Can anyone justify Morales' getting a title shot?

Luckily sanctioning bodies aren't going anywhere soon and the sport is protected from simpletons like yourself. It's easy to bitch (or in your case, be one), but it is not easy to come up with a better system that can actually be implemented. This challenge isn't for you because I know you don't have the mental firepower to handle it, but for the others that feel that sanctioning bodies could be replaced with a better system, let's hear it.

I have come up with one possible way in the past, but it probably doesn't make financial sense and is therefore not an option. If you can't come up with a better system, you should shut the fuck up. If you can come up with a possible better system, then put it out here for discussion. I expect it will be torn apart. Otherwise, we are stuck with the current system and should focus on improving it, not getting rid of it.

 

Why do you suppose certain bodies seem to favor certain regions and/or nationalities? Is it because of where they are based?

Is the WBO based in Europe, for example?

 

Puerto Rico actually but they do have a Euro Bias.

 

It's a slippery slope when fighters can earn title shots based on a loss. That's bull-shit. Think of how fucked up things could become if suddenly winning fights didn't matter in the scheme of things and every thing were subjective. They could quit keeping score and just decide who's going to fight for a title, which is essentially what the WBC did, and it's in complete conflict with the reason sanctioning bodies claim to be indispensable - that they look out for the best interest of fighters.

The only redeeming value sanctioning bodies provide, in principle, is the designation of manadatory challengers. So when the WBC, or any other sanctioning body, hands out titles to fighters, regardless of where they're ranked, there can no longer be a coherent case for their existence.

 

So the question is, "why?" I'd argue that it's due primarily to which promoters they're working with most, at the time, which explains why their favoritism can change.

And if the sanctioning bodies are in bed with the promoters, then basically, they're one in the same, and there can be no argument made in defense of sanctioning bodies.

 

I'd guess there are two main factors...where you are based and where you are financially successful (which is probably correlated to where you are based).

Sanctioning bodies are like big companies. Sure, it's easier to be successful where you are based in most cases, but if you are Germany-based Mercedes and you start making big money in India...you adjust.

There is also the idea of familiarity...which is somewhat set off by having ratings committees...but often your ratings committe chairman is based where the sanctioning body is based...so after talking to Asia, Europe, etc...and giving them spots in the ratings...you fill the remaining with boxers you are familiar with...and those are generally where you are based.

Rating fighters is a full-time job, if done properly. This is the thing most people overlook. I think it would be a great job, but it would be a LOT of work. 17 weight classes, 4 sanctioning bodies, monthly ratings...and you are supposed to go 15 deep in each weight class, but not count the other sanctioning bodies' champs...that is a buttload of fighters to keep track of. Even big fans fall into the trap of thinking it's not that bad because "I am familiar with the top 20 140 lbers and can rate them"...well, that's one friggin weight class...yee haw.

 

To be honest, yeah. It's Morales, just give him the fucking belt rather than making him fight some scrub.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that promoters have influence with sanctioning bodies at times, but your conclusion that it makes them one in the same is incorrect. For example, lobbyists have influence with politicians...that doesn't make a senator one in the same with all companies who have lobbyists.

 

I don't think the lobbyist/politician relationship is a very good choice if your goal is to justify sanctioning bodies.

Although, lobbyists, in the U.S. anyway, might be our last hope.

No. Sanctioning bodies are not one in the same as promoters. But they're everybit as useless and parasitic as the average senator.

 

even an organization as corrupt and biased as THE RING magazine has already devised a better system

go fuck yourself, mIKE, you are a fucking idiot

 

the ring :atu:

I would rather let Don King, Top Rank and other promoters vie to rank fighters through the alphabet boys than allow GoldenBoy sole discretion. at least its a free market system as is

 

go read a book. with pictures. and bring crayons. the thread has moved well past your level, my simple bitch

 

do a comparison month by month, year by year over the last 10 years of That mag's ratings compared to the ratings of the 4 ABC groups and get back to me

As god awful as The RIng is, it's system in terms of determining champs, ONE CHAMP PER DIVISION, not champions emeritus and silver and gold and platinum and all of this shit, and it's system for fighters LOSING their championships is CLEARLY more sensible than any of the sanctioning bodies

Again, Im not saying the RING system is GOOD or their ratings necessarily FAIR

but compared to the ABCs??? you'd have to be blind with hate not see it's better

 

why would i go back 10 years??? the last few years are all that matter where their rankings are concerned.

