State of boxing - is it really so bad?

by **oxring** Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:59 am

First topic message reminder :

It is widely postulated that we live in a barren time for boxing - with a large jump between the class of the elite - the Mayweathers, Pacquiaos and Martinez' and the rest. And that once these 3 aging supermen hang up their cloaks, there will be little left and the sport will subside into a cloaca of indifferent matchups, alphabelts and poorly conditioned, poorly skilled heavyweights winning the crown that Louis, Ali and Marciano once wore with pride.

Yet, are things all that bad?

If we just look at the number 1 in each division and their nearest challengers - how bad are things now?

HW - Wladimir Klitschko; with Vitali, Adamek, Helenius, Haye, Chambers around him.
CW - No champion; but Cunningham, Tarver, Huck, Lebedev, Palacios and Hernandez competing
LHW - Hoppo; with Pascal, Dawson, Cloud, Cleverly and Shumenov in the mix
SMW - No champion; but Ward, Froch, Kessler and Bute all competing
MW - Sergio Gabriel Martinez; Sturm, Geale and Pirog behind
LMW - No champion; Cotto, Alvarez, Bundrage, Williams all in the mix
WW - No champion; Floyd, Manny, Ortiz
LWW - No champion; Manny, Khan, Bradley, Maidana, Alexander, Judah
LW - JMM; but Guerrero, Rios, Vasquez and Katsidis
SFW - No champion; Burns, Broner, Fana, Uchiyama
FW - No champion; Gamboa, Salido, Juanma, John
SBW - No champion; Arce, Ramos, Montiel
BW - Donaire; Agbeko, Darchinyan and Moreno behind.

I'm not going to pretend my knowledge of divisional depth stretches much below bantamweight.

I have decided that "champion" is defined as a guy who would be a clear and definite favourite in >95% of minds to beat at least the top 4 contenders. And by favourite, I am referring to the extent that coxy would bet his house on the outcome.

I am arguable being generous in that Wlad wouldn't be the favourite in 95% of minds to beat Vitali - but given that Vitali has refused to fight Wlad - he has ruled himself out of "contender" status, ergo Wlad remains champion

Discussion

First thing that is easily visible from this table - is that MW and WW are astonishingly weak divisions. Setting aside the golden fighters at the top there's a lot of brass occupying the divisional ratings beneath.

Second thing is - there are a lot of reasonable and exciting fighters out there. This is also good.

Down to issues - there are so many divisions without a clear number 1. This, in my opinion, is the major issue affecting boxing today.

There is an attitude that once you win a fight once, there is no need for a rematch until the other guy proves the first result was an aberration. If that were the case - Burley would have beaten Holman Williams 1 or 2 nil in the record books. As it stands, the fights were exciting, they provided paydays and even though they weren't always particularly close - Williams was allowed the chance to close out the record books even with Burley. Because fighters aren't allowed to drop fights due to no guarantee of a rematch - we have far to many weak fights and not enough strong ones. Take Bundrage. He's just beaten Sechew Powell. He should be screaming for the Cottos, the Alvarez, Williams or the Margarito's of this world - if he is the LMW number 2. Cunningham should be calling out AND fighting Tarver, Afolabi, Palacios rather than just occasionally mentioning Huck.

Conclusions

Alphabelts are meaningless - but we all knew that anyway.
If the divisional leading fighters were to meet more often - boxing would be the number 1 spectator sport on the planet.
Someone really needs to teach some kids weighing at 160 and 147 to box.

by Colonial Lion Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:34 am

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Boxing was so much better back in the day when there was just one belt controlled by corrupt South Americans and a guy with big hair waving flags. Bring back the good old days of watching Naz, Calzaghe, Hatton, Eubank etc fighting bum of the month, year after year.

Boxing today is awful. I'm not sure how many more consecutive weekends of good fights I can take.

Im not quite sure why you think Khan v Judah or Fury v Chisora are so much better than the fights of yesteryear.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:34 am

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Boxing was so much better back in the day when there was just one belt controlled by corrupt South Americans and a guy with big hair waving flags.

