, maximum 14 divisions, minimum 8 divisions, but optimum should be 12 divisions.

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ValMar wrote: Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

140 has been one of the best weight classes in my time as a fan so I'd definitely miss, I just think it'd be better for the sport overall if all "Jr" or "Super" weight classes ceased to exist.

OK, maximum 14 divisions, minimum 8 divisions, but optimum should be 12 divisions.

We'd probably be in agreement about which ones could be cut first.

I'd say 108, 115 and 122 could be cut first. Wouldn't you agree?

I'd keep 105 because Jimmy Wilde one of the Legendary Flyweights supposedly often weighed less than 100 pounds, so it'd be fair for their to be a 105 pound weight class for the very extremely small guys like that.

gilgamesh wrote:

ValMar wrote:

ValMar wrote: Generally speaking, I agree with your idea about ONE champion and regional titles.
Personally, I would vote to retain 140 and 154, I agree with the rest of post.

Just one remark - Do we need European and British champion in the same time ? UK belongs to Europe... Or not ?

Yes. Europe is ALL of Europe

Britian would only include the U.K. leaving out several fighters

Honestly, competition in UK could be stronger than in the rest of Europe. Excluding Russia and Ukraina, and partly Poland and Germany, boxing is becoming dead in the rest of Europe. Sad, but true..........

gilgamesh wrote:

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
140 has been one of the best weight classes in my time as a fan so I'd definitely miss, I just think it'd be better for the sport overall if all "Jr" or "Super" weight classes ceased to exist.

OK, maximum 14 divisions, minimum 8 divisions, but optimum should be 12 divisions.

We'd probably be in agreement about which ones could be cut first.

I'd say 108, 115 and 122 could be cut first. Wouldn't you agree?

I'd keep 105 because Jimmy Wilde one of the Legendary Flyweights supposedly often weighed less than 100 pounds, so it'd be fair for their to be a 105 pound weight class for the very extremely small guys like that.

Yes, 108, 115 and 122..............

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ValMar wrote: Just one remark - Do we need European and British champion in the same time ? UK belongs to Europe... Or not ?

Yes. Europe is ALL of Europe

Britian would only include the U.K. leaving out several fighters

Honestly, competition in UK could be stronger than in the rest of Europe. Excluding Russia and Ukraina, and partly Poland and Germany, boxing is becoming dead in the rest of Europe. Sad, but true..........

The U.K. is definitely the hot bed of Boxing in Europe no question, but there still is a difference between being British Champion as opposed to European Champion, every now and again you might have some badasses out of Spain or Germany or something to challenge you if you're Euro Champ.

That's just like I wouldn't have a problem with their being a United States Champion as well as a North American Champion...97 times out of 100 the North American Champ would probably be from the United States, but still there should be a title available for a high quality Mexican or Canadian fighter to contend for should he come along.

In the my part of the world (Balkan, from Croatia to Turkey) there is only one prospect - Hrgović, Croatia and one solid fighter - Pulev, Bulgaria.
The end of story........
Have you heard for any high level fighter from, let us say, Spain or Portugal ? Holland or France ? ...etc....etc
No ! You have not, of course.....
As I said before, there are several decent and half-decent boxers in Germany and Poland, and that's it......

Plenty of fights didn't get made in the 90's, there was a King/Arum, Showtime/HBO feud. The thing was is that there were more top fighters and they fought more often. The single biggest problem in Boxing is the fighters are overpaid, the promoters are overpaid, the managers are overpaid and the casinos and cable networks that overpaid them for decades is cutting the chord. The future, here in America, will have a lot more PPV's and the fighters will be working on deals like Kovalev just did.

I'm fine with the weight classes, no more than two legit belts though.

ValMar wrote:In the my part of the world (Balkan, from Croatia to Turkey) there is only one prospect - Hrgović, Croatia and one solid fighter - Pulev, Bulgaria.
The end of story........
Have you heard for any high level fighter from, let us say, Spain or Portugal ? Holland or France ? ...etc....etc
No ! You have not, of course.....
As I said before, there are several decent and half-decent boxers in Germany and Poland, and that's it......

As a matter of fact I have.

Yvan Mendy is French and is currently in my Top 15 at Lightweight
Kiko Martinez is from Spain and though he's shopworn now was a legitimate contender

There aren't a ton of World Class fighters from those places, but there's some.

Holland is one of the top countries in the world as far as producing badass kickboxers, boxers not so much.

Valmar you can't get rid of British belt and just have European. The British Lonsdale belt has some of the best tradition in boxing.

It's the old school way to the top

Regional title
National title
Commonwealth
British title
European
World

ValMar wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

candyslim wrote:How do you see the possible drawbacks i suggested, notably fewer title fights, possibly fewer elite level fights generally, longer waiting lists for a title shot and generally fewer opportunities?

I don't know if this is a frequently discussed topic on this forum but I was both surprised and disappointed by the spontaneous outburst of indifference.

Thank you for your input ValMar, I appreciate it.

Fewer title fights would be good because it would mean they're that much MORE significant when they do happen. As it is, most people don't care who over half the "Champions" in the sport are because they're not really Champions.

As for "Possibly fewer elite level fights"...I highly doubt that would be the case. In fact I'd say it'd be the opposite. If there was only ONE Champion, then the contenders would have to actually EARN their title shot instead of just protecting an unbeaten record long enough to get offered a title shot. Guys would have to actually beat the other contenders to be considered a top contender worthy of his shot at the crown.

There's basically no negatives, only positives to having one champion per division. The only negatives would be for the sanctioning bodies that would be losing money...and those pricks deserve to lose money.

Very good post !

I agree - especially with regard to last line. Thanks for your comments folks, there are some good ones although I suspect some describe how things ought to work under one champ per division rather than how it might actually work. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.

ValMar your Europe comment it's all a question of levels. Many fighters miss out some or all but the classic path to the top for a British fighter historically would be fight for an "area title" say for example the English "Central area title" There are national titles within the UK, take the"Scottish title" for example but it's the British title that's the big one historically. The next step up before World level is the European or the Commonwealth titles.

Britain may be in Europe but dispensing with the British title would be like English football clubs competing in European competition while disbanding the (English) Premier League.