Why One Champ Per Division Will Never Again Work

[JakeNDaBox]

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****.

The best fighting the best was a problem long before sanctioning bodies came into the picture.

Prior to Joe Louis, here's what the heavyweight title picture looked like from December 1908 until June 1937:
Jim Braddock - Won title in June 1935. Lone title defense came TWO YEARS LATER in June 1937, losing the title to Louis.
Max Baer - Won title in June 1934. Lone title defense came a year later in June 1935, losing title to Jim Braddock
Primo Carnera - Won title in June 1933. Made two successfule defenses; lost title to Max Baer in third title defense in June 1934.
Jack Sharkey - Won title in June 1932. Lone title defense came a year later in June 1933, losing title to Primo Carnera.
Max Schmelling - Won vacant title in June 1930. Made one successful defense (July 1931) before losing title to Jack Sharkey in June 1932.
World Heavyweight title vacant from August 1928 to June 1930
Gene Tunney - Won title in September 1926. Made two defenses before retiring soon after his July '28 defense against Tom Heeney.
Jack Dempsey - Won title in July 1919. Made six successful title defenses in four years, went inactive FOR THREE YEARS (though fighting in exhibitions) before losing title to Gene Tunney in September '26.
Jess Willard - Won title in April 1915. Fought just three times in four years - a non-title fight, a successful defense, THREE YEARS of inactivity, then losing the title to Dempsey in July '19.
Jack Johnson - Won title in December 1908 (though true lineage came against unretired James J. Jeffries in July 1910). Made four defenses from Dec. '08-July '10. After Jeffries fight, went inactive for two years, then fought five times in final three years as champion, making three successful title defenses (and one non-title win) before losing title to Willard in April '15.

So there you go. In a period of 28 1/2 years, the heavyweight title - the greatest prize in the sport's biggest division - was at stake 29 times. An average of just over once per year.

Even including non-title fights, the heavyweight champion of the world appeared in the ring 31 times over that same period, still an average of just over once per year.

So who was to blame back then?

[ragingvic]

The best fighting the best was a problem long before sanctioning bodies came into the picture.

Prior to Joe Louis, here's what the heavyweight title picture looked like from December 1908 until June 1937:
Jim Braddock - Won title in June 1935. Lone title defense came TWO YEARS LATER in June 1937, losing the title to Louis.
Max Baer - Won title in June 1934. Lone title defense came a year later in June 1935, losing title to Jim Braddock
Primo Carnera - Won title in June 1933. Made two successfule defenses; lost title to Max Baer in third title defense in June 1934.
Jack Sharkey - Won title in June 1932. Lone title defense came a year later in June 1933, losing title to Primo Carnera.
Max Schmelling - Won vacant title in June 1930. Made one successful defense (July 1931) before losing title to Jack Sharkey in June 1932.
World Heavyweight title vacant from August 1928 to June 1930
Gene Tunney - Won title in September 1926. Made two defenses before retiring soon after his July '28 defense against Tom Heeney.
Jack Dempsey - Won title in July 1919. Made six successful title defenses in four years, went inactive FOR THREE YEARS (though fighting in exhibitions) before losing title to Gene Tunney in September '26.
Jess Willard - Won title in April 1915. Fought just three times in four years - a non-title fight, a successful defense, THREE YEARS of inactivity, then losing the title to Dempsey in July '19.
Jack Johnson - Won title in December 1908 (though true lineage came against unretired James J. Jeffries in July 1910). Made four defenses from Dec. '08-July '10. After Jeffries fight, went inactive for two years, then fought five times in final three years as champion, making three successful title defenses (and one non-title win) before losing title to Willard in April '15.

So there you go. In a period of 28 1/2 years, the heavyweight title - the greatest prize in the sport's biggest division - was at stake 29 times. An average of just over once per year.

Even including non-title fights, the heavyweight champion of the world appeared in the ring 31 times over that same period, still an average of just over once per year.

So who was to blame back then?

good point.

[crold1]

It's sometimes a crap shoot. Sometimes, you get a great champ who acts the part. I track lineage, first and foremost, so that when the real thing comes along (a Monzon, Louis, or Duran) they get the fullness of their accolades. Other times, there is sooooo much talent that you just have to watch the carnage and enjoy whith multiple claimants (i.e. Middleweight in the 30s and Middleweight between the reigns of Hagler and Hopkins).

[HeartAttack]

The best fighting the best was a problem long before sanctioning bodies came into the picture.