That's not when boxing started though, is it ? Some of us can go back much further and remember what we consider to have been more exciting times, with more high profile champions fighting more high profile challengers and with fewer redundant and superfluous weight divisions and fewer ridiculous diamond belts, interim belts, emeritus belts, ring magazine belts, women's weekly belts, kellogs cornflake belts, radiation belts, ammunition belts, Hoboken, New Jersey version of the lightlightsuperlightmiddleweight championship of Bob Arum's backyard belt, etc., etc.

Each to his own, I say. You like the present situation, and some agree with you.

Just as some don't.

by AlexHuckerby Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:36 am

Personally I still don't mind the boxing, because I have to be hoenst can we argue that some of the fhights that we're seeing are still very very good with great quality? I thought Murray - Mitchell which was a European fight was quality the other week and some of the other fioghts have been proper quality

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:45 am

Tell me when there wasn't corruption amongst the organisational bodies in Boxing.

You can't can you.

Boxing is at its best when the alphabet boys have the least power, which is now. No one cares about the belts anymore so they don't become a stumbling block between great fights happening.

If you wanted to go back to the days of a single title, say the WBC, then you'd be handing Boxing to incredibley corrupt South Americans and the sport would suffer hugely from it.

The only important thing is that we get plenty of good fights, which is what we are getting. If it isn't broke why fix it?

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:50 am

Your right Pacquiao fighting Marquez at 144lbs is a great fight isn't it and Trinidad was a big favourite for the Hopkins fight whereas no one gave De La Hoya a chance

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:03 am

Tarver and Pavlik were also big favourites to beat Hopkins.

Jones was prob Hopkins best opponent, ODLH was his biggest fight commercially. Trinidad was the fight that brought him into the mainstream.

Such was the way Boxing was back then, despite being middleweight champ for years, Hopkins was almost universally ignored. He just fought dross on small PPV shows. Luckily for B-Hop boxing changed.

I wouldn't call Pacquiao v Marquez a great fight, as I think Marquez might be on the slide a bit. However, everyone was saying the same thing before their second fight, and that did turn out to be a great fight so who knows.

by AlexHuckerby Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:05 am

I'm happy with the quality of boxing I am watching most times, even Fury Chisora, maybe not the most graceful technical boxers ever still was a good competetive fight.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:06 am

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If it isn't broke why fix it?

Sure, boxing was in a terrible state when we had one champ per division and fewer weight classes. Thank Heavens everybody could see it was ' broke ' and fixed it by introducing Heaven - knows - how - many governing bodies and a load of champions who avoid each other like the plague.

Why does it upset you so much that some of us preferred it the way it was ?

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:07 am

Colonial Lion wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Boxing was so much better back in the day when there was just one belt controlled by corrupt South Americans and a guy with big hair waving flags. Bring back the good old days of watching Naz, Calzaghe, Hatton, Eubank etc fighting bum of the month, year after year.

Boxing today is awful. I'm not sure how many more consecutive weekends of good fights I can take.

Im not quite sure why you think Khan v Judah or Fury v Chisora are so much better than the fights of yesteryear.

That's one weekend. People compare this year with, say, the 80s, the 90s or something equally unspecific. I've never seen a yearly comparison which proved that boxers are any less likely to face their best threats now than ever.

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:08 am

I thought Fury v Chisora was a decent scrap for the HW's. Stylewise it was kind of like a poor mans Haye v Klitschko, just with much more action. Perhaps Chisora would have given WK more of a fight than Haye did.

by AlexHuckerby Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:08 am

HumanWindmill wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If it isn't broke why fix it?

Sure, boxing was in a terrible state when we had one champ per division and fewer weight classes. Thank Heavens everybody could see it was ' broke ' and fixed it by introducing Heaven - knows - how - many governing bodies and a load of champions who avoid each other like the plague.

Why does it upset you so much that some of us preferred it the way it was ?

Agree with you, but no doubt there are more avoidances nowadays, but I also think that this is partly to do with the financial aspect of the game now and the leaning towards having no "0" not always to do with the governing bodies, but completely agree with some of the aspects.

