Does Boxing need to die in order to reinvent itself!!!

"Cleverly is learning with the title................."

Povetkin is a "World" champion but declares himself out of "World league"......

Let's face it something has to "Mean" something for people to be bothered!!!!......That's why we have thirty/forty somethings ruling the sport!!..Why would people be interested in Boxing when any old muppet can be a champion????

The young talent is out there but Boxing ddoesn't interest it and why should it???

In Golf..Tennis etc...Majors mean something!!! as in any other sport!!

Real shame but I just don't see an end to it as promoters run the sport and they have a vested interest!!

Hopefully it will kill itself and reinvent!!

I'm sure people will hate me for saying this but the UFC is a good business model for boxing. One champion per divison and the best fight the best, non of this diamond belt rubbish.

This won't happen unless someone with a lot of cash comes in to unity the governing bodies.

If boxing does "Die" which it won't, how would you reinvent it and make sure the same problems dont reoccur?

Scrap it all and start again? This would confine boxing to wilderness for several years, but could come back stronger. It will only happen if most of the various organisations go bankrupt (financially as opposed to morally) due to selfish management and corrupt practices.

UFC is not a sport though, they are a promotional unit within mixed martial arts, they are certainly the most prominent but from what I understand the best in UFC will never fight the best in one of the other promotional outfits (sorry don't know the names of any) There are things the UFC does extremely well in terms of marketing etc, but the best in UFC fighting each other is not the same as the best in MMA doing likewise

The problem is many see the UFC as its own sport so casuals think it is the best against the best.

I get slated on here for being a grumpy old man and perhaps the sport is not as bad as I make out but it definitely needs to get its house in order. As you have said guys walking round calling themselves world champions not willing to face the best is not healthy. Similarly the two best fighters in the world operating in the same division and basically deciding not to fight, and being able to do so is a farce that hurts the credibility of the sport.

There was a piece in boxing monthly the other month that said at one point the WBA website listed 37 world champions across the 17 divisions! That is a joke, pure and simple, a complete embarrasment to the sport, what hope is there of even the most commited of fans keeping track let alone the casual fans.

However there is no genuine will within the sport to clean it up, promoters are happy to parade joke belts and fighters as champions, more belts for the governing bodies means more sanctioning fees etc etc. The sport needs a global regulatory body with real power and real teeth, the powers within the sport have proven incapable of getting their own house in order so is time someone else took the job off them.

Very true Rowley........It's like the inmates have taken over the asylum and I don't see an end to it....

Mcguigan said it was alright for Cleverly to get an education with the belt!! we all know he is a knob but....

here is me thinking world championship was the pinnacle of the career and you should fight the best to keep it..

I know it's not a sport, but it's the biggest organisation inside MMA. A similar model could work in my opinion. Either that or someone should just give the organisations a slap and get rid of the super/diamond/gold plated/plastic/origami belts

rowley wrote:
from what I understand the best in UFC will never fight the best in one of the other promotional outfits

They will though. Consider UFC as the Premier League and the other promotional outfits as lower leagues. The UFC is the pinnacle of the sport and those doing well in other tournaments will step up to the UFC. Fighters are contracted to each promotional body, but everyone wants to fight in the UFC as it's where the best fighters are. I'd consider ever other promoter to be underdogs to UFC, though they wont admit that.

Unfortunately the common sense solutions offered above are unlikely to ever happen unless there is a wholesale revolution. It's not in anyone who matter's interest to change things and the lack of a sole governing FIFA style body means that change is just not going to happen.

It would require someone with almost unlimited funding and the ability to bring on board every big name boxer and tie them up under one organisation before any real change could occur.

superflyweight wrote:
It would require someone with almost unlimited funding and the ability to bring on board every big name boxer and tie them up under one organisation before any real change could occur.

"I commend UFC for what they have done in such a short period of time, they are the only real player in their category, the mixed martial arts world. They have been able to organize themselves, have all the TV dates, a pay-per-view every month. They are doing the right thing, and it’s time for boxing to do the right thing, as long as we don’t have those obstacles named Don King and Bob Arum. We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates. Then you can have your own agenda and have a schedule for the fans and the sport. You can do a monthly pay-per-view, a bi-weekly HBO fight. You can have the best fighters fight each other. When you have five or six promoters, it’s very difficult."

