The Problem: There's Just No Percentage in That

Hi Guys,

So, after a few sterling debates this week, one particular topic has sprung up and stimulated interesting debate. Promoters, and the notion of percentages when taking a fight, and whether they are in fact the problem.

It's a topic that hasn't so much as caused ripples but waves on Boxing V2. Many respected posters have defended Promoters like Frank Warren, Arum and Golden Boy for grooming fighters like Nathan Cleverly and Chavez Jr. While other posters have argued that they are weak champions, incapable of achieving at world level, despite occupying world titles.

A few fight fans have argued (in good debate fashion) that it is fine for Warren, Di Bella, Arum and alike to hype up fighters, name drop top opposition, even if these fights don't materialize, many see it as part of the game. Verbal business, promotion, hype.

I've been trying to sum it all up; the debates about promoters, how they bleed a fighter or sell us a poor fight for the short game, while talking long on big names and huge venues. World dominance, another avenue for a promoter, Las Vegas, MSG selling out Wembley. It is part of the game, i do sense and see and understand that.

But... and this is a big but... are promoters simply not seeing the percentage in pushing their fighters into the fights that their titles (Chavez, Cleverly, Cloud) talk (Degale, Degale, Degale) and talent (Berto, LUCIAN BUTE, Donaire, Bradley) demand? And are they responsible for creating a scenario that leaves fans frustrated? World champions without world will or talent? Is this the dawn of a new type of Champion?

Is the percentage of a fighter, risk versus reward, what is holding the sport back in 2012? And if you think so, who is responsible and why?

Think it is just the way the game is now. Read in Boxing Monthly last month that on one of the major governing bodies websites they had 17 divisions and in those divisions currently listed 37 "world" champions, farce does not even come close to covering it. When that is the situation is just inevitable that fighters who are not world class through either not being ready or not being good enough will be able to bill themselves as such, and I do get the whole you can't blame the promoters and fighters for making hay in such sunshine, its a tough game who can blame them for wanting to make a few quid.

Unfortunately the situation will continue until either fans or TV networks say enough is enough because without those every fighter and promoter is screwed but as neither looks likely to happen any time soon so it continues, because for all our wailing and gnashing of teeth you know as well as me if Bute lines up a Magee rematch next Canadian fans will turn out in their droves and Clev vs Tommy Cannon will be similarly packed.

Its not really a majorly new phenomenan. This kind of thing has been going on in boxing since it began. There are more belts around now but much of the principles of promotion have remained consistent.

The champions tend to make the belts now anyway, so a world title on its own doesnt neccessarily mean a great deal.

That is a huge problem though isn't it, Manos. A belt SHOULD mean something, in fact it should mean everything in the sport, the thing kids dream of. The champion making the belt argument doesn't wash with me, I hate that and it is just pointless, the belt should be prestigious regardless of who holds it, and that is why there should only be 1 per divison.

Fists of Fury wrote:That is a huge problem though isn't it, Manos. A belt SHOULD mean something, in fact it should mean everything in the sport, the thing kids dream of. The champion making the belt argument doesn't wash with me, I hate that and it is just pointless, the belt should be prestigious regardless of who holds it, and that is why there should only be 1 per divison.

It should but all throghout boxing history there have been many occasions where its been disputed by various fighters and commissions, fragmented, devalued because of racial/social discrimination and so on. Given the nature of boxing its perhaps difficult to have a truly satisfying one belt system that can be applied realistically.

I really think it could be achieved in this day and age though, Manos, and that is what really frustrates me.

Racial and political tensions and rows are at an all time low, so such problems that were encountered in the past would be most unlikely.

Fists of Fury wrote:I really think it could be achieved in this day and age though, Manos, and that is what really frustrates me.

Racial and political tensions and rows are at an all time low, so such problems that were encountered in the past would be most unlikely.

I think it would be very difficult. The impact money has in the sport, the difficulty in operating an effective ranking system globally, the difficulties in governing the title etc

Would be extremelly complicated and Im not sure how effctive it would be at the end of all of it.

Manos is right in alluding to the idea that there has never been some sort of utopian golden age where there was one belt per division and there were not external factors such as ethnicity or mob involvement that impacted on a fighters ability to win or contest that title, but for me a sitution where one of four governing bodies lists 37 champions across 17 divisions is far more ruinous than one where there are 8 divisions and eight champions, irrespective of the fact that there were occasions where the champion in that division was not the best fighter in it, because at least fans would be able to name them

Abso-bloody-lutely, Jeff.

