Is Boxing a "niche" or minority sport now?

First topic message reminder :

In it's hey day boxing was as popular or even more popular then football is today. Play grounds would be full of kids chanting Bruno or discussing the next big fight! Now I'm sure most people would be unable to name more then 2 to 3 boxers (apart from the ppl on these forums) it's a shame as the most interesting and busiest place on 606v2 forum is the boxing section. It has the most posts and most interesting reads even if you're not a massive fan. What caused the decline in the universal popularity of boxing? Is it the lack of free terrestrial TV coverage? Is it the lack of personalities like Ali Tyson or Naz? Or is it a lack of quality fighters these days?

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:There are nearly 2000 ranked professional fighters at WW. A single ladder ranking system with one champ at the top is completely unworkable with such numbers - this is why we have four world champions.

There were far more welterweight fighters in the 1950s.

There are four world titlists (they aren't champions) due to the sheer greed of the sanctioning bodies, the complicity of promoters and, to a degree, fighters themselves (who can't be held responsible -- everyone wants to win a title belt (and a living)).

If fans, media, fighters and promoters would merely ignore these blood suckers, they'd disappear. Without the sanctioning fees they leech from fighters' purses, they'd cease to operate (they of course collect their biggest mark-up from star fighters as the fees are based on a percentage of a fighter's purse and so star fighters are often given preferential treatment with regard to mandatory defences etc. -- as we have seen recently with the whole Jamie McDonnell and Vitali Klitschko farce).

Boxing would profit from one sanctioning body (none of the current mob need apply) -- properly regulated -- and one champion in each division (preferably with less divisions and same day weigh-ins to help restore the concept of similar sized fighers fighting one another -- rather than a cruiserweight who has employed a conditioner to help him drop weight unnaturally, gaining unfair advantage over a natural middleweight).

Mandatory VADA testing for all -- financed by the promoters/governing bodies. That would, hopefully, address the issue of fighters testing positive on the eve of a fight (resulting in losses to the promoter, management and sanctioning body -- meaning they have no interest in implementing adequate testing).

Sad state of affairs when fans now believe four sanctioning bodies are a necessary part of the sport.....

Football does have casual fans but I would say those have season tickets and go to every game are very much hardcore fans. The same as boxing, Mayweather brings in the casuals while only the hardcore know of Rigobdeaux.

It's an odd one and would agree with Hammersmith's comment.

The general sport and it's coverage is minor however many of the general public want to act like fans as the 1-2 big fights come about every year.

A bit like Wimbledon, most not interested in tennis throughout the year but interested for 2 weeks of Wimbledon.

Odd because little coverage barring a few big events but the stars earn very good money.

Terrestrial TV hurts, Froch vs Grove was a huge event with big coverage before and after even though PPV but if it was on ITV or BBC it would have been one of the UK's biggest events of the year.

The promoter and fighters have to go where the money is and not many wouldn't so can't blame them but I wish

I commend C5 but the shows are poop!

Rowley wrote:Was far bigger 60 years ago and we managed with 1

There were probably less than 10 true professional fighters in each division back then. Boxing has come a long way since glorified sparring sessions in circus tents were the norm.

Boxtthis wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Football has lots of separate leagues, Boxing has lots of separate sanctioning bodies. The best from these leagues/sanctioning bodies usually end up meeting eachother to decide who's the best overall. Only difference being boxing 'leagues' are more flexible and are 'worldwide'.

'only difference' - wow, surely you recognise that there are more differences than that? Really fundamental differences. The two sports are almost incomparable. This is a terrible and pointless analogy.

Of course I'm not saying that Boxing and Football are similar sports. I'm saying they their respective 'league' structures leads to the worlds best rarely facing the worlds best.

If football can be so successful with this approach why can't boxing. Why aren't people clambering for a single 'world football league'.

A single 'world championship' in Boxing is a nonsensical pipe dream that, thank god, won't happen.

