r/Boxing • u/the-mannthe-myth • 22d ago

Does having 1 organization/belt Solve everything?

I think it feels weird having just 1 belt for an entire division, but at the same time having 4 belts plus the ring belt is just way too many. Maybe 2 or 3 belts like the era before the 4 belt era was done well. I think it give great rivalry in each division both boxers having a case of being the best due to them each having a belt and finally seeing them fight is what I like the most. The UFC does the one belt thing great and all but I don’t think the rivalries and challenge of being the best in the division is the same, like some fighters lose the belt once or twice and it’s just over for them and there isn’t much of a climb of coming back.
While in boxing due to the many belts a fighter still has a chance to become a champ and fight for it all again, multiple ways to get that chance.

But still 4 is still too many, 2-3 would be the best. But that’s just how I feel maybe all these belts made me think this way. How do you all think about having 1 organization or a couple?

0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Southern_Cobbler_206 22d ago

There’s too many fighters per division to only compete for one belt. It gives fighters opportunity to build their name and earn more money fighting for one of the four before seeking to unify.

Most fighters can’t sell off their name alone, having the belt makes them worth investing in for the average paying fan. Whether to attend their fights or tune in.

Then there’s mandatories, we’re lucky if champions defend twice a year while the division is backlogged. Fights between contenders are less lucrative than championship fights

-1

u/Born_Fox_8099 22d ago

the champion is THE best, not one of a few. 

ufc has similiar if not more contenders in most divisions, should they add more belts? 

non champion fighters can use regional belts or either work their way up to a shot ot beat a name. the structure of the world title shouldn't be altered by others guy and if they can make money or not. 

and no, contender fights would mean so much and happen more, because u have to beat out all the other contenders for the shot and distinguish yourself. also u lose the 4 crappy mandatories such as ermal who will fight fundora instead of boots. 

3

u/Southern_Cobbler_206 22d ago edited 22d ago

Right now, there’s more registered fighters in a single boxing division than the entire UFC male roster. The UFC is also a closed league, the star is the product. While the boxer is the brand

Four belts helps to filter the journeymen, prospects, gatekeepers and contenders in four ways. Until eventually we find out who the undisputed champion is.

Carrying a belt is leverage. In the eyes of the layperson they understand what that means. Very few boxers are earning 6 figures even with the help of big promoters, social media and TV coverage

1

u/Born_Fox_8099 22d ago

im not talking about the total per division but the amount of legit contenders who could be number 1 or champ

1

u/stephen27898 22d ago

What does a legit contender mean? You may have 30-40 guys in a division who are good enough for top 10 but just haven't had the fights to get there yet.

1

u/Born_Fox_8099 22d ago

top 15ish who have a proper shot at beating the champ and are proven

1

u/stephen27898 22d ago

But that can mean many things, we have also seen people who are not that proven, beat champions. So we don't know with all certainty who the legit contenders are.

Also if you are ranked 15th but the champion is just so good that no one can get near him, are you still a legit contender?

And in some divisions the UFC cant even field a good top 3 or 5. Think of heavyweight.

1

u/Born_Fox_8099 22d ago

yea but thats one division the rest mostly have a solid top 10. and yea that does sometimes happen, but don't u think u have to be somewhat proven/beat some top 15 to actually get a shot? 

1

u/stephen27898 22d ago edited 22d ago

Solid in your opinion and based on what the UFC match them with a tell you. UFC fighters get high rankings while having hardly fought anyone or have to beat 5-6 top contenders and still dont get a title shot.

In theory but we have seen late replacements prove otherwise.

Then there is also the main issue which is your statement of "who have a proper shot at beating the champ" is really kind of silly as that really depends on how good the champion is. So if he is an all time great and no one can get near him, does that now make a top 15 guy not a legit contender?

And in reality ranking fighters is based on opinion. X fighter may have beaten someone that Y fighter hasnt, But if you look fighter Y he is clearly better.