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:10 am

HumanWindmill wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If it isn't broke why fix it?

Sure, boxing was in a terrible state when we had one champ per division and fewer weight classes. Thank Heavens everybody could see it was ' broke ' and fixed it by introducing Heaven - knows - how - many governing bodies and a load of champions who avoid each other like the plague.

Why does it upset you so much that some of us preferred it the way it was ?

That's not it. It's that comparisons are unfairly biased and incorrect cliched statements are made with little backup. It might have been better, but if we are going to compare present some hard evidence and not statements like 'champions are always protected now, they never were in the glory days'.

by AlexHuckerby Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:11 am

Yeah this whole he would of never been close to the old timers theory, I just can't see that most of the time...

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:24 am

Scottrf wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If it isn't broke why fix it?

Sure, boxing was in a terrible state when we had one champ per division and fewer weight classes. Thank Heavens everybody could see it was ' broke ' and fixed it by introducing Heaven - knows - how - many governing bodies and a load of champions who avoid each other like the plague.

Why does it upset you so much that some of us preferred it the way it was ?
That's not it. It's that comparisons are unfairly biased and incorrect cliched statements are made with little backup. It might have been better, but if we are going to compare present some hard evidence and not statements like 'champions are always protected now, they never were in the glory days'.

Opinion and preference require no hard evidence. Can you prove that you prefer chocolate to liquorice, or should we take your word for it ?

Just browse through the Ring record book and see what was going on between the fifties and early eighties. If you don't believe there was a higher incidence of great fights, that's fine, ( which I've said three times, now, ) but if I and others think there was a higher incidence then that should be fine, also. I haven't seen Jukebox produce evidence to say that the sixties were inferior, either, so why don't you ask him to produce some ? Then again, he probably wasn't watching boxing in the sixties, so how could he be excited by it ?

Some of us were, and some of us can. It's a matter of opinion and personal experience.

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:31 am

HumanWindmill wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If it isn't broke why fix it?

Sure, boxing was in a terrible state when we had one champ per division and fewer weight classes. Thank Heavens everybody could see it was ' broke ' and fixed it by introducing Heaven - knows - how - many governing bodies and a load of champions who avoid each other like the plague.

Why does it upset you so much that some of us preferred it the way it was ?
That's not it. It's that comparisons are unfairly biased and incorrect cliched statements are made with little backup. It might have been better, but if we are going to compare present some hard evidence and not statements like 'champions are always protected now, they never were in the glory days'.

Opinion and preference require no hard evidence. Can you prove that you prefer chocolate to licquorice, or should we take your word for it ?

Just browse through the Ring record book and see what was going on between the fifties and early eighties. If you don't believe there was a higher incidence of great fights, that's fine, ( which I've said three times, now, ) but if I and others think there was a higher incidence then that should be fine, also. I haven't seen Jukebox produce evidence to say that the sixties were inferior, either, so why don't you ask him to produce some ? Then again, he probably wasn't watching boxing in the sixties, so how could he be excited by it ?

Some of us were, and some of us can. It's a matter of opinion and personal experience.

An opinion is stronger if it's based on evidence rather than a general feeling. His opinion isn't the general one which I believe is repeated without people really giving much thought to whether what they are saying has basis and I don't believe he has made unfair comparisons, that is why.

We look back at the 90s for example and remember the big fights that did happen over a 10 year period. I'll bet none of the champions fought their best opponents every year during this stretch, yet what they did over a large period is compared with a shorter span for the current guys.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:36 am

There is no evidence for personal opinion depends on what a certain person defines as a great fight and who they consider to be a great fighter

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:41 am

Why would I be excited by fight that happened 50 years ago. What is it with boxing fans always looking back, you don't get it with other sports. The truth is I just don't care what happened back then it has little to no relevance on the sport today. Boxing like everything else has progressed and will continue to progress.

The big question is how, when we have had a quite unbelievabley good run of fights, can people keep moaning about the health of Boxing.

