Is Having So Many Belts A Good Thing Or Bad?

With the ridiculous amount of belts that are around nowadays I thought I would gauge peoples opinions in whether it is a good thign having so many belts about.

Now clearly the cons with having so many belts about is it can get confusing to the average viewer of boxing, I.E at the moment having 3 World HW Champions at the same time seems odd to some people and they don't know who to trust as who is best and don't know who to spend the PPV money on to watch.

But there is good things with having so many belts, I was watching an interview with a fighter that lost to Felix Sturm, called Noe Tulio Gonzalez and he won one of the silver belts and he said that it was a major moment in his career and has given him the confidence to move on after his defeat to Sturm and progress as a fighter as he sees it as a milestone, so this can be very profitable for the growth of younger boxers.

What you guys think?

AlexHuckerby wrote:the ridiculous amount of belts that are around nowadays

Kind of answering your own question there. The amount of belts is ridiculous. The situation may have slight positive by-products as you mention, but overall it leads to confusion, lack of respect for the sport, and corruption. I mean, silver belts, diamond belts, interim world champions, regular world champions, super world champions, c'mon!?

I voted bad.I don't think there should be just one title in each divsion but just one belt from each of the boxing companies WBA,WBC,IBF and WBO.Theres no need for stupid belts like interim,silver and now even diamond.We would be alot clearer on whos the best in the division if they only had 4 belts and not 7,8.

Can we ban whoever said good.

Maybe if everyone had a belt there wouldn't be so much fighting over them...

no offence but this is the most rhetorical question ever asked

Any more than 1 per division is too many.

However, the greater the number of belts, the less they are worth and the more the fights (as opposed to the titles) matter. As for who the champion is - we already don't know that in most division anyway.

I recall when SRL took Hagler's middleweight title. Only the WBC recognised the fight so in theory, Leonard only won a portion of the title. Of course that's bull and the lack of sanctioning from the WBA and IBF made no difference at all. All they did was devalue their own titles.

How is good at 8% and bad is at 91% how does that make sense?

Bad should have been rounded up.

Defintely bad, a champion is supposed to be the best, but can't be if there's half a dozen other people saying the same thing.

Its bad for boxing and boxing fans in general as they dont know who the real champion is. But very good for boxers as they can make more money holding a strap. Also it makes unification fights more profitable and puts bums on seats (sometimes).

Seanusarrilius wrote:no offence but this is the most rhetorical question ever asked

Do you really think so?

Definately bad you could have 6 champs at a weight it totally devalues being a world champion.

prettyboykev wrote:Definately bad you could have 6 champs at a weight it totally devalues being a world champion.

Exactly. You don't have six world champions. You have six contenders.

Good. More belts the better. It waters down the importance of the belts and therefore reduces all the corrupt sanctioning bodies influences. Hopefully there will be so many belts that no one takes any notice of any of them and boxing can then become more of a true sport.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:no offence but this is the most rhetorical question ever asked

Do you really think so?

Bravo Sir.

Can't see how anyone can say it's anything other than a bad thing. The amount of champions dilutes divisions, keeps the best away from the best and confuses the casual fans as to who the top fighters are - this in turn puts them off of following the sport. Having so many sanctioning bodies is bad enough, the fact that each sanctioning body now has multiple title holders at each weight ie champ, super champ, interim champ, emeritus champ, diamond bloody champ makes the sport seem absolutely bloody farcical to the casual viewer. The proliferation of sanctioning bodies and multiple titles is - along with the rise of PPV TV in boxing - the biggest contributing factor to the marginalization of boxing as a sport over the last 25 years. Absolutely no question for me, it's a bad thing and I'd be amazed if any serious boxing fan said otherwise.

Should be one belt per weight class and one overall governing body. Please!!

I saw the interview with Gonzalez, he basically came out with a big long list of excuses as to why he lost to Sturm, he had personal problems, was too inexperienced (!?!), hadn't trained properly etc.

He was delighted with his 'Silver' belt and hoped it would inspire him to train properly and hopefully he could get another shot at Sturm "or one of the other world champions".

All in all a fine advertisement for the argument against silver belts and all that nonsense. If the man can't get motivated for a title fight without all this silver belt rubbish he should get out of boxing altogether. A disgrace.

It does and I am against it, however more World Title shots and World title fights and bringing more stars into it extremely bad?

