Your cure to boxing

[Heretic]

Lets say you could remove one of the bad aspects that are ruining the modern boxing. Which one would you choose?

A. Best not fighting the best.

Lately in boxing it seems like the best boxers are doing everything they can to avoid taking on hard fights. Or at least their teams and promoters are doing it for them. If you choose this option suddenly all the great fights start to happen. Fury vs Joshua. Crawford vs Spence. Loma vs Garcia. You name it all the good fight are on. Now and in the future too.

B. Eradicate corruption.

Boxing is so damn full of corruption. You know who wins the fight if it is close one well before the guys even walk into the ring. You know who the referee is going to help. Who gets stopped given any chance... Mandatories are decided by promoters and not sanctioning orgs... Heck you don't even need to fight them if you don't feel like it. This all makes boxing pretty boring and unfair. Great boxers never get what their ring skills would entitle them for if they don't have the big money behind them. If you take this option king dies in hes sleep (Not to specify which king...) and the sport becomes clean instantly. No more BS like Kovalev vs Ward. You can't actually tell who wins if GGG vs Canelo 3 is a close one. No more British stoppages for AJ.

C. End of doping.

Boxing is filled with guys that look like bodybuilders. Fighters are cutting insane amounts of weight. People eat too much of the Mexican beef. There is no testing for most of the year. People still manage to fornicate things up and we miss good fights. Fighters with good doctors and money have constant edge against boxers who need to navigate the sea of substances (banned and free) all by them selfs. With this option the playing field gets leveled. No more doping for anyone. On the plus side you would get to see the real natural size Of AJ

D. Nothings wrong with boxing.

This option is here for our old friend EO. So he won't feel left out

[greg]

..options B and C being there for good, as a moderate optimist I'll go with "A"..

[Cent0089]

A.) This is biggest problem in boxing. Promoters, managers, tv networks, fighters and fans should be doing more to solve this problem

B.) Corruption is part of whole world, I dont think this is biggest probleim in boxing, but it definitely IS a problem. But eradicate this is not possible imo.

C.) Doping is common part of boxing since 80s. Everybody dopes, not everybody get caught.

My cure of boxing? :
One boxing organisation, that mean one championship belt per division. Belt must mean something, you are world champion or you are not. All this wbabcoibfgsjkfj interimsilversupersh"t is cancer of sport.

Changes in weight divisions
Minimumweight - 105lbs
Flyweight - 112 lbs
Bantamweight - 120 lbs
Featherweight - 128 lbs
Lightweight - 135 lbs
Welterweight - 145 lbs
Light Middleweight - 155 lbs
Middleweight - 165 lbs
Super Middleweight - 175 lbs
Light heavyweight - 185 lbs
Cruiserweight - 200 lbs
Heavyweight 200lbs+

8lbs rehydratation limit for welterweight and lower, 12 lbs rehydratation for light middleweight and higher.

More WBSS tournaments and more popularity for them.

More propaganda for amateur boxing.

[SenorPipino]

I'm a D man.

Overall, there's little wrong with boxing. I wouldn't be following it since the late 60s if I didn't find it satisfying.

Maybe the only aspect that bothers me is the slicing of world championship matches from 15 to 12 rounds.

The legends fought 15. There's quite a few storied battles that went that magical distance. Those 3 extra rounds can really separate the fighters.

Bring back 15 rounders. By having the odd number of rounds, it would cut down on the number of draws.

I suppose the proliferation of weight divisions and countless world champions within each division is also a bit offputting.

But I've learned to pay little attention to all the belts. It's the fighters who are the attraction. Not the dubious world championships.

[Onetimeonly]

The cure is not overpaying for shit fights and making promoters work and build regional draws. That will never happen in the States. We're niche for good. There have always been many fights that didn't happen among the best but there was a lot more best and they were a lot more active. Just is more transparent now when they fight once or twice. Officiating has always been suspect.

[jas80s]

The cure is not overpaying for poo fights and making promoters work and build regional draws. That will never happen in the States. We're niche for good. There have always been many fights that didn't happen among the best but there was a lot more best and they were a lot more active. Just is more transparent now when they fight once or twice. Officiating has always been suspect.

So very true. If the ONLY way to make money was to fight the best? These guys would race to the ring to fight each other. I don't begrudge a fighter making money, far from it. But if you can make good money to fight guys you can beat pretty easily and then make enough money to retire off of one dangerous fight, who in their right mind would elect to run the gauntlet of every tough fighter out there??

Boxing fans that shell out for "poo fights" are a pretty significant part of the problem.