If the terrible state of boxing toady means we get to see all these great fights then I say keep it terrible.

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:45 am

Imperial Ghosty wrote:There is no evidence for personal opinion depends on what a certain person defines as a great fight and who they consider to be a great fighter

Yes but if you show which you believe to be great fights it gives your opinion more weight.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:46 am

I've given numerous examples already, think this is a terrible era for boxing and no amount of persuassion will change that

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:47 am

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:48 am

Okay, let's just consider the sixties through to the beginning of the eighties. These were just some of the the lineal champions :

HEAVYWEIGHT

Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes.

LIGHTHEAVY

Moore, Johnson, Torres, Tiger, Foster

MIDDLE

Tiger, Griffith, Benvenuti, Monzon, Hagler

WELTER

Griffith, Paret, Napoles, Palomino, Benitez, Leonard

LIGHT

Brown, Ortiz, Laguna, Buchanan, Duran

FEATHER

Saldivar, Jofre, Arguello, Sanchez

BANTAM

Jofre, Harada, Rose, Olivares, Chandler

To my shame, I can't remember too many of the flyweights and can't be bothered to look them up. Anyway, these guys were lineal champs who can scarcely be accused of ducking their best contenders. In addition, everybody at the time knew who the world champion was, which made a title defence a real event with an audience not just confined to hardcore fans.

That's my evidence of the source of my immense excitement as a boxing fan during the period.

Would that suffice ?

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:50 am

OK, let's agree that this is a terrible era, but with a huge number of good fights.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:51 am

What are these good fights because it's been a while since i've got really excited about the prospect of one

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:52 am

HumanWindmill wrote:That's my evidence of the source of my immense excitement as a boxing fan during the period.

Would that suffice ?

I'm not arguing that there were great champs.

I'm saying I don't believe anyone has presented a convincing argument that over the same number of fights current champs are significantly less likely to face their main challengers now than ever.

For example, Bradley fought the #2 ranked Alexander earlier this year. It was argued that because his next fight wasn't against Khan that that is evidence of champions being protected now. I don't think there has been a time where every champ fought the highest ranked challenger in every fight.

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:53 am

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What are these good fights because it's been a while since i've got really excited about the prospect of one

You weren't interested in the Heavyweight unification fight? Perhaps you like reading about boxing more than watching it.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:54 am

I did get excited about the Haye Wlad fight but it failed to live up to any of the expectations

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:57 am

Not really 'a while' then.

There have been plenty of good fights this year, Berto-Ortiz, Conception-Marquez, Lee-McEwan, Wolak-Rodriguez, Murray-Mitchell.

You can break it down by division and domestically/internationally most of the fights people wanted to see this year have happened.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:02 am

Scottrf wrote:
I'm saying I don't believe anyone has presented a convincing argument that over the same number of fights current champs are significantly less likely to face their main challengers now than ever.

That's a fair argument, Scott, and it would be interesting to have a look at the Ring rankings for the corresponding periods. However, the thrust of my argument is the ' too many belts and too many weight divisions ' point, and I firmly believe that boxing was much richer with fewer of each.

by Scottrf Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:04 am

HumanWindmill wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
I'm saying I don't believe anyone has presented a convincing argument that over the same number of fights current champs are significantly less likely to face their main challengers now than ever.

That's a fair argument, Scott, and it would be interesting to have a look at the Ring rankings for the corresponding periods. However, the thrust of my argument is the ' too many belts and too many weight divisions ' point, and I firmly believe that boxing was much richer with fewer of each.

I agree without doubt, but it doesn't impact massively on the spectator side. There can still be good fights, but some are not given the recognition they deserve or are soured by politics.

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:05 am

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What are these good fights because it's been a while since i've got really excited about the prospect of one

I did get excited about the Haye Wlad fight

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:07 am

Scottrf wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
I'm saying I don't believe anyone has presented a convincing argument that over the same number of fights current champs are significantly less likely to face their main challengers now than ever.