AlexHuckerby wrote:It does and I am against it, however more World Title shots and World title fights and bringing more stars into it extremely bad?

But they'renot really 'world' title shots though.

Back when there weren't as many belts around there were still superstars who didn't hold a belt.

Too many belts is a bad thing because it MASSIVELY dilutes the effect of being "world champion" because there's 3 other guys laying claim to the same title.

There is zero positive about it. None in the slightest

1 belt per division. harsh but effective.

all these interim belts, and silver / diamond belts / international etc are pathetic.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Can't see how anyone can say it's anything other than a bad thing. The amount of champions dilutes divisions, keeps the best away from the best and confuses the casual fans as to who the top fighters are - this in turn puts them off of following the sport. Having so many sanctioning bodies is bad enough, the fact that each sanctioning body now has multiple title holders at each weight ie champ, super champ, interim champ, emeritus champ, diamond bloody champ makes the sport seem absolutely bloody farcical to the casual viewer. The proliferation of sanctioning bodies and multiple titles is - along with the rise of PPV TV in boxing - the biggest contributing factor to the marginalization of boxing as a sport over the last 25 years. Absolutely no question for me, it's a bad thing and I'd be amazed if any serious boxing fan said otherwise.

Look at the divisions at the mo. All the top guys are fighting the top guys. Except for the obvious one of course, but that has nothing to do with 'belts'. Look at the fights coming up in the next couple months, it is easily the best quality I can ever remember in such a short time.

All of the belts worth has been devalued, and I can only see that as a good thing. Gone are the days when a carefully managed fighter could pick up one of the higher regarded belts and make a career out of it fighting bums and ignoring the best. WHo wants to see boxing ruled by some corrupt south American sanctioning body and certain corrupt promoters. In an ideal world no one would take any notice of the belts and instead we'd have an independant ranking system. We are as close to that now as has ever been, which is why we're seeing so many great fights happening.

I would hate to go back to the days of the IBF/WBA/WBC. They were a promoters dream and a true fans nightmare.

My view is that multiple belts marginalize the sport.

Just about everybody, from sports enthusiast to the old lady who runs a greengrocery down the street, has heard of Federer, Nadal, Ronaldo, etc., and that same old lady, a few years ago, would have known about Tyson & co. By comparison, even some hardcore boxing fans would be hard pushed to name every boxing ' world ' champion today.

Boxing doesn't even make the back pages of our newspapers very often, these days, whereas there was a time when a big fight would make the front pages. One belt per weight division would, in my opinion, go some way toward rectifying the situation.

Ricky Hatton is still in the newspapers most days, he's the most popular boxer this country has ever had.

Manny P is prob the worlds most popular sports star. If/when he fights Floyd it will be of such a magnitude that has never been seen in sport before.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Ricky Hatton is still in the newspapers most days, he's the most popular boxer this country has ever had.

Manny P is prob the worlds most popular sports star. If/when he fights Floyd it will be of such a magnitude that has never been seen in sport before.

Hatton is the most popular British fighter in recent years, but I wouldn't say he's anything like the most popular fighter Britain has ever had. Besides, much of his popularity rides on the back of football.

Also, the situation surrounding Pacquiao and Mayweather is actually a very good example of what is wrong with boxing. There is no doubt that IF they fight it will be right up there with Ali v Frazier and the round robin among the fab four, but they HAVEN'T fought, and a great many folks don't believe that they ever will. If there were one champion per division it would have been essential that they fight each other.

HumanWindmill wrote:Hatton is the most popular British fighter in recent years, but I wouldn't say he's anything like the most popular fighter Britain has ever had.

I probably would, who else has taken tens of thousands to America? Also has the post war attendance record and highest selling British PPV.

The situation with Manny and Floyd has nothing to do with belts or PPV TV. It's just when Manny had finally become accepted as a true 140/147 lb fighter Floyd had already long become inactive. I still think this fight will happen though, and it would eclipse Ali v Fravier / the fab four.

Boxing doesn't even make the back pages of our newspapers very often, these days, whereas there was a time when a big fight would make the front pages. One belt per weight division would, in my opinion, go some way toward rectifying the situation.

I'll remind you of this come the end of June.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Hatton is the most popular British fighter in recent years, but I wouldn't say he's anything like the most popular fighter Britain has ever had.