Oscar De La Hoya; September 2010.

Perhaps, as Superfly as alluded too, we need someone like GBP to monopolise the boxing world and create a promotional supernova to lead the sport into a brave new world....

Let's just hope whomever heads it up isn't a cross-dressing drug abuser or, God forbid, a Swiss banker.

Personally Tina/super am not a fan of the idea, as the old saying goes Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, also worth remembering in the early to mid 80s King pretty much had this in the heavyweight division and none of us look back on these eras with much in the way of dewy eyed notsalgia or as a golden age.

rowley wrote:Personally Tina/super am not a fan of the idea, as the old saying goes Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, also worth remembering in the early to mid 80s King pretty much had this in the heavyweight division and none of us look back on these eras with much in the way of dewy eyed notsalgia or as a golden age.

I am not a huge advocate of it myself, jeff. I was just floating it out there as an idea. Playing devils advocate though, all the major governing bodies appear to be easily corrupted, so maybe one slightly 'dodgy' organisation is better than 3 or 4.

It's not perfect, but neither is the current situation.

Guess it makes sense in a lesser of two evils way. For me have said it before but if there is to be change it has to be TV driven. Remember a few years ago when the major promoters over here were foisting WBU, WBF, IBO drivel on fans seemingly every week. It stopped almost over night when Sky said enough was enough, have to think this could happen globally because Arum, GBP and the others need Showtime and HBO more than they need the promoters, as they are easily replaceable, TV companies are not.

rowley wrote:Guess it makes sense in a lesser of two evils way. For me have said it before but if there is to be change it has to be TV driven. Remember a few years ago when the major promoters over here were foisting WBU, WBF, IBO drivel on fans seemingly every week. It stopped almost over night when Sky said enough was enough, have to think this could happen globally because Arum, GBP and the others need Showtime and HBO more than they need the promoters, as they are easily replaceable, TV companies are not.

I agree jeff, the problem is, the TV companies must get frustrated with the promotional politics that goes on, and the two streams just end up feeding into each other. The promoters need the backing of the TV companies, but if they start to lose their appetite for the sport due to the promotional bickering, much like Sky appear to have done, then we could end up with more Boxnation type channels, which ends up being counter-productive anyway. It is a tough situation.

rowley wrote:Personally Tina/super am not a fan of the idea, as the old saying goes Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, also worth remembering in the early to mid 80s King pretty much had this in the heavyweight division and none of us look back on these eras with much in the way of dewy eyed notsalgia or as a golden age.

Although I agree to some extent with that I feel in this case the UFC aren't going to mess things up & allow the situation we have with boxing at the moment to occur. The people behind UFC & the owners Zuffa are shrewd business men & the UFC is an actual business (unlike boxing & the sanctioning bodies) that has to make money to operate & continue. They are completely in control of their entire operation. No fighter is bigger than them or can make outlandish demands or decide not to fight an opponent. This sadly is not the case with boxing. Also they have far less weight catagories with a 10lb difference between weights below middleweight & as yet their have been no catch weights fights, although one was talked about but in that case the weight difference between welter & middleweight was 15lbs & was between the top 2 p4p at the time. With a website & monthly big shows they are more in touch with the fans & they also have merchandising.

With regards to the 80's & Don King era I think it was better than it is now. Wasn't King behind the heavyweight tournament that ended with Tyson as the undisputed champ. Also as has often been mentioned on here King's cards were stacked, not something you can say nowadays. Also champs wern't on learning a curve ala Cleverly & Povotkin.

Boxing doesn't need to die..just the ideas, practices and attitudes that have blighted the sport for so long. Namely...
Promoters telling us what's best for the sport when they really mean what makes them the most money. Dinosaurs of the sport who need to evolve if the sport they claim to love and represent is to thrive.
Boxing bodies whose practices tend to cheapen titles in order to maximise income.
Fighters dictating who and when they'll fight and for how much, vacating titles on a whim etc.
TV pundits and their hyperbole. Selling fights as competitive match ups when we all know they're garbage.
Fans leaping onto bandwagons after watching one fight on ESPN.
The over-use of the term 'world class' for mediocrites
The media getting hysterical and over-reacting to an aspect of the sport when there are a thousand other issues worldwide they could be reporting on.