That's a fair argument, Scott, and it would be interesting to have a look at the Ring rankings for the corresponding periods. However, the thrust of my argument is the ' too many belts and too many weight divisions ' point, and I firmly believe that boxing was much richer with fewer of each.
I agree without doubt, but it doesn't impact massively on the spectator side. There can still be good fights, but some are not given the recognition they deserve or are soured by politics.

Well, I believe we've found common ground, since I certainly wouldn't argue with this point.

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:08 am

Scottrf wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:What are these good fights because it's been a while since i've got really excited about the prospect of one
You weren't interested in the Heavyweight unification fight? Perhaps you like reading about boxing more than watching it.

I think the nail has been well and truly hit on the head.

by Young_Towzer Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:35 am

Fact is though people are saying some fights don't get the recognition they deserve, last night's was an absolute sham, and to think people paid £15 or just short for that! Laugh

...then they slate Khan for wanting to fight Morales, which i don't blame them for, i don't think he should be fighting Morales, but Erik comfortably outclassed Maidana imo, and Maidana would of walked through Judah, Judah imo is more shot than Erik and that fight was hailed. Laughable, near enough everyone was buzzing for the Haye V Klitschko fight as well, just because it never turned out to be a good fight doesn't take away the excitement it generated before hand.

by **oxring** Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:13 am

HumanWindmill wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
I'm saying I don't believe anyone has presented a convincing argument that over the same number of fights current champs are significantly less likely to face their main challengers now than ever.

That's a fair argument, Scott, and it would be interesting to have a look at the Ring rankings for the corresponding periods. However, the thrust of my argument is the ' too many belts and too many weight divisions ' point, and I firmly believe that boxing was much richer with fewer of each.

You can't prove that there are more fights between the no1 men now than before.

However - 1 belt, 1 division - at least in such cases we know who is the established "man" in the division.

The whole point of my list is that for every division apart from LW, MW (apparently Wonjongkam as well) - we don't know who's the man

by Atila Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:13 am

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:What are these good fights because it's been a while since i've got really excited about the prospect of one

I did get excited about the Haye Wlad fight

He was excited, but not really excited. Smile

by Jukebox Timebomb Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:18 am

Boxing would be at its best without any corrupt sanctioning bodies, which has never happened and never will. Second best is when the sanctioning bodies importance, and therefore influence, is at its lowest, which is what we see today.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:31 am

With one champion per division and fewer weight classes.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:38 am

HumanWindmill wrote:With one champion per division and fewer weight classes.

Which is better for the sport in general, but not necessarily for the participants in general.

by Jukebox Timebomb Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:40 am

HumanWindmill wrote:With one champion per division and fewer weight classes.

It would be good to have universally recognised independant unbiased rankings for each division. It has never happened before though, howevere we are closer to that position today with the well respected ring mags rankings and titles.

The worst thing we could do is go back to the days when the WBC/WBA/IBF had total power over boxing. It would be unthinkabley bad if just one of them had total control!!!!

As for fewer weight classes, no.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:42 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:With one champion per division and fewer weight classes.

Which is better for the sport in general, but not necessarily for the participants in general.

Agreed, Tino.

Today's multi champs and divisions is a direct result of entrepreneurs seeing the opportunity to make money. Fine and dandy it is, until the sport is bled dry.

Still, we must move with the times, although that doesn't mean we can't remember the better days.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:44 am

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:With one champion per division and fewer weight classes.

It would be good to have universally recognised independant unbiased rankings for each division. It has never happened before though, howevere we are closer to that position today with the well respected ring mags rankings and titles.

The worst thing we could do is go back to the days when the WBC/WBA/IBF had total power over boxing. It would be unthinkabley bad if just one of them had total control!!!!

As for fewer weight classes, no.

It has been a darned sight closer than it is now. I dare say that if you'd been around in the sixties you'd agree with me.

by Rowley Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:46 am

Been downhill all the way since they started wearing gloves. Now Kilrain vs Sullivan or Cribb vs Molyneux they were proper mills.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:48 am

rowley wrote:Been downhill all the way since they started wearing gloves. Now Kilrain vs Sullivan or Cribb vs Molyneux they were proper mills.