[ValMar]

Only one option ? Impossible !
A+B+C

[HeavyHitters]

1. It's always gonna be a hit and miss when it comes to best fighting the best.

2. It would be very hard to drive out all the corruption in boxing. "Anyone" can find a boxing prospect and be their manager or trainer. So there is basically an "open door" for any crooks to get into the sport.

3. There is always going to be "someone" trying to cheat the sport by doping.

4. As crazy as boxing is, it would be hard to make it better. That is all up to the fighters themselves. Rarely do you get a fighter "truly gifted" and is willing to put it all on the line, and that will fight often, even after winning a belt.

Too many heavyweights just don't put in 100% effort to get to the top. And the heavyweight division drives the sport. There are some heavyweights in the top 25 that don't even know how to jab well, or fight on the inside. They would just rather learn how to hold and hug.

5. The biggest problem with boxing now a days, is not enough of it is "FREE" for the average sports fan to watch on a regular basis. I just hope someone like PlutoTV starts putting on a regular boxing show.

[kbackup408]

I have debated about doping all the time not just in boxing but various sports - it is really hard to eradicate, the teams behind these athletes are becoming so smart from "gummies before baseball games" to "warm weather training camps"

in this hypothetical situation yes remove doping !

[gilgamesh]

1. 1 Champion per division

2. at least 7 less weight classes

[Boxtune]

Many vote" best fight best "
if there is no corruption , then best fights best and also fair judging with no corruption.

It shows how many members here have really LOW IQ ... sorry

[Heretic]

Corruption is actually what irks me the most... It is too blatant and ruins good fights...

It is to blame partially for doping too. Just need to look into Povetkin and Canelo to see the connection

It also plays a part in fights not happening. Without corruption there would be better mandatorys and you would actually need to fight them.

[ValMar]

One champion per division.

Optimum - 12 divisions, maximum - 14 divisions

Rehidration limit - 5 % of the limit for division (for example - 10 lbs for CW)

Forbidding of the catch-weight fights (at least for the fights for the titles)

Last, but not least - Can you imagine the football match Germany vs. Russia ? Can you imagine the German or Russian referee ? Even, can you imagine the referee from Belarus or Austria ?

[Contendeh]

Restore to classic 8 weight divisions, plus Cruiser for 9 total.

Force sanctioning bodies to recognize and make each other’s beltholders the mandatory matches.

It’s ridiculous that 3-4 people can all be “champion” and never need to fight one another.

Having strict anti doping policies should be a given, but that’s not at all boxing specific.

[jamamb]

Many vote" best fight best "
if there is no corruption , then best fights best and also fair judging with no corruption.

It shows how many members here have really LOW IQ ... sorry

not necessarly, you could have no corruption but the top guys refuse to fight each other or other barriers in the way

[oogiebe]

Many vote" best fight best "
if there is no corruption , then best fights best and also fair judging with no corruption.

It shows how many members here have really LOW IQ ... sorry

That's not a fair deduction. No corruption won't force the best to fight each other. You'll still have profiteering being the first goal, so maximizing profits definitely doesn't equal best vs best in the long game. It equates to keeping your record in tact to make money over a longer period of time.

[ValMar]

Many vote" best fight best "
if there is no corruption , then best fights best and also fair judging with no corruption.

It shows how many members here have really LOW IQ ... sorry

That's not a fair deduction. No corruption won't force the best to fight each other. You'll still have profiteering being the first goal, so maximizing profits definitely doesn't equal best vs best in the long game. It equates to keeping your record in tact to make money over a longer period of time.

I agree.

[HomicideHenry]

I'd get rid of the organisation's altogether. But to give them all a proper send off, four gigantic PPV events with all the champions big and small unifying the titles--- in which those titles all emerge into one championship--- undisputed.

The organizations would then form a gigantic committee becoming one board choosing who were to be the contenders for those undisputed champions.

Of course I'm only going to acknowledge the WBA, WBC, WBO, & IBF belts--- all other belts will be considered nothing more than belts to get you ranked in the top 20-15 in the world and the only way you can crack the top 10 is if you beat a tried and true gatekeeper everyone can agree on.

*************************************

Another idea I have is DIFFERENT LICENSES for different levels of competition--- therefore eliminating mismatches from the sport completely. The license classes would be: Tiersman, Journeyman, Trialhorse, Contender, & Champion and you must have 5 wins in each level before applying to the next level--- and if you lose 5+ then you either are demoted back a level or you simply cannot advance from that level until you get 5+ wins.

Exceptions are made for those with extensive amateur backgrounds, in which they will automatically be placed either as a Journeyman or Trialhorse off the bat depending on their status as an amateur--- that way nobody can say they were gifted easy wins, and nobody can be used & abused by people they can't possibly beat.