I don't really know anywhere near enough about UFC to comment with any expertise as I'm not into it but there are a couple of things that need to be considered, one is in relative terms it is a new sport/phenomena, as such is still to early to say if it is a flash in the pan or is here to stay, if it is the latter is a matter of time before someone with real money sets up a rival organisation because this happens in any industry that there is a lot of money to be made, does the situation where the best fight the best and fighters don't complain about what they earn still continue, particularly when there is someone waiting in the wings to snatch them up.

Secondly at the minute the fighters are in a position where the only way they can earn a fortune is consistently fighting big fights, if the organisation flourishes and purses rise will this still be the case, we are being naive if we believe half of the reason Manny and Floyd have not fought is because they can boh pick up $30m against whoever they choose.

Should add before the UFC fans get all upset none of this is not a dig at the UFC because whilst I don't like the sport of MMA I have nothing but admiration for how well the UFC is run and marketed.

I think having mutliple sanctioning bodies isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the lower ones are used as proving grounds for up & coming fighters. Boxing needs:

a) One sanctioning body at the top of the pile that's viewed as the pinnacle

b) Boxers compete in lower/ other sanctioning bodies to gain experience with a view to getting a chance to compete in the top one. Structure those other sanctioning bodies as effectively being leagues. Make the lower ones more exciting i.e. super six tournaments, prize fighter etc to attract interest, develop fighters and give them an opportunity to move up in class

c) Forget this nonsense about preserving a fighter's "zero"

d) No more ducking fights. Don't want to fight someone? You're stripped of your belt and demoted from the sanctioning body you're competing in and you have to work your way back up

e) Top fighters need to fight more often. Title holders should face a minimum of three defences per year

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:

rowley wrote:
from what I understand the best in UFC will never fight the best in one of the other promotional outfits

They will though. Consider UFC as the Premier League and the other promotional outfits as lower leagues. The UFC is the pinnacle of the sport and those doing well in other tournaments will step up to the UFC. Fighters are contracted to each promotional body, but everyone wants to fight in the UFC as it's where the best fighters are. I'd consider ever other promoter to be underdogs to UFC, though they wont admit that.

Is that like the F1 model with others cutting their teeth in other circles?

rowley wrote:I don't really know anywhere near enough about UFC to comment with any expertise as I'm not into it but there are a couple of things that need to be considered, one is in relative terms it is a new sport/phenomena, as such is still to early to say if it is a flash in the pan or is here to stay,

Whilst still a baby compared to boxing, UFC 1 was in 1993 so it's had almost 20 years already and the Zuffa era (current owners) has been in effect since 2001

I think if you look at the UFC, the company that own it, Zuffa, actually own the rival organisations as well.

1993 – UFC forms
Mid/Late 1990s – International Vale Tudo
1997–2007 – PRIDE FC and UFC era
2000 – New Jersey SACB develops Unified rules
2001 – Zuffa buys UFC
2005 – The Ultimate Fighter Debuts
2005 – US Army begins sanctioning MMA
2006–Present – UFC dominance and international growth
2006 – Zuffa buys WFA and WEC
2006 – UFC 66 generates over a million PPV buys
2007 – Zuffa buys PRIDE FC
2008 – EliteXC: Primetime gains 6.5 million peak viewers on CBS
2009 – Strikeforce holds 1st major card with female main event
2011 – WEC merged with UFC
2011 – Zuffa buys Strikeforce
2011 – UFC on Fox gains 8.8 million peak viewers on Fox

They use things like strikeforce and the WFA as a proving ground that they are good enough for the top table in the UFC.