If you take the honor out of this thing of ours then what is left? Is there enough honor in being a Champion in today's climate? Is there more honor in being on HBO?

I feel strongly that the amount of titles that are available today is a huge problem with the sport. I mean it is a joke really, look at Chavez Jr. This man is being allowed to fight regularly but doesn't have to face his number 1 challenger. He is developing like a contender would, but holds the WBC belt. The green belt, with all it's iconic status and history.

It isn't just Chavez, as well all know. Sadly, there seems to be no percentage in owning a belt, especially once a fighter has made a name for themselves. A belt is becoming something that you need to simply have on your resume, not something fighters seem overly concerned about keeping. Some do, the lesser fighters who need to make a name, but it is the name that is more important, not the belt behind it.

This is part of boxing, and once someone becomes known their stock is usually raised high enough for the networks and other Champions (so called) to mention. When this happens tte belt and ownership of a belt is given validity by the name. But then the name simply fights for purses and dilutes the status of the belt, rendering it almost meaningless. The WBC have a lot to answer for Chavez and Martinez, i mean their silence at this point is utterly deafening.

Ive tended to come round more to the way of thinking that the belts were a nice idea, in an ideal world would be the indicator of who was the best but ultimately just never really works properly.

Even going back to the early days where fighters like Greb fought more or less everyone there was to face - its not as if he was defending his title against the cream of the crop. Once a year on average and often against fighters that were much less worthy than others. Walker being the only real time he defended his title against an all time great fighter. The likes of Wilson, Downey and Moore being rather weak defences in the circumstances. However his results elsewhere in non title bouts mainly say far more than his title affairs.

Maybe no titles at all isnt such a bad thing? Historically it hasnt always been neccessary to need a title to judge a fighter on, and titles have in many cases served only to complicate and exploit. Nowadays the titles mean little but to be honest it isnt neccessary to use them to judge who the best is. An independant ranking body or common sense approach is generally far more accurate.

davidemore wrote:If you take the honor out of this thing of ours then what is left? Is there enough honor in being a Champion in today's climate? Is there more honor in being on HBO?

I feel strongly that the amount of titles that are available today is a huge problem with the sport. I mean it is a joke really, look at Chavez Jr. This man is being allowed to fight regularly but doesn't have to face his number 1 challenger. He is developing like a contender would, but holds the WBC belt. The green belt, with all it's iconic status and history.

It isn't just Chavez, as well all know. Sadly, there seems to be no percentage in owning a belt, especially once a fighter has made a name for themselves. A belt is becoming something that you need to simply have on your resume, not something fighters seem overly concerned about keeping. Some do, the lesser fighters who need to make a name, but it is the name that is more important, not the belt behind it.

This is part of boxing, and once someone becomes known their stock is usually raised high enough for the networks and other Champions (so called) to mention. When this happens tte belt and ownership of a belt is given validity by the name. But then the name simply fights for purses and dilutes the status of the belt, rendering it almost meaningless. The WBC have a lot to answer for Chavez and Martinez, i mean their silence at this point is utterly deafening.

Do you really need a strap around you waist to be a champion? If a fighter fights top level opposition consistently he will get the recognition. If he milks a title he wont. I dont see a title, invented by someone, as being neccessary proof of being a champion.

I dont think the situation now is particulalrly worse than say black fighters being denied the right to contest the title, mob involvement and fixes, top black fighters being frozen out of the title scene rival commissions and sanctioning bodies refusing unification fights etc The late 30s and 40s was probably a golden age in terms of talent around but it could scarecely have been more discriminating or unfair.

Fists of Fury wrote:I really think it could be achieved in this day and age though, Manos, and that is what really frustrates me.

Racial and political tensions and rows are at an all time low, so such problems that were encountered in the past would be most unlikely.

It can be achieved if left to the boxers themselves. But with their promoters, managers all looking to maximise their (not the boxer's) earnings, it's highly unlikely it will happen. I remember a few years back when the ring made their own belt. Good idea in principle and wonder if fans will see the ring belt holder as the real world champ.

After all they dont take a commission from the boxer and dont need the money. But now its owned by GBP, who knows?

There's just no percentage in a belt, and there are plenty of great fighters who don't have a belt. Will should overcome Champion status, and great fighters are always willing to take big fights. Still, be nice if it could be reflected in being called Champion of the World. Right?