In addition to this license change, licenses would also change for promoters--- they would be required by law to place at least one match from the Tiersman and Journeyman class on their cards (in the case of large promotions such as Top Rank) to give more opportunities to people in the business.

Also, one can apply to strictly be a promoter of Tiersman or Journeyman levels--- or any level they wish--- However costs go up the greater the skillset is because the danger of the sport increases because skills kill. So, insurance/bonds are far less for a small time promoter than they would be for a place like Top Rank.

This would be a game changer because at present time the small-timers are under the same scrutiny as Top Rank, when it should not be because the levels are no and day. Why should a guy in Kansas pay out the same fees as someone from Vegas, especially when he's hosting the guy from the 7/11 versus the guy from Pizza Hut as his main event?

This would revitalize the sport and create far more opportunities.

[digzee]

Shoot Haymon.

[gilgamesh]

I'd get rid of the organisation's altogether. But to give them all a proper send off, four gigantic PPV events with all the champions big and small unifying the titles--- in which those titles all emerge into one championship--- undisputed.

The organizations would then form a gigantic committee becoming one board choosing who were to be the contenders for those undisputed champions.

Of course I'm only going to acknowledge the WBA, WBC, WBO, & IBF belts--- all other belts will be considered nothing more than belts to get you ranked in the top 20-15 in the world and the only way you can crack the top 10 is if you beat a tried and true gatekeeper everyone can agree on.

*************************************

Another idea I have is DIFFERENT LICENSES for different levels of competition--- therefore eliminating mismatches from the sport completely. The license classes would be: Tiersman, Journeyman, Trialhorse, Contender, & Champion and you must have 5 wins in each level before applying to the next level--- and if you lose 5+ then you either are demoted back a level or you simply cannot advance from that level until you get 5+ wins.

Exceptions are made for those with extensive amateur backgrounds, in which they will automatically be placed either as a Journeyman or Trialhorse off the bat depending on their status as an amateur--- that way nobody can say they were gifted easy wins, and nobody can be used & abused by people they can't possibly beat.

In addition to this license change, licenses would also change for promoters--- they would be required by law to place at least one match from the Tiersman and Journeyman class on their cards (in the case of large promotions such as Top Rank) to give more opportunities to people in the business.

Also, one can apply to strictly be a promoter of Tiersman or Journeyman levels--- or any level they wish--- However costs go up the greater the skillset is because the danger of the sport increases because skills kill. So, insurance/bonds are far less for a small time promoter than they would be for a place like Top Rank.

This would be a game changer because at present time the small-timers are under the same scrutiny as Top Rank, when it should not be because the levels are no and day. Why should a guy in Kansas pay out the same fees as someone from Vegas, especially when he's hosting the guy from the 7/11 versus the guy from Pizza Hut as his main event?

This would revitalize the sport and create far more opportunities.

Sounds ok in theory, but then you have exceptional Elite talents like Vasyl Lomachenko who are ready for the World level straight away, and would be bored, and indeed wasted by having to fight 20 fights to climb meaningless tiers to get to where they already belong.

[HomicideHenry]

Again, it depends on their abilities. If you had a Lomachenko in the equation, you could argue to put him automatically in the Contender field--- but I do think one ought to prove that they're worthwhile too.

Maybe the appropriate thing to do would be to mimic what certain states do in which you must spar in front of a panel of experts against a top level guy--- going not quite full blast but damn near it (80-90%) to determine if you could handle that kind of leap from the amateurs to the elite pros.

Maybe an 8 rounder to really gauge if you're indeed ready or not. That way nobody can really say you were given all the breaks without having earned it.

[Fightnight Scores]

A. Best to fight the best.
B. Eradicate corruption.
C. End of doping.

There's so much wrong with the sport that even each of the issues above can be broken down into several sub-issues within themselves, especially the very first issue (A). That alone can be broken down to promoters, the ABC governing bodies and TV network interests, and each of these have all of their own issues beyond not making the best match ups!

There's so many parties all out for themselves, their own profits, it's just a mish mash, and there's no real workable solution.

In another topic on here regarding Dazn snapping up more talent, I made a case that just 1 entity (be it promoter, tv network or governing body) could try to get a monopoly on things, ala the UFC, and Dazn seems to be flexing their financial muscles, but there's no amount of cash that could sort out / unify all of the above into 1 organised controlling body for the sport.

B. Is a topic of real interest for me, and in particular the judging side of things. It seems every other week we are discussing awful scorecards. Asking the question of how and why said judge saw the fight the way they did. There's always going to be poor choices (whether it's simply the way the judge truly sees the fight, or if they have been paid to make sure a sure fighter wins) so there is no real way to eradicate it, but so often we don't hear of any ramifications for bad judging (apart from very high profile cases, such as Adelaide Byrd), they simply fill out their sheet with 10-9s without any justification or reasoning behind it.