I probably would, who else has taken tens of thousands to America? Also has the post war attendance record and highest selling British PPV.

On the back of football.

I'm no fan of Henry Cooper, but he was an absolute institution when I was a kid. When he took the European title from Mildenberger it was a national event, and every man, woman and child knew who he was. No Internet, no PPV or modern promotion. Why ? Because he twice put on gutsy displays against Clay / Ali, one of which was for what amounted to the undisputed heavyweight championship. ( Technically, Ali had been stripped by the WBA for rematching Liston, but nobody was in any doubt whatsoever that Ali was THE man at the time. )

I believe that Hatton is a better fighter than Cooper was, but that isn't the point. Without his affiliation to Manchester City it's doubtful that he would have received his dues. Cooper received MORE than his dues, in my opinion, because he operated in an era of ( pretty much, ) one champion per division.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Boxing doesn't even make the back pages of our newspapers very often, these days, whereas there was a time when a big fight would make the front pages. One belt per weight division would, in my opinion, go some way toward rectifying the situation.

I'll remind you of this come the end of June.

Do so, by all means, and I'll reciprocate by reproducing some of the newspaper coverage of boxing from the early sixties, when I first became interested in boxing. British challenges for world titles ( Charnley v Brown, Downes v Pender, Rudkin v Harada, Winstone v Saldivar, etc., ) made the FRONT pages in those days. Even BRIAN LONDON's challenge to Ali carried a full page in one newspaper.

Remember the HW's of the end of the 80's - 90's.

You had Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Many would have all these guys in their top 20 or so HW's of all time. What a disgrace it was to Boxing fans that not one of these fought the other in their prime. That is what happens when too much importance is placed upon belts owned by corrupt promoters.

Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Remember the HW's of the end of the 80's - 90's.

You had Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Many would have all these guys in their top 20 or so HW's of all time. What a disgrace it was to Boxing fans that not one of these fought the other in their prime. That is what happens when too much importance is placed upon belts owned by corrupt promoters.

Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays.

I agree with almost every word of that, Juke.

The bit I disagree with is your claim that this can't happen today. It does happen, and with tedious regularity.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Hatton is the most popular British fighter in recent years, but I wouldn't say he's anything like the most popular fighter Britain has ever had.

I probably would, who else has taken tens of thousands to America? Also has the post war attendance record and highest selling British PPV.

On the back of football.

Well, that's good marketing, doesn't mean he wasn't a popular fighter.

Most of the big fights happen today, it's just either people don't recognise them (i.e. in the lower weights) or that people let the alphabets blind them to what the big fights are.

Don't agree with this idea that in the past the best always fought the best. Their records are a list of what happened, not what didn't. For every Leonard-Hearns there's a Leonard-Pryor and Leonard-Hagler II wasn't exactly easy to make either.

Scottrf wrote:Well, that's good marketing, doesn't mean he wasn't a popular fighter.

But it IS a reflection on boxing's profile and its ability to generate interest independently. If Hatton had hailed from, let's say, Plymouth, do you believe that he would have been so popular ?

No, but I also don't think he would be more popular than he was if he was from Plymouth and held the only title in his division.

Wasn't even arguing about boxing ability to generate interest independently, but I'd argue that today isn't much worse than any other era for the big fights not happening.

Another point.

I have no wish to open up a Klitschko debate here, since that's a subject all its own, BUT : If they weren't brothers and were able to face off for the undisputed title don't you think that the winner's stock would rise dramatically ?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Remember the HW's of the end of the 80's - 90's.

You had Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Many would have all these guys in their top 20 or so HW's of all time. What a disgrace it was to Boxing fans that not one of these fought the other in their prime. That is what happens when too much importance is placed upon belts owned by corrupt promoters.

Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays.

But it can and does happen.

HumanWindmill wrote:

But it IS a reflection on boxing's profile and its ability to generate interest independently. If Hatton had hailed from, let's say, Plymouth, do you believe that he would have been so popular ?

Most likely not, no. Would Kevin Mitchell have had his fight vs Katsidis at the venue he did if he'd not been a fan of the team? No. All adds up.

Scottrf wrote:No, but I also don't think he would be more popular than he was if he was from Plymouth and held the only title in his division.

Maybe, maybe not, but Cooper didn't hold ANY version of a world title, and I still reckon that, at national level, he was better known than Hatton is. I swear to you that I'd NEVER pull the ' I should know because I was there, ' card, but he really WAS a national institution. Heck, even my dear old mum knew who Cooper was and was rooting for him against Mildenberger.

