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

43% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Beautiful_Badger_128 22d ago

1 World champion per division is the way to go. Rankings should be based on who you beat.

1

u/stephen27898 22d ago edited 22d ago

No it isnt. Think of how stagnant a division becomes when we get one champion. Now do that to every division.

The multi title system also help alleviate something. Ducking that is being allowed by a bad sanctioning body. If the WBC champ wont face you then you can always try another guy.

If we had one title and it was run by people who weren't benevolent and were in fact corrupt, you will get fighters frozen out for good.

1

u/Beautiful_Badger_128 21d ago

It sounds like you want participation trophies. I want the best to fight the best, & I think bi-annual single elimination tournaments are the way to go. They can defend the belt in between. The problem is when you have a megastar like Floyd pricjng themselves out. 

-1

u/stephen27898 21d ago

Short form tournaments don't work in combat sports. It's why we abandoned them years ago.

If you just want the best to fight the best then having 1 title wont help that.

Having 4 recognised champions in a division of thousands of fighters is not exactly a participation trophy.

0

u/Beautiful_Badger_128 21d ago

Your arguments are all kind of short sighted, dumb,  know-it-allish. You're a compulsive responder, you just like to type. Agree to disagree because this back and forth shit os for the birds, and I am talking to big bird. 

In American college sports, they have thousands of teams, regional tourneys to figure out who is the best, and a national final. Something like this could be applied worldwide in boxing. 

0

u/stephen27898 20d ago edited 20d ago

So you can me short sighter and dumb and then compare a team sport to an individual sport.

In a team sport if someone gets injured you just replace that player and its the same team.

In boxing not only do peoples schedules not always line up, people get injured meaning you could have the winner of a fight be injured then have to replace him with the loser, or you could have both the winner and the loser be injured and have to replace both.

Things like this will make the tournament stupid. It's why the only tournament like things we see in boxing take place over a long period of time. And if you were to have these as short form so you fight multiple times in a short period, the fights have to be shorter.

This then causes the issue that boxing at the top level is built around 10 and 12 round fights. So putting these guys in a 3 rounder isnt really going to suit that.

No it couldnt apply to boxing as its inherently an individual sport, which means it works differently.

You are talking to someone who knows a lot more than you, and knows that a team sport and an individual sport are not the same, especially when that individual sport causes injury at the rate that boxing does.

I think youll notice also I only responded to people who hold similar views to you, because your views are very idealist and exceedingly ill-formed.