Would this be a good idea or not? We know there are countless titles which hold their own importance in one way or another, but what if say these interim belts were abolished? Holding a regular version of say the WBA belt allows one fighter/party a stranglehold over another. Can these titles just be removed entirely?
For the fans I cannot see any negatives, stacked cards with champions forced to defend against legit opposition. However, there is no chance in hell the individual bodies will give up that gravy train.
I think two champs would be the perfect balance. With one organization based in and kinda biased towards Eurasia and the other towards the Americas, if i'm dreaming up a perfect scenario.
Assuming the rankings are fair, the only real con I can think of right now is in times where there is a really weak division and fighting the #1 contender is a constant mandatory. For example imagine if you have a dominant champ and a solid #2 who will never beat the champion. (due to styles, not being on the same level or whatever) He tries, loses clearly and then fights whomever else he can to get back that number one ranking. The champion of course would fight somebody else in between but if the number 2 kept cleaning up his "tasks" he'd inevitably (and fairly) get back to #1. The guy fought for and earned his spot, but how many fans want to see the same matchup repeatedly? Did anybody care to see Winky Wright vs Bronco McKart three times? I'm not saying this scenario would happen often or is anyway a good argument against a single champion, but if I had to come up with a negative for a single champion that would be one. (again this is assuming the rankings are accurate and the champ can't cherry pick opponents)
I think having one legit world champion is the only correct and plausible way to have it, but I do think there could and should be some minor titles to compete for too. Of course, unlike now these smaller titles should have at least some kind of rules in addition to bribery