 

EIGHT DIFFERENT GUYS CALLED "WORLD CHAMPION" PER DIVISION IS A GOOD THING -- YOU

Simple??? what the fuck could be more retarded than THIS^^^?

Anyone who thinks THAT^^ is a good thing is a brainless non-entity

 

you believe the ABCs are superior???

you believe their systems are better???

 

i believe i wouldnt want to let one promoter completely control how all fighters are ranked.

 

would you then at least agree that The Rings rationale for crowning champions and un-crowning them makes a hell of a lot more sense? WOuld you also agree that having one guy called a CHAMPION is better than having two dozen?

Im not syaing, AGAIN, that The RING is GOOD... it's not, it is shit... BUT, compared to the sanctioning bodies???

 

i liked things best with 3 championship titles. having one champion is shit. having a dozen is worse than having only one. that is true. the problem is with the networks spending money to televise boxing, not the sanctioning bodies.

if hbo, showtime, espn etc had guys in charge who knew which fighters are good and entertaining and which match ups would generate interest and make for compelling fights then whether or not the sanctioning bodies are corrupt and moronic wouldnt matter.

 

how is having one champion detrimental to a sport

a champion is supposed to be FIRST PLACE, the best... how is it somehow better to have three different guys all claiming to be in first place?

 

because you would have deserving fighters waiting years to get a shot at a title. it would hurt the sport financially as well

 

do you prefer having undeserving fighters getting mandatory shots at numerous belts?

because that's what has been going on for the past 40 years

 

The Ring ratings panel is flooded with Americans in a sport that is popular throughout the world. Can Americans be unbiased? Sure, but so can everyone else. It's a world sport. There should be world representation if you are going to do it by committee. Personally, I think the fewer, better people doing the rankings the better, but it's arguable.

The Ring panel has 75 names on it. You think all 75 are doing their due diligence and watching all of the fighters they are rating? I'd bet not.

Why would the Ring ratings be 'better' than the sanctioning bodies'? Because they rate all sanctioning body champs and only go 10 deep. So in a lot of cases they are only rating 4-6 fighters other than champs and interim champs. The sanctioning bodies actually have to rate. And it's a bit curious that almost every sanctioning body champ is rated by The Ring in its ratings, don't you think? Why? Because the best fighters fight for sanctioning body titles in the first place.

Do they actually go out and fight for the Ring belt? Not on purpose. Right now, the cruiser, super mid, jr. mid, welter, jr. welter, jr. lightweight, feather, jr. feather, bantam, jr. bantam, and straw belts are all VACANT. That's right, 11 of the 17 weight classes have no Ring champion. That's CLEARLY more sensible than the current system.

 

who is to say there wouldnt be undeserving challengers getting mandatory shots for the one champion? while worthy challengers are stuck on the sidelines making chump change, waiting.

 

And if you want the controlling powers who do the ranking to be considering who is entertaining and which matchups will generate interest, then you are not being fair to the fighters. That is for promoters/tv channels, not ratings people.

 

Are you honestly telling me that having 8 champions in one division is better than saying "you want the title? you think you are the best? fight the other guy who thinks HE's the best and if you beat him, you're the champ"?

And seriously, if you believe the sanctioning bodies are filled with objective guys earnestly watching fighters and doing their best to rank them fairly, you must also believe in the Easter Bunny... The WBO once moved a DEAD GUY up the rankings after the fact... who was watching HIM fight?

I'm pretty sure The Ring hasn't declared that a dead boxer has just moved up from number 6 to number 5

If you can't see the sanctioning bodies for what they are: obscenely corrupt, money-grubbing, backroom-deal making monstrosities every bit as bad as Frankie Carbo and all of that ilk, then you must be blind

 

guess you dont have to worry as much about morales now that he is getting his ass kicked by mattyhsse instead of facing barrios

 

There are, at most, 4 champions in each division right now. Keep saying 8 all you want, but your exaggeration just shows your bias.

ha ha...let's pull the old "WBO moved a dead guy up in the ratings" card out of the hat. You know the status of all 187 fighters in your ratings? Fighters move up by attrition all the time. It's just an amusing, but understandable faux pas that will likely happen again some time.

I see you for what you are--an unsophisticated, big fan of boxing. The fact that you cannot see why sanctioning bodies are a net positive for the sport is unsurprising.

 

Your surprised?

 

Seriously? Morales is fighting Mattyhsse instead of Barrios? He will lose.