Prior to Joe Louis, here's what the heavyweight title picture looked like from December 1908 until June 1937:
Jim Braddock - Won title in June 1935. Lone title defense came TWO YEARS LATER in June 1937, losing the title to Louis.
Max Baer - Won title in June 1934. Lone title defense came a year later in June 1935, losing title to Jim Braddock
Primo Carnera - Won title in June 1933. Made two successfule defenses; lost title to Max Baer in third title defense in June 1934.
Jack Sharkey - Won title in June 1932. Lone title defense came a year later in June 1933, losing title to Primo Carnera.
Max Schmelling - Won vacant title in June 1930. Made one successful defense (July 1931) before losing title to Jack Sharkey in June 1932.
World Heavyweight title vacant from August 1928 to June 1930
Gene Tunney - Won title in September 1926. Made two defenses before retiring soon after his July '28 defense against Tom Heeney.
Jack Dempsey - Won title in July 1919. Made six successful title defenses in four years, went inactive FOR THREE YEARS (though fighting in exhibitions) before losing title to Gene Tunney in September '26.
Jess Willard - Won title in April 1915. Fought just three times in four years - a non-title fight, a successful defense, THREE YEARS of inactivity, then losing the title to Dempsey in July '19.
Jack Johnson - Won title in December 1908 (though true lineage came against unretired James J. Jeffries in July 1910). Made four defenses from Dec. '08-July '10. After Jeffries fight, went inactive for two years, then fought five times in final three years as champion, making three successful title defenses (and one non-title win) before losing title to Willard in April '15.

So there you go. In a period of 28 1/2 years, the heavyweight title - the greatest prize in the sport's biggest division - was at stake 29 times. An average of just over once per year.

Even including non-title fights, the heavyweight champion of the world appeared in the ring 31 times over that same period, still an average of just over once per year.

So who was to blame back then?

who was to blame back then? How about boxing wasn't legal in every state and was regulated in even less, not too mention the Great War, the collapse of capitalism, the Great Depression, and then separated with WWII.

[EuropeFightFan]

One thing is for sure...we'll never see one belt per division again...far from it...the IBO will be the next "official" alphabet body...taking the "major" titles to five. Another thing we will most likely see is the official formation of a few more weight classes such as "Super Cruiserweight" and "Super Heavyweight" so the alphabets can rake in more money from sanctioning fees on top of all the "Interim" and "Super" champion nonsense that's already going on as it is.

[Pullcounter]

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?

if there is to be one belt, then there must be one organization. I don't see it happening, but that is how it would have to go down.

[BennyST]

One champ won't ever work again, but four is just utterly absurd. Go back to the two it was, WBC and WBA and things would be much better. You would have only two sets of rankings and so only two sets of contenders instead of the million and one that fly around everywhere, some not even being fit to tie his own shoelace.

Anyway, it's all about the $ so it's never going to change no matter what happens. Champions will just jump about doing whatever they want and fighting whomever they please and all the divisions will end up as basically nothing more than a set of rankings used to get a fighter to 'title' status where he can then do what he wants, where he wants.

Soon, we are going to have five 'major' titles with the IBO becoming the next 'major' title....because Pac just won it at 140 and Green and Jones are fighting for it too at CW. The more a name fighter has these useless belts from fighting someone that hasn't actually fought anyone in his division in possibly years, and yet is still considered the best in it, means that they get more recognition. Pathetic. It's only going to get worse. Never better.

[jreckoning]

Let's face it. The money is **** in boxing these days. We need to manufacture as many titles and emeritus champions as we can to justify a lot of fights.

That problem doesn't exist in the more popular money making sports.


They can have one champion, and the leader of the pack because they have sponsors and heavy money behind them in the form of sponsorships, national tv contracts that boxing doesn't have..

If you think a 2 million viewer pay per view comes even close to the money other sports are generating, you are living in a fantasy world.

[Spray_resistant]

Its doesn't really matter if there are so many belts everyone who watches fights should be able to make the determination of who the best in a division is regardless of whether they have a belt or not......belts just signify good fighters or contenders really and a belt holder could just happen to be the best in a division not the best because they have a belt.

[Dave Rado]

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?

Boxing is about the only major international sport that doesn't have a single governing body though. Football (soccer to you) has FIFA. Tennis has the ITF. Golf has the IGF. Athletics has the IAAF. And so on. Boxing needs something similar, IMO, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that vested interests are preventing that from even being a possibility.