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:I think having mutliple sanctioning bodies isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the lower ones are used as proving grounds for up & coming fighters. Boxing needs:

Disagree mate, that is what Euro and domestic belts are for, if you're not good enough or ready to fight for a world title fight for the domestic title, what you have to bear in mind is if you get rid of all the intercontinental titles and four or more world champions per division the title scenes that have become marginalised all of a sudden become competitive. If we look at the heavies currently, if we accept Wlad would be the only world champion in the division, those battling for the euro belt could include Chisora, Vitali, Povetkin, Haye, Chaguev and Helenius, seems plenty competitive enough for someone to prove themselves to my mind.

In fairness Rowley, the UFC has been around for about 20 years. It's only recently that it's gone huge globally so whilst it's still a relative newbie, it's not a flash in the pan either. Fighters from other organisations do fight guys from the UFC but they've usually signed a contract with Dana White tying them to his company for a while first. Seems to be they way of the world these days...you wanna get ahead, you gotta be under my banner. At least with the UFC, up and comers do get a fair crack of the whip too.

Dave et al, the point I was making, apparently poorly is as an organisation/sport it has only really reached a point financially and in terms of advertising that will have made big business and the like sit up and take notice in fairly recent years. If the success continues or increases that is when the problems become because you can bet your bottom dollar if HBO are showing a monthly MMA PPV that is getting a million buys for instance showtime will want similar, now if they cannot secure UFC rights off HBO they will either seek to set up their own or throw their weight behind a new or rival organisation, is an absolute racing cert, and that is when the divisions of talent and fighters pushing for better and bigger purses starts.

rowley wrote:Dave et al, the point I was making, apparently poorly is as an organisation/sport it has only really reached a point financially and in terms of advertising that will have made big business and the like sit up and take notice in fairly recent years. If the success continues or increases that is when the problems become because you can bet your bottom dollar if HBO are showing a monthly MMA PPV that is getting a million buys for instance showtime will want similar, now if they cannot secure UFC rights off HBO they will either seek to set up their own or throw their weight behind a new or rival organisation, is an absolute racing cert, and that is when the divisions of talent and fighters pushing for better and bigger purses starts.

I know where you are coming from but as Hampo pointed out, Zuffa/UFC have bought out most of their rivals & I imagine they will continue to do so. Strikeforce was the biggest after UFC & now their top 4 heavy's are in UFC. I think with regards to HBO & Showtime it will come down to a bidding war rather than one getting their weight behind a potential rival. I think the fact that UFC is a business is what is keeping purses down & hopefully they will never end up like the top end of boxing where a fighter rarely needs to fight & starts dictating terms. That is one of the problems with the current situation. Another good thing UFC do & was actually mentioned as their saviour was the introduction of The Ultimate Fighter series where 2 current fighters in a weight division train a team of young guys looking to break into the big time against each other. They live & train together in a house for 2 or 3 months with the top 2 fighting the final on a UFC card alongside the 2 coaches with the winner getting a contract with the UFC of 3 or 4 fights in the following 12 months. Maybe boxing could do something a long these lines, don't know what happend to the old contender series.

I hope for MMA's sake you're right sohonot but am still sceptical. You have mentioned keeping purses down which in theory is good as it forces fighters to fight regularly and against good opponents, but if PPV prices and numbers go up revenues do likewise, now if a PPV event is generating $50m and the main event fighter is getting a purse of $500k (I am making these figures up, please don't correct me they are not meant to be accurate) it will only be a matter of time before he starts to ask why he is the guy taking all the risks for virtually none of the money.

Similarly it will only be a matter of time before someone else says I would pay you a million out of that amount. None of this is to do with the UFC or boxing but is basic business and human nature, and my guess would be there will be sod all the UFC will be able to do to avoid it.

[quote="sohotnot"]

rowley wrote:

don't know what happend to the old contender series.

Cancelled as it cost $2,000,000 per episode

rowley wrote:I hope for MMA's sake you're right sohonot but am still sceptical. You have mentioned keeping purses down which in theory is good as it forces fighters to fight regularly and against good opponents, but if PPV prices and numbers go up revenues do likewise, now if a PPV event is generating $50m and the main event fighter is getting a purse of $500k (I am making these figures up, please don't correct me they are not meant to be accurate) it will only be a matter of time before he starts to ask why he is the guy taking all the risks for virtually none of the money.

