3 things that would improve the sport

what 3 things would be the best in reforming our sport to its former glory?

here are my three
1) 1 belt per division
2) 8 weight divisions
3) 15 round fights

interested to hear your opinions

My opinion is I agree with all three and have nothing more to add.

1) Less robberies
2) No more ppv
3) Less ducking

I'd agree with 1) and 2), but not 3), fights are not 15 rounds any more for a reason.

4 weight divisions.

up to 10 stone

10 - 13 stone

13 - 16 stone

16 stone +

Debate.

Waingro wrote:1) Less robberies
2) No more ppv
3) Less ducking

Is this a serious point?

Agreed with all Dave.

Compulsory to fight 3 times a year plus..

I thing 10 weight divisions. The difference between LHW and MW is too much, making the SMW division a very viable. Also the Cruiser division is a good one given the giants who rule the HW.

One could argue that the LMW division is also a good move. It will stop boxers boiling down to WW (health rish) and then rehydrating to a ridiculous weight fighting someone just above 147.

I recall Gatti weighing over 150 when fighting at SFW. Ridiculous and an unfair advantage. Some will still get away with it though.

15 Round fights for unification and/or genuine world title fights. All other regional fights will be 12 rounders.

Ring rankings to be the general list (or some other independant organisation seeing as ring is owned by GBP)

Olympic style drug testing.

Harmonised conditions between promoters.

A controlled body that audits the governing bodies in their affairs and ensures mandatory fights are not paled off to the highest bidder.

The removal if Bob Arum from this planet.

The return of Baltimora to these boards.

Union Cane wrote:I'd agree with 1) and 2), but not 3), fights are not 15 rounds any more for a reason.

I've heard that the main reason we no longer have 15 fights is due to the TV companies wanting title fights to fit into a one hour time slot. I'm not really sure it was done for the fighters safety.

Agree with what most of the others have written so far but I'd like to see a different way of weighing in fighters implemented.

I'm told same day weigh-ins would be dangerous but I don't like the current system. For example, fighters fighting for the lightweight title, while weighing in at 140lbs plus is BS to me.

Atila wrote:

Union Cane wrote:I'd agree with 1) and 2), but not 3), fights are not 15 rounds any more for a reason.

I've heard that the main reason we no longer have 15 fights is due to the TV companies wanting title fights to fit into a one hour time slot. I'm not really sure it was done for the fighters safety.

Agree with what most of the others have written so far but I'd like to see a different way of weighing in fighters implemented.

I'm told same day weigh-ins would be dangerous but I don't like the current system. For example, fighters fighting for the lightweight title, while weighing in at 140lbs plus is BS to me.

I agree. They should check them for dehydration and boxers should be obliged to weigh in every 4 hours with an appointed official.

I'd have waingro run a global boxing organisation. Anyoone who doesn't comply would get destroyed bruv.

Where is Baltimora anyway? Great poster and missed. If he's reading, hope all is well.

No referring to yourself in the third person. Johnson hates it when boxers do that.

johnson2 wrote:No referring to yourself in the third person. Johnson hates it when boxers do that.

azania wrote:Where is Baltimora anyway? Great poster and missed. If he's reading, hope all is well.

Banned. He's doing good though... I'll let him know you asked.

School Project wrote:

azania wrote:Where is Baltimora anyway? Great poster and missed. If he's reading, hope all is well.

Banned. He's doing good though... I'll let him know you asked.

What for?

DaveVDK wrote:what 3 things would be the best in reforming our sport to its former glory?

here are my three
1) 1 belt per division
2) 8 weight divisions
3) 15 round fights

interested to hear your opinions

1) Never gonna happen. You cant just shut down all the other organisations
2) Totally agree
3) 12 rounds are more than enough. Thats just my opinion I guess but what difference would going back to the old system do?

Im in contact as well with him. PM you now lads

How practical are these reforms though? I would rather see less lofty but more acheiveable reforms put in action than ones which have little chance of happening.

The weight reform would be easy. The one belt is impossible though but with less weights would that really matter anyway

azania wrote:Where is Baltimora anyway? Great poster and missed. If he's reading, hope all is well.

Yeah were has Baltimora and Scott gone, Balti seems to have been gone longer than Scott now i think about it.

Steffan wrote:The weight reform would be easy. The one belt is impossible though but with less weights would that really matter anyway

Im not sure the weight one would be easy. You would need cooperation on a few levels. It would probably just lead to more catchweights fights anyhow.