Someone mentioned nationalism earlier which is part of the "problem" in that hoards of fans would prefer to see their local boy batter some bum and keep winning than see him fight well against top level opponents but inevitably lose. This is especially rife in Germany where the fan base is huge and very stupid. They would much prefer to see a chump like Marco Huck beat up a postman than see him lose valiantly to a top quality operator. They then get to retire a "legend" with the claim that they were so good that the other champions avoided them. Got a feeling Lucien Bute will finish his career in this way.

Boon good points! Did you call German fans stupid in that nicely crafted piece? lol. Maybe they are naive?

Again Davide you are just like that other noisy vessel Azania in that you put words in people's mouths as it were.

I said the fanbase was very stupid not necessarily German fans. Generally I would say the Marco Huck fanbase is very stupid yes.

Boon don't attack me please, i asked you a question and you clarified that question. There is no need to be hostile.

The fan base could well be considered stupid, or uneducated, it depends which way you want to look at it, i suppose.

The super 6 style, if not perfect is about the only way to force these buggers to fight.

Personally I believe if all 4 belts are held by different fighters it should automatically trigger a torniment between the 4 fighters.

If they refuse to take part for any reason they should be stripped of their titles.

Also no round robin either. Draw from a hat and a straight knock out comp.

Think it is unfair to generalise about German fans, should not be forgotten 35,000 turned up for Calzaghe Manfredo, nationalism may be more acute in Germany but is not exclusive to them and no promoter is beyond exploiting it.

PS Davide please stop using L*L it is the calling card of the moron, and you're better than that.

I live in Germany and I have to say that, as it pertains to boxing, the fan base IS largely ill informed.

It's all about national pride and next to nothing about quality boxing. The German fans, for the most part, don't even care that most of the ' German ' fighters are erstwhile East Europeans who carry a passport of convenience.

Super D has it bang on, in my opinion.

Rowley i can think of other things that imply being a moron. Like calling someone it for using lol. I'm just trying to share my laughter, and although i appreciate it is derived from the text generation, a generation i care little for, it was simply meant for laughter.

Rowley i respect you, but that doesn't mean i will be abused on the boards by you.

Thank you for holding me in higher regard than a moron, Rowley, noted and appreciated. It is nice to start 2012 being told you are not a complete moron.

Have to say Windy having attended a Wlad fight in Germany they are a fairly undemanding bunch, the card I went to had an undercard that would shame many a pub car park brawl and a main event that redefined tedious both coupled with a venue in the middle of nowhere which would have involved either travel or a hotel stay for pretty much everyone in attendance but as their boy Wlad chalked up another win I did not see anyone who seemed anything other than happy.

Sorry Davide no offence meant, just really, really annoys me, plus I doubt when people write it they really are laughing out loud so apart from being annoying suspect more often than not it is inaccurate.

Look on the bright side though am fairly sure I described you as a moron on the old 606 on more than one occasion so to now be described as better than that surely represents progress.

alma wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:The super 6 style, if not perfect is about the only way to force these buggers to fight.

Personally I believe if all 4 belts are held by different fighters it should automatically trigger a torniment between the 4 fighters.

If they refuse to take part for any reason they should be stripped of their titles.

Also no round robin either. Draw from a hat and a straight knock out comp.

Indeed, that's what I was alluding to. There's too much emphasis on a fighter's statistical record, protecting his loss etc. I mean we all know that Federer, Nadal etc are the best in the world at tennis, but I'm sure nobody has any idea what their win-loss record is, as it's basically irrelevant.

We are all guilty of this. On this board I have seen posters question Manny because of his losses back in the day. Losses are used as a tool to put down certain fighters and are ignored for other fighters. Hell, even the loss to Duran has been used against SRL (he got beat by a blown up lightweight).

I'll add that I'm also guilty of it.

Rowley indeed it does, and don't get me wrong i agree with your 'lol' statement, it really is useless.

Sometimes i want to be bad on the boards, cause a stir, but i must be honest, really enjoying this new format. The posters are informed and and some real debate takes place. Not once have i really talked of JC on here or Ricky, really nice to be talking about current boxing topics and relative fights.

Took me a while but i decided to let my writing do the talking on here. And in doing so i return to the threads current topic and ask, are the Germans simply less demanding as fans of boxing, and is this dangerous to the sport?

rowley wrote:Have to say Windy having attended a Wlad fight in Germany they are a fairly undemanding bunch, the card I went to had an undercard that would shame many a pub car park brawl and a main event that redefined tedious both coupled with a venue in the middle of nowhere which would have involved either travel or a hotel stay for pretty much everyone in attendance but as their boy Wlad chalked up another win I did not see anyone who seemed anything other than happy.