Why, Sir, you have nailed it ! Ragamuffins and scoundrels of the highest order, these gloved chaps.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:02 am

HumanWindmill wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
HumanWindmill wrote:With one champion per division and fewer weight classes.

Which is better for the sport in general, but not necessarily for the participants in general.

Agreed, Tino.

Today's multi champs and divisions is a direct result of entrepreneurs seeing the opportunity to make money. Fine and dandy it is, until the sport is bled dry.

Still, we must move with the times, although that doesn't mean we can't remember the better days.

Indeed, I don't think you can get away from the fact that multi-titles and proliferation of weight classes, especially anything below maybe 122lbs, has been "bad" for the sport in terms of recognising who the premier fighter is, but just playing Devils Advocate, for the fighters themselves it can only have been a positive. Some recent claiments to "world" titles would not have been able to live with some of the guys from years gone by when there was only one champion at the weight. But, it has enabled these fighters to call themselves a World Champion and no doubt enabled them to squeeze more earnings from what is a dangerous and relatively short career.

by Colonial Lion Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:16 am

You can break it down into a number of issues.

First off is the actual quality around today. I think its reasonably obvious that the present day certainy falls into one of the weaker brackets. Going through each division, its obvious with perhaps one or two divisions excepted that the quality is rather shallow. Look at the top ten pound for pound fighters in the world as listed by respected publications and authorities now and compare back over the decades. Even those unfamiliar with boxings history need only look back ten, fifteen or twenty years to compare and Im not sure how anyone could argue the current crop stand up well in that regard.

The more concerning issue is the actual structure, state and politics of boxing. I really fail to see how the mulititude of weight classes and plethora of titles can be regarded as any way positive. Not to mention the ppv culture that is isolating the sport from its potential fanbase. The arguments that the titles are devalued and therefore irrelevant, or that the sanctioning bodies power has waned as justification for the current state of boxing are flimsy to me. Titles shouldnt be devalued, the object for them was to symbolize who the man at the weight was. Having one champion per weight class clearly makes more sense. The fact that there is only a small number of weight classes at present where a fighter can be recognised as the clear number 1 highlights the absurdity of this. Despite some arguments to the contrary, the belts are still sought after as money making tools if nothing else and having so many does lead to paper champions and does provide stumbling blocks in negotiations which can prevent fights happening. This kind of situation, coupled with ppv is extremelly debilitating in terms of attracting new followers. If even hardcore boxing followers cannot tell who the best or recognised champion is in many weight classes then what hope does an outsider have? Theres no doubt the popularity of boxing has dwindled since I began following the sport, and while it would be impossible to pin the blame singularly on one factor, I certainly believe the numerous belts, ppv practice and quality diluting divisions have played a significant part in this.

by Rowley Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:34 am

With you Lion, someone said on another thread that Cleverly was still learning his trade and was not ready to mix with the top men at his weight, a view I actually agree with but when you have a situation where "world" champions are not ready to face anyone and everyone at their weight it reduces world titles to little more than marketing tools and I cannot see an argument that can be made that a situation like that is healthy.

Those that have stated there was not a golden age are correct, even in the era I consider to be the sports strongest in terms of quality and depth talented fighters could routinely excluded based on their colour or unwillingness to tie themselves to the mob but even that has to be preferable to a situation where at any time four people can potentially claim to be world champion at a weight, and that does not even include those that have been upgraded to emeritus or super duper status.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:45 am

rowley wrote:With you Lion, someone said on another thread that Cleverly was still learning his trade and was not ready to mix with the top men at his weight, a view I actually agree with but when you have a situation were "world" champions are not ready to face anyone and everyone at their weight it reduces world titles to little more than marketing tools and I cannot see an argument that can be made that a situation like that is healthy.

Those that have stated there was not a golden age are correct, even in the era I consider to be the sports strongest in terms of quality and depth talented fighters could routinely excluded based on their colour or unwillingness to tie themselves to the mob but even that has to be preferable to a situation where at any time four people can potentially claim to be world champion at a weight, and that does not even include those that have been upgraded to emeritus or super duper status.

