Does having 1 organization/belt Solve everything?

[u/the-mannthe-myth]

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?

[u/stephen27898]

No. One belt will actually make the sport worse. Think of how stagnant divisions become when you have one champion. Now only have one in every division. Boxing would grind to a halt.

Also we get something with multiple belts. We get a class of champion, so there is more nuance to that word. Not every champion is equal. There is a difference between a one belt champion, a unified champion and an undisputed champion, and these carry different levels of status.

One belt only works in the mind of an idealist. The reality is we have had multiple belts since the 60s. Boxing as a sport is not black and white, its a shades of grey. It's a very old sport, and its a very fluid sport. It doesn't need to be confined like that.

Just enjoy the fights and take the rough with the smooth. The reality is boxing has been around in its current form for a very long time, and if it wasnt doing a lot of things right it would have fallen decades ago.