Todays boxing fan has access to far more info than ever before. With Youtube, Boxrec, the Ring rankings, forums etc we can all make our own minds up. We don't have to rely on what Don King tells us whilst waving his flags.

Promoters of today can't just buy a belt, pick bum of the month for their champ to defend against and expect people to buy it like years ago. Look how Frank Warren used to promote the likes of Naz and Eubank, he couldn't and can't get away with that now. All his top fighters left him, and now he's forced to put the likes of DeGale into big fights after only having had 10 pro fights.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:No, but I also don't think he would be more popular than he was if he was from Plymouth and held the only title in his division.

Maybe, maybe not, but Cooper didn't hold ANY version of a world title, and I still reckon that, at national level, he was better known than Hatton is. I swear to you that I'd NEVER pull the ' I should know because I was there, ' card, but he really WAS a national institution. Heck, even my dear old mum knew who Cooper was and was rooting for him against Mildenberger.

Cooper was a Heavyweight. Brits love Heavyweights, even/especially the plucky loser.

I'm not sure if this debate is even on topic now though.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Todays boxing fan has access to far more info than ever before.

Not so.

When I was a kid we had extensive newspaper coverage, as I've said. We also got to see the big fights on mainstream TV, either the night after they happened or on ' Sportsnight ' or the ' Fight Of The Week ' feature on ' Grandstand. ' We had ' Ring ' magazine, and just about everybody knew who was champion of which division.

Cooper was a Heavyweight. Brits love Heavyweights, even/especially the plucky loser.

Audley Harr..... No, wait

In every division the best are fighting the best. I can never remember it this good, and if someone else can then name that time. We have a crazy amount of good fights on the cards.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Todays boxing fan has access to far more info than ever before.

Not so.

When I was a kid we had extensive newspaper coverage, as I've said. We also got to see the big fights on mainstream TV, either the night after they happened or on ' Sportsnight ' or the ' Fight Of The Week ' feature on ' Grandstand. ' We had ' Ring ' magazine, and just about everybody knew who was champion of which division.

Boxrec, youtube/video sharing sites, forums and online writing eclipse that IMO.

Nowhere near as much mainstream reporting but if you want to find information you can do it better than ever before.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:No, but I also don't think he would be more popular than he was if he was from Plymouth and held the only title in his division.

Maybe, maybe not, but Cooper didn't hold ANY version of a world title, and I still reckon that, at national level, he was better known than Hatton is. I swear to you that I'd NEVER pull the ' I should know because I was there, ' card, but he really WAS a national institution. Heck, even my dear old mum knew who Cooper was and was rooting for him against Mildenberger.

Cooper was a Heavyweight. Brits love Heavyweights, even/especially the plucky loser.

I'm not sure if this debate is even on topic now though.

It had nothing to do with his being a heavyweight. Cooper's popularity was a reflection of Ali, pure and simple, and if Ali hadn't been seen as THE man of the division Cooper's profile would probably be no higher than Brian London's was after challenging Patterson, who, popular though he was, was NOT considered to be THE man, since everybody believed that Liston was the best heavyweight at the time.

Scottrf wrote:Boxrec, youtube/video sharing sites, forums and online writing eclipse that IMO.

Nowhere near as much mainstream reporting but if you want to find information you can do it better than ever before.

Well it doesn't for me. I did just fine with the coverage we had in the sixties. I got to see the fights - the WHOLE fights - I knew who the champions were, I knew what the rankings were, etc. What else is needed ?

HumanWindmill wrote:It had nothing to do with his being a heavyweight. Cooper's popularity was a reflection of Ali, pure and simple, and if Ali hadn't been seen as THE man of the division Cooper's profile would probably be no higher than Brian London's was after challenging Patterson, who, popular though he was, was NOT considered to be THE man, since everybody believed that Liston was the best heavyweight at the time.

Of course it does, would Ali have been as big without being a heavyweight? Is coverage in the lower weights even comparable to the Heavyweights? Would a Bruno equivalent in the lower weights be anything like as well known?

I don't disagree that being seen as the man enhances your standing, but it wouldn't make Burns a household name to be the only SFW champion.

Please stop capitalising words in the middle of sentences, I find it patronising.