Not correcting you, but as an example (and admittedly it's the top of the pile) Brock Lesnar got $5.3 million in contract + PPV bonuses for two UFC fights in 2010

If someone was to try and lure the top stars away, it would be on a short term promise i.e. top 10 fighters, tournament setup, massive money on offer, go back to UFC afterwards. I don't think there's a sustainable $30 million per fight arrangement for the MMA world.

[quote="Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake"]

sohotnot wrote:

rowley wrote:

don't know what happend to the old contender series.

Cancelled as it cost $2,000,000 per episode

Really, That's insane! How did it end up costing so much? I wonder what TUF costs? A lot of my case has been that Zuffa & the UFC are good business people with ear to the ground & their eyes open, looking forward, hoping that they don't make the same mistakes as boxing or get taken over buy somebody else.

rowley wrote:I hope for MMA's sake you're right sohonot but am still sceptical. You have mentioned keeping purses down which in theory is good as it forces fighters to fight regularly and against good opponents, but if PPV prices and numbers go up revenues do likewise, now if a PPV event is generating $50m and the main event fighter is getting a purse of $500k (I am making these figures up, please don't correct me they are not meant to be accurate) it will only be a matter of time before he starts to ask why he is the guy taking all the risks for virtually none of the money.

Similarly it will only be a matter of time before someone else says I would pay you a million out of that amount. None of this is to do with the UFC or boxing but is basic business and human nature, and my guess would be there will be sod all the UFC will be able to do to avoid it.

I'm not correcting you, but what you said got me curious about how much UFC fighters get paid.

Overall Top Ten Earning Fighters in 2011
(data updated to UFC 141)

1 Tito Ortiz* $1,045,000
2 Michael Bisping $850,000
3 Dan Henderson* $820,000
4 Fedor Emelianenko* $800,000
5 Jon Jones* $785,000
6 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira* $750,000
7 Vitor Belfort* $620,000
8 Lyoto Machida* $604,000
9 Nick Diaz $600,000
10 Frank Mir* $575,000
10 Rampage Jackson* $575,000


UFC Top Ten Earning Fighters in 2011
(data updated to UFC 141)

1 Tito Ortiz* $1,495,000
2 Michael Bisping* $850,000
3 Jon Jones* $785,000
4 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira* $750,000
5 Vitor Belfort* $620,000
6 Lyoto Machida* $604,000
7 Frank Mir* $575,000
7 Rampage Jackson* $575,000
9 Mauricio Rua* $565,000
10 Donald Cerrone $494,000



Strikeforce Top Ten Earning Fighters in 2011
(data updated to Melendez vs Masvidal)

1 Fedor Emelianenko* $800,000
2 Dan Henderson $500,000
3 Nick Diaz $325,000
4 Josh Barnett $300,000
4 Daniel Cormier* $300,000
4 Gegard Mousasi $300,000
4 Gilbert Melendez $300,000
8 Sergei Kharitonov* $200,000
9 Antonio Silva* $200,000
10 Ronaldo Souza $155,000
10 Roger Gracie $155,000

Apparently they get bonuses depending on how the fight ends, knock out bonuses can be quite lucrative apparently. Surprising how little some of them make though compared to other sports, I mean some footballers earn in a week what some of those guys earnt in a year.

[quote="sohotnot"]

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

rowley wrote:

don't know what happend to the old contender series.

Cancelled as it cost $2,000,000 per episode

Really, That's insane! How did it end up costing so much? I wonder what TUF costs? A lot of my case has been that Zuffa & the UFC are good business people with ear to the ground & their eyes open, looking forward, hoping that they don't make the same mistakes as boxing or get taken over buy somebody else.

God knows.

People complain about the cost of US healthcare. TV shows appear to put that in the shade!

rowley wrote:I hope for MMA's sake you're right sohonot but am still sceptical. You have mentioned keeping purses down which in theory is good as it forces fighters to fight regularly and against good opponents, but if PPV prices and numbers go up revenues do likewise, now if a PPV event is generating $50m and the main event fighter is getting a purse of $500k (I am making these figures up, please don't correct me they are not meant to be accurate) it will only be a matter of time before he starts to ask why he is the guy taking all the risks for virtually none of the money.