Steffan wrote:Im in contact as well with him. PM you now lads

Chaps,

Don't forget that you can also PM any of the moderation or admin team members, who will be more than happy to clarify things.

Adam D wrote:

Steffan wrote:Im in contact as well with him. PM you now lads

Chaps,

Don't forget that you can also PM any of the moderation or admin team members, who will be more than happy to clarify things.

Cheers Adam, to be honest, I don't know why he was banned, not my place to ask anyway. I just miss the geezer

Oh... and to clear things up. I'm not Balti! I don't want to get banned too.

If the belt reform is impossible, then the weight one is for the same reason; unless of course you have diamond belts, silver belts, interim champs etc. The divisions want more champs so that they can have more world title fights even though fighters appear to be fighting less. The best idea is to have fighters fighting three times a year at least, otherwise they loose their belts.

bhb001 wrote:If the belt reform is impossible, then the weight one is for the same reason; unless of course you have diamond belts, silver belts, interim champs etc. The divisions want more champs so that they can have more world title fights even though fighters appear to be fighting less. The best idea is to have fighters fighting three times a year at least, otherwise they loose their belts.

True - that way the fighters won't hang around - otherwise they'll get caught with their trousers down.

ShahenshahG wrote:

bhb001 wrote:If the belt reform is impossible, then the weight one is for the same reason; unless of course you have diamond belts, silver belts, interim champs etc. The divisions want more champs so that they can have more world title fights even though fighters appear to be fighting less. The best idea is to have fighters fighting three times a year at least, otherwise they loose their belts.

True - that way the fighters won't hang around - otherwise they'll get caught with their trousers down.

Bit cocky that comment

Having multiple weight divisions is a very good thing, protects the fighters...

As for alphabet titles, it earns boxing more money because more fights can be billed as a world title. You don't need sanctioning bodies to tell you who the best fighter in the division is that's generally known, although having one belt would force the best to fight the best.

- a 5-judge scoring system.

- UK promoters stumping up more money to get big US & Europe-based fighters to come over here.

- ITV to pull thier fingers out and start showing boxing again. No-one does it like they did. Sky do quite a good job, and whilst lots of people have Sky nowadays, boxing doesn't feel like a national sport now. BBC & Channel 5's attempts just don't cut it. We might never get back to the salad days, but a big domestic bout, primetime on ITV would really whet the appetite.

1) bob arums passing
2) richard schaefers arrest
3) don kings passing

1.) increase activity- champions must make a defence every 6 months vs a top 10 ranked fighter or be stripped. To be on the p4p list you must fight twice a year.
2.) fighters can only get a title shot if they have won there last 2 fight where one of which must be vs a top 10 contender
3.) Remove super, emeritus, diamond, interim titles etc. Have 4 organisations WBC, WBC, WBA and IBF and recognise the ring title as the #1 in the division

1. better judging
2. less belts
3. more emphasis on ranking when defending titles.

Have to agree to all 3 myself
Also i agree with fighting at least twice each calender year.
It would also end this horrible notion that a boxer can be world champion at 3,4,5,6, different weights. The nonsence has to end. Great topic.

1) A global comission. No more commissions making one rule and another doing something different. The one that bugged me was Margarito being refused a licence in California and then being granted one in Texas before his fight with Pacquiao.

2) More revenue and exposure brought to the lower weight classes. Their are more high quality and entertaining fights in the lower weights than there are amongst the fat heavyweights who with the exception of the Klitschkos are ridiculously over payed given their limited talent.. If you want to watch good fights watch the lower weights.

3) A drop in the number of weights. Not quite back to 8 but Some of the junior and super weights should be removed along with cruiserweight.

SugarRayRussell wrote:1) A global comission. No more commissions making one rule and another doing something different. The one that bugged me was Margarito being refused a licence in California and then being granted one in Texas before his fight with Pacquiao.

2) More revenue and exposure brought to the lower weight classes. Their are more high quality and entertaining fights in the lower weights than there are amongst the fat heavyweights who with the exception of the Klitschkos are ridiculously over payed given their limited talent.. If you want to watch good fights watch the lower weights.

3) A drop in the number of weights. Not quite back to 8 but Some of the junior and super weights should be removed along with cruiserweight.

Point 2/ Why increase their pay? If no-one is interested in the small guys, then their pay will reflect that. HWs are always better paid. Bruno made millions and he didn't have an iota of the talent the Klits have.

