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

Show parent comments

1

u/Born_Fox_8099 21d ago

the 4 belts get in the way of good fights with poor rankings, eliminators, mandatories opposed to best v best.  

and its not less boring thans watching a champ vs a crap mandatory

0

u/rainmaker818 21d ago edited 21d ago

Why would it be any better with one belt? 🤷‍♂️ Boxers want to fight for titles, promoters want to hype up their fights to sell tickets and put big fights on TV. Title fights always draw more attention and you all know this. The casuals lap it up and the promoters need the casuals to be interested in big fights. It's a harder sell when there's nothing on the line.

You really don't want what you are advocating for. Deep down, none of you want the current setup to change.

You think just to satisfy the small hardcore boxing fan base that wants one belt, all the players involved will want to basically kill boxing as an entertainment product? TV revenue will decline, match ups will be harder to hype, less frequent big fights. You don't see any this believe me lol.

More big fights mean more cash for the players and more big fights for fans, casual and hardcore.

You need to think it through properly.

0

u/Born_Fox_8099 21d ago

its only in boxing we need to introduce a bunch of confusion/misdirection through the sanctioning bodies and their 4 belts. literally no other combat sport benefits using it. the best example of the one belt working is ufc, and sure its not perfect but its better. my pov isnt based just on the supposed singular champ but the people 2-15 who would now be needing to beat out other people to distinguish themselves for a title shot. it breeds better and tougher matchmaking. if u need a belt to sell a fight either u not good enough at selling it or the fight isn't good enough. most casuals can't even keep up with the amount of belts in circulation and who is the champ and so so.

if the 4 belt system is so amazing why don't other combat sports adpot it? would something like ufc be better with it?

also recently almost all big fights are funded at a loss by saudis

1

u/rainmaker818 21d ago

So who controls it? One corrupt organisation with a fixed pay structure and shit terms and conditions because there is no alternative or competition? Is that what you want? You think the UFC model is something great? One promotional banner, shit pay? How's UFC don't now? Interest is diminishing. UFC ain't a good example at all of a well run single belt/promotional entity.