Similarly it will only be a matter of time before someone else says I would pay you a million out of that amount. None of this is to do with the UFC or boxing but is basic business and human nature, and my guess would be there will be sod all the UFC will be able to do to avoid it.

Very true & not a lot we can do about it. With regards to the purses that's not the total they end up with, there can be a % of the ppv, potential bonuses of the night & the sponsorship money they get. Its crazy the amount of sponsorship/advertising that goes on with the fight & post fight conference. They get sponsorship for their shorts, t- shirt & baseball cap at the end of the fight & ring interview as well as the brand of water/energy drink. I think it was the big card at new year when the winner, Overeem, at the post fight conference had 3 different brands of drink at the table in hand reach!!

I dread to think how many folk would have corrected me had I not specifically asked you all not to!

rowley wrote:I dread to think how many folk would have corrected me had I not specifically asked you all not to!

I don't think any of us were but appologies if it came accross that way certainly was not my intention.

I think that what I mentioned in my last post points out what money is available to a fighter fighting in the UFC aside from his fight purse. All of the advertising & sponsorship deals have been very well negotiated by the UFC & points to their expertise, professionalism & hence their dominance in the sport. I imagine the contracts the fighters sign are pretty tough with a lot of clauses in case of any rival body looking to poach them as you have rightly stated could happen.

Only joking soho, have quite enjoyed this, is nice and rare to discuss MMA on here without it becoming "mma i rubbish/boxing is dying" etc etc.

[quote="sohotnot"]

rowley wrote:

Its crazy the amount of sponsorship/advertising that goes on with the fight & post fight conference. They get sponsorship for their shorts, t- shirt & baseball cap at the end of the fight & ring interview as well as the brand of water/energy drink. I think it was the big card at new year when the winner, Overeem, at the post fight conference had 3 different brands of drink at the table in hand reach!!

The (deceased) guy that started the Tap Out clothing line is in the UFC hall of fame! The marketing and sponsorship side of it is pretty insane. It makes F1 look plain jane by comparison

I actually quite like there being 4 world titles. I am one of the few that do but I think it's necessary because the champs don't fight that often anymore and if they had one world title and the champs fights but twice a year what hope is there for most boxers to get a shot?

You also have to remember that all 4 belts come in nice pretty colours and it looks impressive when one boxer holds aloft several trinkets, all colours of the rainbow! I particularly like the IBF belt, a lovely dashing red colour, and if I boxed that would be the one I'd go for purely for aesthetic reasons!

However, anything below WBO is pants! And this WBA "regular" champ rubbish is where I really get turned off. Povetkin, Maidana, Mundine, Balzay are not world champions. You cannot be a world champion unless your governing body recognises you as their number 1 at the weight.

Wladimir Klitschko is the WBA Heavyweight Champion, Alexander Povetkin is a tub of lard with a bacofoil belt.

Again Super am going to have to disagree, if a champion only fights two times a year one will be a mandatory so that is the route to get your shot, all this stuff about it being hard to get a shot with only one belt and one set of rankings, well with all due respect it's meant to be. Fighting for a world title should be a cumulation of a lot of graft. Did a bio for John Ruiz some time ago and he is a three time heavyweight champion, that is as many as Ali! Is questionable he should have been good enough to win it once.

As I alluded to earlier though the thing to bear in mind is with only one set of rankings a fight between two fighters in the top five becomes interesting because to have got in their in the first place they will have had to prove they are half decent, so the lack of title fights will be more than compensated for with the competitve match ups by the guys jockying for the mandatory slot, which they have to take due to the lack of alternatives, much better IMO.

Trouble is Rowley it's all about public perception. With all these paper champions around at least they get to sell the fact they are "world champions", and their local fans won't care that much about whether they're the main man or not. Boxing, especially in the UK and Europe seems a lot about national pride now rather than beating the best.