I had been thinking of why technology hasn't been introduced into the officiating aspect of the sport? We've seen advancements in health and safety changes over the years, training methods, we have (pretty simplistic and inaccurate) punch numbers/stats in play....things move with modern times, but we still have 3 people around the ring with a pencil and piece of paper sticking down some arbitrary numbers without explanation. And then a 5 minute wait at the end of the fight while they tally it all up!

Why can't we be using some modern technology, a tablet device with a digital scorecard, where the judge has to also add a REASON why they scored the round as they did, and it's all centrally monitored by some "adjudicator" and automated in tallying up the numbers at the end?

Again this wouldn't stop poor scorecards being made by a poor judge, but it would AT LEAST provide some kind of clarity as to what they are witnessing. It's a snapshot of their thinking at that moment in time as they score the round. Their scores and reasons can be interrogated and questioned if required later on if their card is deemed to be flawed in any way.

If anyone is actually interested, have created this exact scorecard concept, for fight fans to use, try out, and share with other fight fans. It utilises a set list of specified reasons why a round of boxing could be deemed to have been won, so the reasons that are selected are not unique from user to user.

This allows for some really in-depth round-by-round breakdown of statistical data which would really paint a picture of how a fight transpired (given enough users and data).

More information and links are available in my user profile

With regards to C. I think doping is, and always will be a problem in competitive sports. The testers will always be chasing the cheats, as things become discovered and banned there will be other things found and on the market. With such money to be made as a top sports start, the lure to cheat to gain an edge will always be there!

[Enlightened-One]

I seriously doubt that doping and corruption are more prevalent in boxing in comparison to other sports. These issues may exist to a certain extent, but the true magnitude of these problems is nowhere near as severe as many fight fans are claiming them to be.

In terms of “the best not fighting the best”, this is mainly due to a combination of two things:

• Rivalries between promoters, networks and the sports governing bodies, because they’re all prioritising their own financial interests over the welfare of the sport
• Boxers are known as “PRIZE fighters”, not “PRIDE fighters”, which means that their career path is usually dictated by the calculated outcome of the “risk versus reward” ratio

I honestly don’t know how we eliminate the causes for “the best not fighting the best”, because professional boxing has to be funded somehow, despite fight fans constantly moaning about the costs involved to view their beloved sport, whilst fighters’ also have to protect their own best interests (in terms of health risks and income).

I guess that sufficient market demand would overcome any fiscal and political obstacles preventing “the best not fighting the best”.

This can only be resolved by the broadcasters and promoters marketing their fighters and bouts more effectively, as well as fight fans showing willing to pay to watch their sport.

In conclusion, if there was only one thing I could change immediately, it wouldn’t be any of the issues listed by the poll, because instead I’d prefer the sport of boxing to instantaneously become a “highly-lucrative commodity”.

If boxing was big business, the sports’ governing bodies would have more money to fund anti-doping measures, the way that fights are officiated and scored would be scrutinised more (by the mainstream masses), resulting in fewer instances of perceived “corruption” and the content providers (networks & promoters) would be more inclined to work together to stage money-making marquee events.

[Thomastearns]

A. Best to fight the best.
B. Eradicate corruption.
C. End of doping.

There's so much wrong with the sport that even each of the issues above can be broken down into several sub-issues within themselves, especially the very first issue (A). That alone can be broken down to promoters, the ABC governing bodies and TV network interests, and each of these have all of their own issues beyond not making the best match ups!

There's so many parties all out for themselves, their own profits, it's just a mish mash, and there's no real workable solution.

In another topic on here regarding Dazn snapping up more talent, I made a case that just 1 entity (be it promoter, tv network or governing body) could try to get a monopoly on things, ala the UFC, and Dazn seems to be flexing their financial muscles, but there's no amount of cash that could sort out / unify all of the above into 1 organised controlling body for the sport.

B. Is a topic of real interest for me, and in particular the judging side of things. It seems every other week we are discussing awful scorecards. Asking the question of how and why said judge saw the fight the way they did. There's always going to be poor choices (whether it's simply the way the judge truly sees the fight, or if they have been paid to make sure a sure fighter wins) so there is no real way to eradicate it, but so often we don't hear of any ramifications for bad judging (apart from very high profile cases, such as Adelaide Byrd), they simply fill out their sheet with 10-9s without any justification or reasoning behind it.

