BoxRec

I got bored so I decided to make a score board of what each boxing region has won in terms of titles currently held. This score board only counts WBC, WBA, WBO and IBF and interim titles are not included. Here is what I got.

1st - Mexico with 13 world titles
2nd - Mainland Europe with 12 world titles
3rd - USA with 10 world titles
4th - Asia with 7 world titles
5th - UK with 5 world titles

Other nations not listed hold onto 13 world titles at present.

One thing I found odd amongst all the title holders was that there was not a single one from the continent of Africa. I think Africa is the only continent not represented by at least one world champion at present. Very strange.

Alot to do with TV markets as well.

African fighters are tough, not easy to market and TV interest is low for non-African based shows.

When you look at population figures Britian, economical situations and
is doing okay.

Cannibal wrote:I got bored so I decided to make a score board of what each boxing region has won in terms of titles currently held. This score board only counts WBC, WBA, WBO and IBF and interim titles are not included. Here is what I got.

1st - Mexico with 13 world titles
2nd - Mainland Europe with 12 world titles
3rd - USA with 10 world titles
4th - Asia with 7 world titles
5th - UK with 5 world titles

Other nations not listed hold onto 13 world titles at present.

One thing I found odd amongst all the title holders was that there was not a single one from the continent of Africa. I think Africa is the only continent not represented by at least one world champion at present. Very strange.

Your mixing continents and nations. The whole of mainland Europe is made of many countries, so that's not a fair representation of Britain's standing.

Considering there is around 300 million people in the USA, and only 55 in the UK, think we're doing well.

http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=034006

Give that guy some time, and he'll have one.

Mattyp151 wrote:http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=034006

Give that guy some time, and he'll have one.

I'd have more fate in Ouma than him .

Corruption and an inept Boxing Board of Control in South African Boxing doesn't help.

Viva Mexico!

Nice one, Cannibal - interesting reading mate.

My only thing is you put 2 continents against 3 countries. Apples to oranges in the case of this poll/finding/whatever.

You can't consider Mainland Europe and only give the US by itself, or UK away from Europe, etc. It skews findings too much. If you said NA, EU, Asia and Africa, then you could, or you could break Europe and Asia by country to country...it would take longer, but it would make it a more valid poll.

To me, this research makes it seems you wanted to show that Americans don't have as many titles as everyone thinks.

Mattyp151 wrote:My only thing is you put 2 continents against 3 countries. Apples to oranges in the case of this poll/finding/whatever.

You can't consider Mainland Europe and only give the US by itself, or UK away from Europe, etc. It skews findings too much. If you said NA, EU, Asia and Africa, then you could, or you could break Europe and Asia by country to country...it would take longer, but it would make it a more valid poll.

To me, this research makes it seems you wanted to show that Americans don't have as many titles as everyone thinks.

That argument works with the UK mate, but America is freakin' huge! 300mil people!

jeej wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:My only thing is you put 2 continents against 3 countries. Apples to oranges in the case of this poll/finding/whatever.

You can't consider Mainland Europe and only give the US by itself, or UK away from Europe, etc. It skews findings too much. If you said NA, EU, Asia and Africa, then you could, or you could break Europe and Asia by country to country...it would take longer, but it would make it a more valid poll.

To me, this research makes it seems you wanted to show that Americans don't have as many titles as everyone thinks.

That argument works with the UK mate, but America is freakin' huge! 300mil people!

Asia contains the two most populous nations in the world...how many titles do they have....country size does not dictate world titles. Like I said, it's basically a cheap shot at America.

Mattyp151 wrote:

jeej wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:My only thing is you put 2 continents against 3 countries. Apples to oranges in the case of this poll/finding/whatever.

You can't consider Mainland Europe and only give the US by itself, or UK away from Europe, etc. It skews findings too much. If you said NA, EU, Asia and Africa, then you could, or you could break Europe and Asia by country to country...it would take longer, but it would make it a more valid poll.