3/ agreed, but keep thw CW. The HWs are getting too big and a guy weighing in at 190 wont have a chance anymore.

azania wrote:

SugarRayRussell wrote:1) A global comission. No more commissions making one rule and another doing something different. The one that bugged me was Margarito being refused a licence in California and then being granted one in Texas before his fight with Pacquiao.

2) More revenue and exposure brought to the lower weight classes. Their are more high quality and entertaining fights in the lower weights than there are amongst the fat heavyweights who with the exception of the Klitschkos are ridiculously over payed given their limited talent.. If you want to watch good fights watch the lower weights.

3) A drop in the number of weights. Not quite back to 8 but Some of the junior and super weights should be removed along with cruiserweight.

Point 2/ Why increase their pay? If no-one is interested in the small guys, then their pay will reflect that. HWs are always better paid. Bruno made millions and he didn't have an iota of the talent the Klits have.

3/ agreed, but keep thw CW. The HWs are getting too big and a guy weighing in at 190 wont have a chance anymore.

Give the smaller guys the TV time afforded to people like Chris Arreola and Dereck Chisora. In Britain we have a flyweight prospect Paul Butler who looks an outstanding talent but he gets no where near the coverage guys like Fury who can't even be bothered getting into shape got when they turned pro.

People moan that modern boxing's suffering by the best not fighting the best but how many of the same people moaning about this took the time to watch Segura vs Viloria which was 2 of the best Flyweights around up against each other?

Look at the money Showtime gave the bantamweight division and look how well it done. If that was a tournament above 147lbs it would have been nowhere near as exciting.

SugarRayRussell wrote:

azania wrote:

SugarRayRussell wrote:1) A global comission. No more commissions making one rule and another doing something different. The one that bugged me was Margarito being refused a licence in California and then being granted one in Texas before his fight with Pacquiao.

2) More revenue and exposure brought to the lower weight classes. Their are more high quality and entertaining fights in the lower weights than there are amongst the fat heavyweights who with the exception of the Klitschkos are ridiculously over payed given their limited talent.. If you want to watch good fights watch the lower weights.

3) A drop in the number of weights. Not quite back to 8 but Some of the junior and super weights should be removed along with cruiserweight.

Point 2/ Why increase their pay? If no-one is interested in the small guys, then their pay will reflect that. HWs are always better paid. Bruno made millions and he didn't have an iota of the talent the Klits have.

3/ agreed, but keep thw CW. The HWs are getting too big and a guy weighing in at 190 wont have a chance anymore.

Give the smaller guys the TV time afforded to people like Chris Arreola and Dereck Chisora. In Britain we have a flyweight prospect Paul Butler who looks an outstanding talent but he gets no where near the coverage guys like Fury who can't even be bothered getting into shape got when they turned pro.

People moan that modern boxing's suffering by the best not fighting the best but how many of the same people moaning about this took the time to watch Segura vs Viloria which was 2 of the best Flyweights around up against each other?

Look at the money Showtime gave the bantamweight division and look how well it done. If that was a tournament above 147lbs it would have been nowhere near as exciting.

I agree. But its supply and demand. Most people want to see guys their size (and above) fight. Small guys are hugely popular in the far east. But tv shouldn't shove small guys down our throats when most want to see big guys fight. Historically its been the small guys who got shafted. Only Michael Crabajal has made over $1m in a fight. and that was 20 yrs ago. Shocking.

Kameda has made $1m+ for a fight but that is in Asia and he may be in the top 10 earners in the sport.

I just think the standard of the match up should be thought of more. I go back to the bantamweight tournament again. That was a big risk from showtime and it paid off. They put money into a division that otherwise wouldn't have seen that sort of cash.

I would like to see more of the smaller guys on undercards I don't expect them to be topping bills.

The sport needs to get itself onto the regular telly again and clean up its act if its to survive. We dont need Sky creating hype job fighters to swindle the public out of their money. Put them back on regular tv or at least abolish ppv for goodness sake. How can the sport expect to survive when its asking joe public to shell out for fights like Haye v Harrison or telling us all that the likes of Haye and Khan are superstars only for them to beaten from pillar to post. Its farcical. Let the public decide whos good and whos not by showing them regularly not hyping up these average guys that wouldnt have existed back in the 80s and 90s. Are these really the best on offer? If so then boxing is in a far worse state than I thought. I remember the 80s and 90s when you had genuine top class fighters around.