In a nutshell, jeff.

Even the RTL commentators haven't a clue. I'd love to have a euro for every time I've heard one of those buffoons ( who chatter incessantly during the fight, ) excitedly exclaim " .. beautiful right hand " or some such, when the right hand in question has been parried or blocked. Worse still, if you listen to the German commentary, ( I normally don't, nowadays, ) you really do get the impression that there's only one fighter in the ring. The visiting fighter and his work hardly ever get a mention.

Clueless.

azania wrote:

alma wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:The super 6 style, if not perfect is about the only way to force these buggers to fight.

Personally I believe if all 4 belts are held by different fighters it should automatically trigger a torniment between the 4 fighters.

If they refuse to take part for any reason they should be stripped of their titles.

Also no round robin either. Draw from a hat and a straight knock out comp.

Indeed, that's what I was alluding to. There's too much emphasis on a fighter's statistical record, protecting his loss etc. I mean we all know that Federer, Nadal etc are the best in the world at tennis, but I'm sure nobody has any idea what their win-loss record is, as it's basically irrelevant.

We are all guilty of this. On this board I have seen posters question Manny because of his losses back in the day. Losses are used as a tool to put down certain fighters and are ignored for other fighters. Hell, even the loss to Duran has been used against SRL (he got beat by a blown up lightweight).

I'll add that I'm also guilty of it.

Azania your finest comment yet, i concur!

davidemore wrote:
Azania your finest comment yet,

The bar wasn't very high.

Yes, personally I think the root of the problem is with the governing bodies and the amount of belts, the promoters and boxers are just exposing the system for what it is massively flawed.

If there was just one belt per division then it would mean a lot and it would be difficult to get a title shot, therefore it would be the best pitting themselevs against the best to win a title, when they get there opportunity it will be earned, because the best are facing the best there will be more losses involved and this means that having a few losses on your record doesn't mean as much.

Makes too much sense for it to happen however.

It has to be bad for the sport, I know the brothers are the top of the tree and so the inducement or need for them to travel is negligible as people will come to them but for guys like Sturm etc when you can put on no kind of undercard and shift 30,000 tickets against the likes of Murray and Macklin who despite their heroics are no kind of names and as such probably cheap where is the inducement for them to take risks.

Is questionable whether they would even make more against someone like Martinez as he would obviously be looking for a more equitable split or probably the lions share, whilst I don't agree with it but what are you more likely to do, rematch Murray in Germany or fight Martinez in Vegas for the same money

HumanWindmill wrote:

davidemore wrote:
Azania your finest comment yet,

The bar wasn't very high.

Ouch.

Only kidding.

HumanWindmill wrote:

davidemore wrote:
Azania your finest comment yet,

The bar wasn't very high.

I'll get you for that!

I'm sure you will, mate.

You're a darned good sport, though.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Yes, personally I think the root of the problem is with the governing bodies and the amount of belts, the promoters and boxers are just exposing the system for what it is massively flawed.

If there was just one belt per division then it would mean a lot and it would be difficult to get a title shot, therefore it would be the best pitting themselevs against the best to win a title, when they get there opportunity it will be earned, because the best are facing the best there will be more losses involved and this means that having a few losses on your record doesn't mean as much.

Makes too much sense for it to happen however.

The argument also goes that the more so called world champs, the more money for boxers as he is billed as a champion.

I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary.

Even if you have a one belt system, which would difficult to operate and govern I think, I can still see money overriding it. A fighter given the choice of facing say Oscar de la Hoya for 10 million or Winky Wright for 1 million will almost always opt for the former and if that means ditching his belt then how long before fighters simply break away and do their own thing or give up their titles?

More money more problems in the sport of boxing? I think so.

alma wrote:I think losses set a fighter back a lot more these days as they fight much less frequently. After all, few dispute SRR is the best of all time but he lost 19 times I believe. If fighters had to enter tournaments to earn the big money then the best would soon rise to the top I think, a la Andre Ward, you might argue. He was a youngish fighter with a very low profile, but the Super Six tournament has pushed him to the top of the tree. The fact he is fairly dull was largely irrelevant. He was in a tournament where the best fought the best and came out on top. If there were more tournaments like the super six, in theory protected fighters like Ottke etc would hopefully begin to be a thing of the past.

