Why One Champ Per Division Will Never Again Work

[Pullcounter]

There are far too many champions in the sport, it is often said. We need to return to a time when there was only one champion per division if we are to bring the mainstream back into the fold. Nobody knows who the real champs are anymore, because everyone and their mother seems to carry around a title belt today. [details]

nope.

more than one champ per division is worst than a leader who is no longer willing to lead.

its easy to get a new leader... the next best 2 fight. its just that simple.

[JakeNDaBox]

nope.

more than one champ per division is worst than a leader who is no longer willing to lead.

its easy to get a new leader... the next best 2 fight. its just that simple.

It's not that simple.

For starters, when has it ever been "that simple" to get the top two fighters to face one another.

Also, if a division already has a leader in place, who's to stop him from fighting as infrequently as he pleases and against whomever he likes?

Casamayor was champion for three years, yet mananged a measly two title defenses, none against his top contender (or anywhere close).

Pavlik has two years in service. He can claim title lineage and not fight for another year or two if he so chooses, so long as he never officially severs all ties with the sport.

Regardless of whom you believe to be the man at LHW, it's still a mess.

[Pullcounter]

It's not that simple.

For starters, when has it ever been "that simple" to get the top two fighters to face one another.

historically its been a bother, but one belts makes it easier than many belts

Also, if a division already has a leader in place, who's to stop him from fighting as infrequently as he pleases and against whomever he likes?

it's easy, strip him.

[Iceta]

This is obviously the way it should be done but the question is - what governing body is available to enforce it? With boxing being a global sport, you need a worldwide committee in place to police said champions.

I've always argued that the sport should just do away with champions altogether, just rank 'em 1-10 (or 1-15 or whatever) and that the top spot is always up for grabs - meaning you have to earn the ranking and the right to keep it, not just get there and sit on a lead.

That will always remain the difference between boxing and other sports (well, besides MMA of course).

The Phillies are back in the World Series because they beat the Rockies and the Dodgers (and did enough in the regular season to make the playoffs in the first place), not because they were entitled to it based on winning last year's championship.

The NY Giants Super Bowl win two seasons ago meant nothing when the Eagles were showing them the exit in last season's playoffs, nor did it make the Eagles the new champs.

And so on...

Like I said, your idea is a sound one in practice, but it's been historically proven that without someone directly standing over a fighter to force them to face the best, there will always be those (and quite often, it's the majority of the sport) seeking to travel the path of least resistance and exploring every imaginable loophole before making the next move.

You mentioned JMM in the story. Hatton isn't going to fight him is he? Golden Boy should be ashamed of themselves for trying to make that fight. Bradley and Alexander are tougher opponents. And is JMM gonna go back to 135 and defend his title against Katisidis? I thought the WBO gave JMM a decision to make. If he wants to fight at 140 that's fine, just leave Hatton alone. He is done.

[jrosales13]

You mentioned JMM in the story. Hatton isn't going to fight him is he? Golden Boy should be ashamed of themselves for trying to make that fight. Bradley and Alexander are tougher opponents. And is JMM gonna go back to 135 and defend his title against Katisidis? I thought the WBO gave JMM a decision to make. If he wants to fight at 140 that's fine, just leave Hatton alone. He is done.

Hatton-JMM will not be that bad of a fight at 140. Bradley and/or Alexender would embarrass both Hatton and JMM at 140.

[Thread Stealer]

I am kind of new to boxing but I have always wondered this: why do professional boxers fight so little these days?

Pacquiao, the best boxer in the world in most people's eyes, has fought less than 10 rounds in the past year. It seems so little to me.

You hear of some boxers like Tyson Fury fighting every month or so.

I know those two boxers are in different leagues but I just wanted to know the reason why they fight so little.

It's mostly about money and being in the position to only fight other big names.

Pacquiao gets paid millions per fight, even 8 figures. He's on top of the sport, he can pick whom he fights, it'll be a big event, big purse, long training camp, etc...

Fury is an up-and-comer so naturally he'll fight more often.

Historically, even in the past, champs who got paid big money (HW champs) generally fought less often. Joe Louis was an active HW champ, but look at most of the HW champs before him and how often they defended their titles.

[Lord_Krachah]

For starters, when has it ever been "that simple" to get the top two fighters to face one another.

Also, if a division already has a leader in place, who's to stop him from fighting as infrequently as he pleases and against whomever he likes?

But it is that way, because there are so many belts. "To be the best you gotta beat the best" is the way to go. Nowadays you just buy your belt. Then you cash in against people you beat, and once upon a time you make a risky fight if the money is right. That is just depressing. In a perfect world aka not our world you have to take risks to be on top and not buy a belt in the endless supply of the WBA for example. The problem with the ring belt or the lineal recognization is the inability to force people to fight each other. They can just relax on their belts. With a universally recognized organisation - something that exists in every other sport - you have to fight the best to be the best and to maintain your status. Unfortunately i don't see a change for better times. To many people live extraordinary well on this kind of corrupt status quo. Maybe just maybe the disgusting sanctioning organisations destroy themselves with all this "interim", "regular", "emeritus", "in recess" bull****.

[JakeNDaBox]

historically its been a bother, but one belts makes it easier than many belts


it's easy, strip him.

And again I ask... who's in the position of authority to strip a fighter unbecoming of a true champion? The A.B.C.? The Ring? Teddy Atlas? Rick Reeno? Dan Rafael? Who do we have to oversee the entire sport to ensure that our true champions act accordingly?

[Doctor_Tenma]

I think it would be much worse having one champ per division. I've always thought like that.

[MANGLER]

Cuz sanctionin bodies make too much $ off all the belts.