I aint saying it's right but I hear all the old stories about boxers from way back when, retiring penniless. All these trinkets these days gives the guys something to market themselevs with. For the boxer at least, that can't be a bad thing can it?

It's just when they don't test themselvesafter a while is when I get exasperated.

I just genuinely believe D that the current system turns fans away from the sport, it is just too hard to follow, fighters retired penniless more often through the mob involvement and no PPV money, should not happen now. I think fans have become conditioned to believe a fight is not for a world title it is meaningless, but go back enough years and european or British titles drew interest and crowds.

Even now if a match up is attractive the title can become irrelevant, look at Groves Degale, pick em fight, seemingly genuine rivalry and was on a PPV basis without a world title in sight. The public have been conditioned into believing rubbish, they can be taught better.

Even now if a match up is attractive the title can become irrelevant, look at Groves Degale, pick em fight, seemingly genuine rivalry and was on a PPV basis without a world title in sight. The public have been conditioned into believing rubbish, they can be taught better. .

----------

Yeah I think you're right. European Champion for example really meant something, like Colin Jones for example is regarded much more highly at present than Nathan Cleverly and rightly so. How are you going to uncondition people now though? Besides, it's the glory days of one or two belts that caused the choas we have now. Too much corruption at one governing body leads to 4 or more governing bodies. Okay it's a crude way of looking at it but do you seriously believe we could ever have one super body that's all wonderful and fair given the types of people that run boxing?

Super I have no idea, if I had all the answers suspect I would be a lot wealthier than I am currently (no mean feat) but something has to change, when even the hardcore fans cannot keep track there is no hope of anyone else doing so, because we can bury our head and say Klitschko's still draw 50,000 or Mayweather did 1.5m buys, everything is rosy but it clearly isn't.

The sport is becoming more and more marginalised and more and more ridiculous. We thought 17 divisions was daft, or 4 governing bodies were stupid, both of which were true but the money grabbers could not even stop themselves there, we then got super champions, interim champions, champions in recess, emeritus champion, diamond belt holders, surely to goodness the point has to come where someone says enough is enough because if you are in a hole sooner or later you do have to stop digging

Yeah Rowley, it's a tough one for sure!

Perhaps it'll take some top TV execs to say enough is enough, we're not showing this crud.....I dunno though.

Super D Boon wrote:You also have to remember that all 4 belts come in nice pretty colours and it looks impressive when one boxer holds aloft several trinkets, all colours of the rainbow! I particularly like the IBF belt, a lovely dashing red colour, and if I boxed that would be the one I'd go for purely for aesthetic reasons!

I think with everything in life it is a matter of revolution. Boxing is from the people and only the people can take it back from the corporate greed that engulfs it at the moment.

Ref: UFC
Whilst it is true that in most cases - the best fighters are in the Dana White's club - it is not true to say that all of the best fighters join him. Fedor - the probably the greatest MMA artist of all time - has never stepped foot inside a UFC octagon as a combatant. So the relationship isn't quite as simple as UFC=the best.

What is true, however - is that the casual fan sees UFC as MMA

And what is more worrying is that the casual fan sees fighting sports - as MMA.

Boxing needs a UFC like organisation to start buying up top fighters. Buy up enough fighters - and boxing has a chance at survival.

Course - who has the money to do that?

oxring wrote:Ref: UFC
Whilst it is true that in most cases - the best fighters are in the Dana White's club - it is not true to say that all of the best fighters join him. Fedor - the probably the greatest MMA artist of all time - has never stepped foot inside a UFC octagon as a combatant. So the relationship isn't quite as simple as UFC=the best.

What is true, however - is that the casual fan sees UFC as MMA

And what is more worrying is that the casual fan sees fighting sports - as MMA.

Boxing needs a UFC like organisation to start buying up top fighters. Buy up enough fighters - and boxing has a chance at survival.

Course - who has the money to do that?

Correct about Fedor. But he was earmarked to fight in the UFC when they bought out Strikeforce but lost 3 in a row. But he was an exception. ALl the best fighters are now in the UFC.

The highlighted part is somethng I've argued on here before. But boxing will always survive. Too much money in it not to and too much tradition.