Theres no garauntee fighters will enter them though. If the money can fronted up then that will temp them, but it has to be of sufficient amount for them to justify the risk. I would also only consider the Super 6 a moderate success which also illustrated alot of the problems associated with tourmanent style boxing regards injuries, withdrawals, delays and disagreements over venues and locations.

I cant see the really big stars and big draws in boxing willing to sacrifice their privelages and enter into these kind of events which tie them up for years and cripple their negotiating leverage.

rowley wrote:It has to be bad for the sport, I know the brothers are the top of the tree and so the inducement or need for them to travel is negligible as people will come to them but for guys like Sturm etc when you can put on no kind of undercard and shift 30,000 tickets against the likes of Murray and Macklin who despite their heroics are no kind of names and as such probably cheap where is the inducement for them to take risks.

Is questionable whether they would even make more against someone like Martinez as he would obviously be looking for a more equitable split or probably the lions share, whilst I don't agree with it but what are you more likely to do, rematch Murray in Germany or fight Martinez in Vegas for the same money

In that instance, the boxer himself should become more ambitious. Sturm must be a rich man by now with millions of adoring idiots (sorry fans) in Germany tuning in to see him pick up a massive paycheck to UD some buffoon. He's done that so many times that the robbery to De La Hoya should be at the back of his mind by now and so he can concentrate on trying to get some legacy securing fight? Alas, no, he keeps on fighting sub standard fighters.Love the way the Germans always use the De La Hoya/Sturm fight to prove that they are not the only ones who rob. How many years ago was that now?

D whilst I do agree to a degree with what you are saying, you can see it from Sturm's perspective, the one time he has done what fans globally want and stepped outside of his comfort zone to take on a mega star he got jobbed, badly, easy to say he needs to get over it but how reticent was Jones to travel on the back of a bad decision as an amateur

manos de piedra wrote:I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary.

Even if you have a one belt system, which would difficult to operate and govern I think, I can still see money overriding it. A fighter given the choice of facing say Oscar de la Hoya for 10 million or Winky Wright for 1 million will almost always opt for the former and if that means ditching his belt then how long before fighters simply break away and do their own thing or give up their titles?

In the short term, yes.

However, with a one champion per division system the anticipated aggregate earnings for a top flight fighter to be involved in the mix for the world title would likely outstrip the one off bumper pay day, particularly if the governing body enforced sanctions against any fighter giving up his title to sidestep a challenge ( such as banning the fighter concerned from ever competing for that title in future. )

The last part of that paragraph might not be workable ( it came to me on the fly, ) but I'm sure that something similar would be feasible.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary.

Even if you have a one belt system, which would difficult to operate and govern I think, I can still see money overriding it. A fighter given the choice of facing say Oscar de la Hoya for 10 million or Winky Wright for 1 million will almost always opt for the former and if that means ditching his belt then how long before fighters simply break away and do their own thing or give up their titles?

In the short term, yes.

However, with a one champion per division system the anticipated aggregate earnings for a top flight fighter to be involved in the mix for the world title would likely outstrip the one off bumper pay day, particularly if the governing body enforced sanctions against any fighter giving up his title to sidestep a challenge ( such as banning the fighter concerned from ever competing for that title in future. )

The last part of that paragraph might not be workable ( it came to me on the fly, ) but I'm sure that something similar would be feasible.

You're missing the elephant in the room which are the promoters and managers. Boxers are generally (oops) honourable men. Can the same be said of promoters and managers?

I'll add that promoters and managers may represent the boxer, but in reality they represent themselves through the boxer. They would take the parger purse and hope for the best.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary.

Even if you have a one belt system, which would difficult to operate and govern I think, I can still see money overriding it. A fighter given the choice of facing say Oscar de la Hoya for 10 million or Winky Wright for 1 million will almost always opt for the former and if that means ditching his belt then how long before fighters simply break away and do their own thing or give up their titles?

In the short term, yes.

However, with a one champion per division system the anticipated aggregate earnings for a top flight fighter to be involved in the mix for the world title would likely outstrip the one off bumper pay day, particularly if the governing body enforced sanctions against any fighter giving up his title to sidestep a challenge ( such as banning the fighter concerned from ever competing for that title in future. )

The last part of that paragraph might not be workable ( it came to me on the fly, ) but I'm sure that something similar would be feasible.

