My solution to alphabet titles- network champions

[MBE]

Its a good idea in theory but they would just end up doing the same thing the ABC organizations do and trying to steer things in favor of money makers regardless of whether they are really class or not and the problem is that boxers and everyone involved are independent businessmen.

This only stops when boxing has a league and fighters have to fight whoever is ranked regardless of their popularity or they lose their championship status.

True but it's still a step in the right direction and really easy to set up.

[Spray_resistant]

True but it's still a step in the right direction and really easy to set up.

If boxing had a league they could get paid based on the level of the fight they are competing at, top billing for the championship, next eliminators, and so on down the ranks.

This would stop all of the worthless titles and cherrypicking easy fights against guys with fanbases for good paydays.

[techliam]

How exactly does this solve anything? It doesn't remove the ABC organisations, just adds more useless titles to the mix. I'd rather have an organisation focused solely on money (the sanctioning bodies) than an organisation who are focused on both money and viewing ratings.

Honestly just let them make more and more titles until it becomes too full. TBRB are picking up traction just based on that

[ShamrockXpress]

What about fighters who don't have their fight shown on either network? Japanese fighters? A lot of European fights aren't shown on either network. What about the klitschko brothers? Would they not be considered champions. Seth Mitchell could have been the
HBO champ.

[Kris Silver]

So those two networks cover most current world champions do they?

If there's 4 ABC champs in a division...the ring number 10 or worse might be the only one recently covered by the network.

Sorry it just amazes me you think two networks from one country (when there's numerous others around the world covering worthy champs) alone is ample replacement for world championship belts.

[The Big Dunn]

I know we're all sick and tired of these different governing body's. Having four 'champions' in a division. Then interim emeritus diamond thrown on top to confuse matters. A lot of my friends have turned away from the sport because of it.

But really we can't just get rid of the title altogether, because fighters love belts.

I know HBO try's to get around the problem by referring to a single champion and calling the others 'belt-holders'.

Why not take it a step further, completely ignore all the governing body's and designate your own single network champion for each division.

Actually make your own belts.

The alphabet bodys become completely irrelevant when they won't get the backing of any tv network.

Yes there will still be more than one champion because there's more than one network. But HBO and Showtime fighters aren't fighting each other anyway so it doesn't make a difference.

Furthermore, being the premier network, every fighter will want to get the title of HBO.

Imagine when pacquiao and mayweather were fighting on HBO and only one of them could be called the HBO world welterweight champion. I'm sure that would have forced that fight to get made.

Just my idea, open to comments / criticism!

Not a bad idea. Only downside is networks should be nuetral and this would give the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you did this in combination with the tbrb rankings it could work.

[MBE]

How exactly does this solve anything? It doesn't remove the ABC organisations, just adds more useless titles to the mix. I'd rather have an organisation focused solely on money (the sanctioning bodies) than an organisation who are focused on both money and viewing ratings.

Honestly just let them make more and more titles until it becomes too full. TBRB are picking up traction just based on that

the ABC organisations care for viewing figures just as much as networks. without the viewers theres no money to be made for them too.

Yes it doesn't remove them but it does make them irrelevant. In the UFC does their champion still carry the strikeforce belt or whatever other backyard MMA production they were previously associated with? No because they become meaningless in a format where only one title has oxygen to breath.

I agree TBRB are doing a great job but the idea of it becoming 'full' of sanctioning bodies won't happen, the big 4 currently have it pretty well arranged between them to keep the minor players out.

What about fighters who don't have their fight shown on either network? Japanese fighters? A lot of European fights aren't shown on either network. What about the klitschko brothers? Would they not be considered champions. Seth Mitchell could have been the
HBO champ.

You can still acknowledge a champion and not feature their fights. The very best in the sport will still want to fight on a major american network, all boxers would love to headline in vegas. Look at Japans best fighter in recent years, Toshiaki Nishioka, his last two fights were on HBO. Takashi Uchiyama was calling out Gamboa last year, that would have been a HBO fight too.

Also the klitschko's regularly fight on HBO when they are in a significant fight (theres no chance Seth Mitchell would have been labeled anything other than the contender he was)so I think between the two networks they do have the best international fighters covered.

So those two networks cover most current world champions do they?

If there's 4 ABC champs in a division...the ring number 10 or worse might be the only one recently covered by the network.

Sorry it just amazes me you think two networks from one country (when there's numerous others around the world covering worthy champs) alone is ample replacement for world championship belts.

Yes they do cover most current world champions. There should only be 17 world champions at the very most, I think 8 would be more appropriate but thats just my opinion I can understand why some would like more.

There no way I'm talking about incorporating the belt holders from all 4 sanctioning bodies. The others should be labeled the contenders they are.

[Kris Silver]

Yes they do cover most current world champions. There should only be 17 world champions at the very most, I think 8 would be more appropriate but thats just my opinion I can understand why some would like more.

There no way I'm talking about incorporating the belt holders from all 4 sanctioning bodies. The others should be labeled the contenders they are.

There's 17 weight classes and 4 main ABC belts in each one. There's no way just two countries networks covers them all well.

They have specific interests in making money alone to a US specific audience. How on earth would that be a fair replacement for organisations,belt holders all around the world?

There's lots of guys in history whom have been champs and on respective more localised networks but not until later in there career one of these 2 American networks. Heck Calzaghe as one example. He'd not be a champ,and likely take ages to be one as they wouldn't have had as much of a financial incentive to match him up with whomever else they are calling champ,over a local guy with more PPV prospects.

How would Rigondeux be doing as HBO champ? He wouldn't be one, there'd find ways to defer his shot etc.

That is why sports competition bodies are usually separate to networks.

[MBE]

There's 17 weight classes and 4 main ABC belts in each one. There's no way just two countries networks covers them all well.

They have specific interests in making money alone to a US specific audience. How on earth would that be a fair replacement for organisations,belt holders all around the world?

There's lots of guys in history whom have been champs and on respective more localised networks but not until later in there career one of these 2 American networks. Heck Calzaghe as one example. He'd not be a champ,and likely take ages to be one as they wouldn't have had as much of a financial incentive to match him up with whomever else they are calling champ,over a local guy with more PPV prospects.

How would Rigondeux be doing as HBO champ? He wouldn't be one, there'd find ways to defer his shot etc.

That is why sports competition bodies are usually separate to networks.

Like I said they shouldn't try to cover them all, just the 17 real champs at the very most.

Rigondeux would still have gotten his shot because it was a good match up regardless of the alphabet belts on the line.

All Calzaghe's top fights were on showtime or HBO. before that you couldn't consider him the clear best in the division.

If anything having a network champ would be more of an incentive to match fighters to because you wouldn't be able to make as much money as you can when you can currently pick and choose the hundreds of titles out there now.

Furthermore on calzaghe, he was the one with PPV prospects more than any other 'local' US guy. He was the money-man. That's why showtime and HBO went to wales to cover his fights. Only his last two were in the US.

[sparkman0811]

The only thing wrong with alphabet titles are the dumb ass 5 or 6 titles per organization. Silver champion, Gold Champion, Platinum champion, emeritus champion, all that **** is a joke. I'm okay with the different organizations and having one belt. However, the thing I have a problem with is the divisional rankings for each and their mandatory system. Fighters should be required to fight the number 1 mandatory, and not have some dumb bull**** fighter list to choose from. Most organizations should have some ranking system based on something like The Ring or Boxrec rankings, something objective. It's like, where the **** is Manny Pacquiao at 147 rankings for WBC. This stuff is a joke. It's disgusting. Why has Manny Pacquiao never been the mandatory for Floyd's 147 WBC title.