Jeff, playing Devils Advocate again though, surely there is at least an argument that the boxers themselves benefit? I am not talking about "champions" pride or whatever that mythical status is, but I am talking about cold hard facts. There are multitudes of examples, but just recently, look at David Haye. It is very unlikely that he would have been a HW "World" champion in an era of just one title. But, he managed to annexe a title from a similarly "lucky" titleholder and then make an absolute fortune from defending the title. Sure, he may not ever have the legacy of Ali or Frazier or Louis or whomever else, but he will forever be a belt holder in the HW division and considerably richer for it. This can be applied with various degrees of reward over a number of years to a number of weights, belts and fighters.

You know me, I much prefer the "older" fighters and from a purely nostalgic point of view, then everything you are saying is correct, but from a fighters point of view, there has to be times when the proliferation of titles and weights have been a positive influence on their careers.

Just trying to look at it from a different perspective.

by Rowley Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:51 am

True enough Tino but to look at it from the other perspective if you return to one title per division you will automatically give the belts that are largely ignored nowadays added lustre. Back in the day fights for domestic or European belts really meant something, similarly you could have a fight between two ranked contenders that could sell without a belt because you knew with only one set of rankings and eight divisions, whilst it was not obviously always the case if you had a fight between the fighters ranked 2 and 3 in the world they could fight, you now have Dmitry Salita ranked number two with a governing body.

by **oxring** Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:01 am

Nice points Tino. Certainly, Haye can now go into acting happy with his record as "former heavyweight champion of the world". Joe Bloggs would probably believe that - its just boxing fans who'd know that at his best he was never ranked higher than 3 in the HW division.

For individual fighters the multitudinous approach to titles is certainly safer.

However, if more Haye-v-Wlad and Martinez-v-Pavlik/Williams and Ward-v-Froch fights began to occur - up and down the weights to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who was "the man" - boxing as a sport would be richer - there would be more interest and thus more money in it.

If such things were to happen - the Haye's of this world would benefit greatly. But for the Haye's and the Pirog's of this world to benefit - the whole population of fighters/promoters would need to change their behaviour - less likely.

by Colonial Lion Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:04 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
rowley wrote:With you Lion, someone said on another thread that Cleverly was still learning his trade and was not ready to mix with the top men at his weight, a view I actually agree with but when you have a situation were "world" champions are not ready to face anyone and everyone at their weight it reduces world titles to little more than marketing tools and I cannot see an argument that can be made that a situation like that is healthy.

Those that have stated there was not a golden age are correct, even in the era I consider to be the sports strongest in terms of quality and depth talented fighters could routinely excluded based on their colour or unwillingness to tie themselves to the mob but even that has to be preferable to a situation where at any time four people can potentially claim to be world champion at a weight, and that does not even include those that have been upgraded to emeritus or super duper status.

Jeff, playing Devils Advocate again though, surely there is at least an argument that the boxers themselves benefit? I am not talking about "champions" pride or whatever that mythical status is, but I am talking about cold hard facts. There are multitudes of examples, but just recently, look at David Haye. It is very unlikely that he would have been a HW "World" champion in an era of just one title. But, he managed to annexe a title from a similarly "lucky" titleholder and then make an absolute fortune from defending the title. Sure, he may not ever have the legacy of Ali or Frazier or Louis or whomever else, but he will forever be a belt holder in the HW division and considerably richer for it. This can be applied with various degrees of reward over a number of years to a number of weights, belts and fighters.

You know me, I much prefer the "older" fighters and from a purely nostalgic point of view, then everything you are saying is correct, but from a fighters point of view, there has to be times when the proliferation of titles and weights have been a positive influence on their careers.

Just trying to look at it from a different perspective.

I dont really see why this is a good thing. The sport needs to be bigger than individuals. For all the money somebody like Haye made, how many people did he rip off and decieve with fights like Audley Harrison being on ppv.

by Sponsored content