I had been thinking of why technology hasn't been introduced into the officiating aspect of the sport? We've seen advancements in health and safety changes over the years, training methods, we have (pretty simplistic and inaccurate) punch numbers/stats in play....things move with modern times, but we still have 3 people around the ring with a pencil and piece of paper sticking down some arbitrary numbers without explanation. And then a 5 minute wait at the end of the fight while they tally it all up!

Why can't we be using some modern technology, a tablet device with a digital scorecard, where the judge has to also add a REASON why they scored the round as they did, and it's all centrally monitored by some "adjudicator" and automated in tallying up the numbers at the end?

Again this wouldn't stop poor scorecards being made by a poor judge, but it would AT LEAST provide some kind of clarity as to what they are witnessing. It's a snapshot of their thinking at that moment in time as they score the round. Their scores and reasons can be interrogated and questioned if required later on if their card is deemed to be flawed in any way.

If anyone is actually interested, have created this exact scorecard concept, for fight fans to use, try out, and share with other fight fans. It utilises a set list of specified reasons why a round of boxing could be deemed to have been won, so the reasons that are selected are not unique from user to user.

This allows for some really in-depth round-by-round breakdown of statistical data which would really paint a picture of how a fight transpired (given enough users and data).

More information and links are available in my user profile

With regards to C. I think doping is, and always will be a problem in competitive sports. The testers will always be chasing the cheats, as things become discovered and banned there will be other things found and on the market. With such money to be made as a top sports start, the lure to cheat to gain an edge will always be there!

Excellent post. Points A and C look unlikely to change anytime soon but the suggestion of adding judging accountability to point B would be a huge improvement on where we stand today.

Perhaps one day some higher body will take a closer look at the sport. Or keep turning a blind eye.

Ultimately though, despite slippery advertising revenue, the real power still lies in the hands of the paying fans.

[Fightnight Scores]

A. Best to fight the best.
B. Eradicate corruption.
C. End of doping.

B. Is a topic of real interest for me, and in particular the judging side of things. It seems every other week we are discussing awful scorecards. Asking the question of how and why said judge saw the fight the way they did. There's always going to be poor choices (whether it's simply the way the judge truly sees the fight, or if they have been paid to make sure a sure fighter wins) so there is no real way to eradicate it, but so often we don't hear of any ramifications for bad judging (apart from very high profile cases, such as Adelaide Byrd), they simply fill out their sheet with 10-9s without any justification or reasoning behind it.

I had been thinking of why technology hasn't been introduced into the officiating aspect of the sport? We've seen advancements in health and safety changes over the years, training methods, we have (pretty simplistic and inaccurate) punch numbers/stats in play....things move with modern times, but we still have 3 people around the ring with a pencil and piece of paper sticking down some arbitrary numbers without explanation. And then a 5 minute wait at the end of the fight while they tally it all up!

Why can't we be using some modern technology, a tablet device with a digital scorecard, where the judge has to also add a REASON why they scored the round as they did, and it's all centrally monitored by some "adjudicator" and automated in tallying up the numbers at the end?

Again this wouldn't stop poor scorecards being made by a poor judge, but it would AT LEAST provide some kind of clarity as to what they are witnessing. It's a snapshot of their thinking at that moment in time as they score the round. Their scores and reasons can be interrogated and questioned if required later on if their card is deemed to be flawed in any way.

If anyone is actually interested, have created this exact scorecard concept, for fight fans to use, try out, and share with other fight fans. It utilises a set list of specified reasons why a round of boxing could be deemed to have been won, so the reasons that are selected are not unique from user to user.

This allows for some really in-depth round-by-round breakdown of statistical data which would really paint a picture of how a fight transpired (given enough users and data).

More information and links are available in my user profile

Excellent post. Points A and C look unlikely to change anytime soon but the suggestion of adding judging accountability to point B would be a huge improvement on where we stand today.

Perhaps one day some higher body will take a closer look at the sport. Or keep turning a blind eye.

Ultimately though, despite slippery advertising revenue, the real power still lies in the hands of the paying fans.

Cheers, feel free to checkout the scorecard webapp concept I've created, details and link to the website are on my user profile. I've worked extensively on it the last 18 months and still have plenty of functionality and features that can be added to make it the best scoring app out there (plus making it into a native app for ios and android ).

Figured that only very small changes are ever likely to be implemented into boxing over time, and maybe only by consumer demand. This is the reason I created it for fight fans to use and adopt, hopefully try and get some traction behind the idea.

There's a lot that could be done with it in future with added implementations. For instance it could be picked up by a particular broadcaster for some interaction with their viewers for, bring up some pretty interesting live user scorecard/reasons data as a talking point during a fight etc.