BoxRec

Now that Hatton has handed back his WBA Light Welterweight title (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4974472.stm) it raises the old politics question.

Yes, I know that technically Hatton had to hand back his title before challenging for the WBA Welterweight belt (or lose his Light-Welter belt), but does this mean he will not be a two weight world champion?

I cannot think of another sport where there are so many rulings, governing bodies, politics etc...!!! Surely it was easier when there were less titles available, less governing bodies and so on.

For the average fan in the street it will look as though Hatton has held the WBU belt, then the IBF which he handed back, then the WBA which he has handed back and now challenging for the WBA again (ableit at Welter) - the average fan will not understand why.

Anyway, my rantings aren't going to change the world - but boxing politics no longer suprise me!


Koomey
-----------
http://www.calzaghe.co.uk

It's a load of shit and always has been.

Every few months I get totally sick to the stomach of the sport - and politics and bullshit is the main reason.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:It's a load of shit and always has been.

Every few months I get totally sick to the stomach of the sport - and politics and bullshit is the main reason.

Now now sir, no need to swear.

You may upset the fistic luminaries.

It makes my head hurt trying to keep track of all the belts, who has been stripped blah blah blah, to the extent that I simply cannot be fornicating arsed with it any more. From now on I intend to try where possible to entirely ignore the belts and focus on the fights and fighters.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:It's a load of shit and always has been.

Every few months I get totally sick to the stomach of the sport - and politics and bullshit is the main reason.

Aside from a few exceptions my only posts on here in recent weeks have been about football, which says it all really.....

The lack of regular shows on Sky (featuring the domestic best) is really encouraging my interest in the sport to drip away....

We get a string of exciting fights to look forward to and my enthusiasm abounds once again but it does seem to go around in cycles and at the moment the time I spend thinking about boxing is declining by the day.

Its mad as soon as he has too real fights he looses the belts he has won over politics arrgh

In a word - FRUSTRATING...

But, imagine how frustrating it must be for the boxers themselves.

Another thing, am I correct in saying that when a boxer actually 'hands back' a belt (or loses it in the ring for that matter) does he physically give the belt back or does the governing body let him keep that one?

I've been at fights where boxers have taken their belt into the ring and gave it to the stewards, they lose, then the winner seems to get a brand new belt. E.g. - At the Calzaghe-Lacy fight JC had a new belt (still had the stickers on)....?

Koomey

Tthe sanctioning bodys make a new belt for every fight at least the big 3 do. THey proberbly bring there old ones in the ring and give them to the stewards to take back to the dressing room or something.

If fighters fought 5+times a year instead of this twice a year nonsense then politicswould play a lesser role.

'Ricky you need to fight 2 mandatories' (remember the word mandatory thats what got you where you are) - 'no problem boss I fight 5 times a year, fight the 2 mandos and throw in 2 unifaction clashes for the old legacy'. 'Mayweather wants 5% morethan our offer to make the fight' 'no problem I've fought 5 times this year and made £15m, give the pretty boy an extra £1m'

Sounds far fetched, Henry Armstrong won the featherweight crown, defended it 10 times and won the welterweight and lightweight titles all in less than a year.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:It makes my head hurt trying to keep track of all the belts, who has been stripped blah blah blah, to the extent that I simply cannot be fornicating arsed with it any more. From now on I intend to try where possible to entirely ignore the belts and focus on the fights and fighters.

Totally with you. I made this private resolution some time ago and am still trying to carry it out...more difficult than you think, especially if you occasionally have to write about it.

Barrera is my hero.

Its the big fights he wants not so much the belts. he would be gutted to say he was not a two time weight champion, but would he or any of us care if a belt was invovled or not with there being so many of them, if the opponent & money was right?

In this day and age its the fights, not the belts. Peoples champion is what any boxer wants! Strip any Champion of there belt, what difference does it make we all know who the number 1 boxers are!

I would like to use an example of a boxer coming out of retirement.

Lennox Lewis says he wants to come back. He fights say someone like Lamon Brewster a non belt holder as a come back fight. Lewis wins & I think Lewis would be the number one heavyweight in the World on everyones rankings & he wouldnt have one belt to his name.

Belts mean nothing!

The sooner the alphabet organisations are disregarded by fighters and promoters, the better. They have lost all credibility at this point anyway. They strip legitimate champions for ridiculous reasons and then set up matches between contenders who often aren't even world class fighters. It's a joke; and it's one of the main reasons why the man in the street has lost interest in the sport.

Besides, everyone knows who the top fighters are nowadays because the talent pool is generally much shallower. The belts are really only there to add a veneer of glamour and historical credibility to the occasion.

glahn wrote:The sooner the alphabet organisations are disregarded by fighters and promoters, the better. They have lost all credibility at this point anyway. They strip legitimate champions for ridiculous reasons and then set up matches between contenders who often aren't even world class fighters. It's a joke; and it's one of the main reasons why the man in the street has lost interest in the sport.

Besides, everyone knows who the top fighters are nowadays because the talent pool is generally much shallower. The belts are really only there to add a veneer of glamour and historical credibility to the occasion.

Totally agree with your first paragraph - spot on. They are a fornicating cancer.

Thing is, the second paragraph isn't true because of the first - the man in the street assumes if you are called 'world champion' you must be the best in the world. What a strange concept. So when they see some complete twat in action, they thinking boxing is shite.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:It makes my head hurt trying to keep track of all the belts, who has been stripped blah blah blah, to the extent that I simply cannot be fornicating arsed with it any more. From now on I intend to try where possible to entirely ignore the belts and focus on the fights and fighters.

Totally with you. I made this private resolution some time ago and am still trying to carry it out...more difficult than you think, especially if you occasionally have to write about it.

Barrera is my hero.

thing is, when MAB didn't care about the belts, sure he fought Morales twice and Naz, but he went through a lethergic spell where he didn't have to fight anyone. He got away with fighting an old Kelley and an old too small Tapia - which was completely depressing, to me. Then of course he was spanked out of his complaency by Pacquiao.

the funny thing is, when he got back on track, it has been about titles, i.e. beating Morales in a great fight, defending vs worthless WBC mandatory Fana, unification with a titlist Peden, and then a load of buggering about i.e. on-off-on-off-on and finally off challenge for a 4th title vs Chavez. Barrera seems nowadays to balance it between titles and important fights. his next fight with Juarez is a solid title defense but hardly the kind of superfight we've seen MAB in

the bullshit internal politics will be the death of boxing.
even the hardcore fans are sick of it.
the frustrating thing is that the quality fighters and the potential match-up`s are out there to put boxing up in lights again but the structure of the sport is such that it will never happen.
if you went back to 8 weights and 1 champ, and held title fight`s around a month apart (so every champ fights say, every 8 months or twice a year making sure that a big title fight is never that far away or out of the news) then the interest would flood back.
plus everyone would know the champions without needing the ability of one of those memory experts who memorize the order five packs of cards came out in.