Hello guys i dont post here ever but im always here being a spectator enjoying your debates about this great sport.Anyways my wife keeps asking me why isnt there only 1 champion in each weight class and how it makes no sense to have otherwise?Id just like to hear your views on all these belts,good thing or bad thing for boxing?
it would be a good thing, only one true champion in a division, although there would be no more unification matches.
I fully support the idea. Having one belt per division is great. For example, we all KNOW who the champion is at 147 right now, but people who don't follow boxing closely might be confused because of all the pretenders in the division with their wbogus belts.
It just makes no sense to have all these belts,theres tons of beltholders in each division now.Alot of my friends who youst to like boxing hate it now cause of that and they think its a dying sport and im the only one in the room defending it.does anyone else on this board believe its a dying sport? I just think if it went back to one or maybe even 2 belts in each weightclass things would be way better.
dsimon writes: :: :: :bears:. That was not only good but redeemable for minus points off of your ridiculous points.
I look at the sanctioning bodies as organizations,when you win there belt,your fighting for them not for the sport of boxing and plus the sport isn't a tight ran ship like saaaay the UFC,so any promotion can make there own championship and enter the fold.That's why theres so many belts in each weight class I never follow the SB anymore.I just go by Ring Magazines rankings and champions because it makes more sense than the SB rankings.
Twenty Six Champions and Four Interim Champions at each Weight Class is one of the things that's really hurting boxing. In my opinion, there should be 1 World Champion, and maybe.....maybe...1 fringe belt for up and comers, like the USBA belt. But we'll see more champions before we see less, that's for sure. Oh, they should also get rid of some of the weight classes as well. But that's a whole other topic. TFK
I hope to God you're not implying that the guy who beat Baldomir who beat Judah who beat Spinks who beat Mayorga who beat Mosley who beat De La Hoya could actually defeat De La Hoya himself? Because that's not how boxing works, you know. If boxer A beats boxer B beats boxer C beats boxer D that doesn't mean that PBF could actually defeat ODLH if they fought.
People who think there can be one champion per weight class don't understand the sport and it's not very hard to demonstrate why. If anyone would like to try to explain how it could be done, I'd love to hear it because nothing is ever (EVER) put forth that can withstand a few 'What if' questions.
Sure. Now explain how it could happen? Actually, there is one possibility that isn't economically feasible, but does accomplish it. I've never seen a realistic way to do it.
Oh i have no idea how it could be done I just think it makes more sense to have a champion instead of 445 or whatever in each weight class.Im just pointing out that thats one of the things killing the sport.Also, i was just curious if others would rather have 1 champion instead of all these belts.
:: Even Flyweights were tumbling down the mountain, Fraud just used his nimble bitch legs to get to the front of the line, then dazzled the Argentinian scrub with a sack full of child support :: ..Isn't boxing a joke?, that's how you labour your way to a shot these days.