To me, this research makes it seems you wanted to show that Americans don't have as many titles as everyone thinks.

That argument works with the UK mate, but America is freakin' huge! 300mil people!

Asia contains the two most populous nations in the world...how many titles do they have....country size does not dictate world titles. Like I said, it's basically a cheap shot at America.

i reckon its a communist plot myself.

headhunter wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

jeej wrote: That argument works with the UK mate, but America is freakin' huge! 300mil people!

Asia contains the two most populous nations in the world...how many titles do they have....country size does not dictate world titles. Like I said, it's basically a cheap shot at America.

i reckon its a communist plot myself.

Red Fever taking over again.

It's not a cheap shot at America. Although I am severely anti american in a lot of my view points this was not an attempt to slight American boxers. The countries that held enough titles to stand on their own I let stand on their own and the weaker scoring nations I grouped into continents. If you were to do it on individual nations then mainland europes titles would be mostly held by Germans and a couple of Ukrainians and Russians. England would have 3, Wales 1 and Scotland 1. In Asia Thailand would have a couple, as would Japan but none of them independently would be in with a challenge with the exception of Germany possibly.

Mattyp151 wrote:My only thing is you put 2 continents against 3 countries. Apples to oranges in the case of this poll/finding/whatever.

You can't consider Mainland Europe and only give the US by itself, or UK away from Europe, etc. It skews findings too much. If you said NA, EU, Asia and Africa, then you could, or you could break Europe and Asia by country to country...it would take longer, but it would make it a more valid poll.

To me, this research makes it seems you wanted to show that Americans don't have as many titles as everyone thinks.

good point, matty!!! as long as we're doing CONTINENTS, let's try this:

1.NORTH AMERICA 23 (especially relevant since about 1/2 of mexico's world champs are based in usa)...i dont know if canada has any to add to this total...

2. ALL OF EUROPE 17

Cannibal wrote:It's not a cheap shot at America. Although I am severely anti american in a lot of my view points this was not an attempt to slight American boxers. The countries that held enough titles to stand on their own I let stand on their own and the weaker scoring nations I grouped into continents. If you were to do it on individual nations then mainland europes titles would be mostly held by Germans and a couple of Ukrainians and Russians. England would have 3, Wales 1 and Scotland 1. In Asia Thailand would have a couple, as would Japan but none of them independently would be in with a challenge with the exception of Germany possibly.

So basically, you're admitting you skewed the results to benefit smaller countries, IE countries smaller than the US. You basically rewarded countries for being smaller with less champions, and made 1 country, USA, pay for not having the most, but for being one of the most populous nations with good boxing talent.

Dry your eyes Matty, it doesn't matter - this thread wont change your life... I hope!

Mattyp151 wrote:

Cannibal wrote:It's not a cheap shot at America. Although I am severely anti american in a lot of my view points this was not an attempt to slight American boxers. The countries that held enough titles to stand on their own I let stand on their own and the weaker scoring nations I grouped into continents. If you were to do it on individual nations then mainland europes titles would be mostly held by Germans and a couple of Ukrainians and Russians. England would have 3, Wales 1 and Scotland 1. In Asia Thailand would have a couple, as would Japan but none of them independently would be in with a challenge with the exception of Germany possibly.

So basically, you're admitting you skewed the results to benefit smaller countries, IE countries smaller than the US. You basically rewarded countries for being smaller with less champions, and made 1 country, USA, pay for not having the most, but for being one of the most populous nations with good boxing talent.

Yeah, that's pretty much the jist of it.

To the guy above you also, North America would be America and anything above such as Canada who have no titles at present. Mexico is South America would be counted as such if I grouped it into a continent. Yes, a lot of Mexican fighters base themselves in America but that's because it's where the money is, a lot of European fighters are based there also. They are counted by the country they represent not the country they fight in.

I'll probably do it by individual nations if I get bored enough again to satisfy y'all.