Im not sure it would, because fighters fight less frequently these days and are more dependant on the impact of t.v.

Im not sure how this one belt system is designed to operate. Assuming you introdue one belt per division, the next step is creating a workable rankings system. But how are money splits, rankings, who fights who, when, in what location etc decided? Are fighters essentiallys stripped of all their control in fight selection and negotiations in favour of a single authority who decides everything? How much control do the fighters retain over their own careers? Is the champion in place told who to fight, for how much and when? Or does he have choice in this? Stripping fighters of most of their control would kind of be a UFC like model as far as I can tell. Fighters are told who to fight, when and are on fixed contrcts controlled through the overall agency. This seems to work ok at the moment because of the stranglehold UFC has. But would it work in boxing? The money is significantly more and the fighters have far greater flexibility in their careers. How feasible would it be to bring them all under one kind of umbrella where they have to give up so much control?

With the complexities associated with money, tv networks, advertising and so on even if there was an effective ranking and governing system in place, I still think that the financial aspect would tend to override the system so to speak. If a similar kind of UFC model could be implemented which signed up the top fighters in each weight class and more or less controlled who they fought and were in charge of the payouts I think it would great but its just difficult to see how it could be implemented.

alma wrote:You wonder if hypothetically some Russian billionaire stumped up millions of dollars for a knockout tournament involving the world's top boxers in certain weight categories, how this would affect boxers' relationships with promoters/managers etc

The promoter/manager would probably demand a payoff to buy the boxer out of a contract.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary.

Even if you have a one belt system, which would difficult to operate and govern I think, I can still see money overriding it. A fighter given the choice of facing say Oscar de la Hoya for 10 million or Winky Wright for 1 million will almost always opt for the former and if that means ditching his belt then how long before fighters simply break away and do their own thing or give up their titles?

In the short term, yes.

However, with a one champion per division system the anticipated aggregate earnings for a top flight fighter to be involved in the mix for the world title would likely outstrip the one off bumper pay day, particularly if the governing body enforced sanctions against any fighter giving up his title to sidestep a challenge ( such as banning the fighter concerned from ever competing for that title in future. )

The last part of that paragraph might not be workable ( it came to me on the fly, ) but I'm sure that something similar would be feasible.

You're missing the elephant in the room which are the promoters and managers. Boxers are generally (oops) honourable men. Can the same be said of promoters and managers?

Boxers follow the money just as much as promoters. Part of the reason they hire the promoters and managers in the first place is for this reason.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think in a sport driven primarily by money, belts will always be secondary.

Even if you have a one belt system, which would difficult to operate and govern I think, I can still see money overriding it. A fighter given the choice of facing say Oscar de la Hoya for 10 million or Winky Wright for 1 million will almost always opt for the former and if that means ditching his belt then how long before fighters simply break away and do their own thing or give up their titles?

In the short term, yes.

However, with a one champion per division system the anticipated aggregate earnings for a top flight fighter to be involved in the mix for the world title would likely outstrip the one off bumper pay day, particularly if the governing body enforced sanctions against any fighter giving up his title to sidestep a challenge ( such as banning the fighter concerned from ever competing for that title in future. )

The last part of that paragraph might not be workable ( it came to me on the fly, ) but I'm sure that something similar would be feasible.

You're missing the elephant in the room which are the promoters and managers. Boxers are generally (oops) honourable men. Can the same be said of promoters and managers?

Boxers follow the money just as much as promoters. Part of the reason they hire the promoters and managers in the first place is for this reason.

You're correct, but as boxers are the ones taking the punches, I'd give them more leeway.

Difference is Manos the UFC is the promotional company and governing body. Personally do not see any problem with one governing body, if a champion is fighting a mandatory there is a set split such as 65-35 as I believe is the case now for voluntary defences they can be negotiated differently.

Think to bear in mind is currently mandatory defences have become a euphamism for getting someone rubbish out of the way, with only one set of rankings and governing body becoming mandatory contender would actually be difficult and as such the chances are the champion would be fighting someone, who people had heard of and who had fought enough decent fighters to have a solid reputation, hence the money the fight would generate would be in proportion to the risk to the champion.

If we take the ' original eight ' between 1938 to 1950, only the lightweight and middleweight divisions fell into temporary disarray at any time and, in both cases, it was due to the reigning champion vacating the title.

If it was workable then it should be workable now. Fighters fight less often, nowadays, but the financial rewards, both in the absolute and the relative, are considerably higher than they were then.