Be great if it happened though. Football had a champions league where the best teams across Europe all play each other with the two best competing. Why cant the top 4 of the WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF all compete in a knockout group to then finally end up with a major unification fight two years or so down the line. Not even that, just have IBF vs WBO winner take on the winner of the other fight. Have one champion per division, scrap the rest of the belts off and that's how its structured for the future.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:Was far bigger 60 years ago and we managed with 1

There were probably less than 10 true professional fighters in each division back then. Boxing has come a long way since glorified sparring sessions in circus tents were the norm.

Do you want to come out with the one about them training on whiskey whilst your at it, the spirit of Az lives on.

Not sure how having a world title situation nobody can follow, rankings that bear no relation to who the best fighters in the world are and a situation where the best can comfortably get away with not fighting the best is considered progress or dragging boxing out of the dark ages but have always been a bit slow when it comes to getting with the programme. I’m one of those daft old stick in the muds who still think the Rolling Stones are better than One Direction.

As an aside and without googling, can anyone on here name two world champions per 17 division? Not super champions or interim champions but actual belt holders. We are all pretty hardcore fans on here, if the system currently is so great would suspect we would all be able to do it.

For example at welterweight:

Bradley vs Mayweather in May with the under card/joint main being Porter vs Broner.

Winners from each bout fight each other in September to become the WUC (World Undisputed Champion) Champ.

If Floyd won for example, the Broner, Porter, Bradley would all jump to 2,3 and 4th respectively.

The rest of the top tens get put into one sanctioning body (WUC) and fight to number one contender status.

The best vs the best with one lineal champion who MUST defend it 3 times per year or vacate the title.

Rowley wrote:
Not sure how having a world title situation nobody can follow, rankings that bear no relation to who the best fighters in the world are and a situation where the best can comfortably get away with not fighting the best is considered progress or dragging boxing out of the dark ages but have always been a bit slow when it comes to getting with the programme. I’m one of those daft old stick in the muds who still think the Rolling Stones are better than One Direction.

I'm not sure any boxing fan would disagree with you there. Honestly.

Rowley wrote:As an aside and without googling, can anyone on here name two world champions per 17 division? Not super champions or interim champions but actual belt holders. We are all pretty hardcore fans on here, if the system currently is so great would suspect we would all be able to do it.  

I can't, no. Bet Chris can though. The geek!

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Football has lots of separate leagues, Boxing has lots of separate sanctioning bodies. The best from these leagues/sanctioning bodies usually end up meeting eachother to decide who's the best overall. Only difference being boxing 'leagues' are more flexible and are 'worldwide'.

'only difference' - wow, surely you recognise that there are more differences than that? Really fundamental differences. The two sports are almost incomparable. This is a terrible and pointless analogy.

Of course I'm not saying that Boxing and Football are similar sports. I'm saying they their respective 'league' structures leads to the worlds best rarely facing the worlds best.

If football can be so successful with this approach why can't boxing. Why aren't people clambering for a single 'world football league'.

A single 'world championship' in Boxing is a nonsensical pipe dream that, thank god, won't happen.

 
Got to be a wind up?
 
Football has structure -- the leagues are tiered, meaning that Manchester United (last year) were the best team in England. That makes sense, is easily accessible and logical to follow.
 
Likewise, the winner of the Champion's League is the best team in Europe.
 
Boxing, like tennis, is an individual pursuit. Would anyone watch Wimbledon if there were four winners, none of whom played on another?
 
The hard core supporters already understand who the real bosses in each division are: Klitschko, Stevenson, Ward, Martinez, Mayweather, Garcia etc. Clarifying that for the casual fan would make the sport far more accessible (most of my friends don't follow the sport because it doesn't make sense -- they don't understand who the champions are and who the paper titlists are).
 
So Carl Froch wouldn't have been a titlist over the past few years -- so what? He'd still have fought the guys he fought and still would have earned well as a top contender (which is what he is, in reality). Everyone would have known Ward was the champion, though (which the rest of us are aware of in any case).

How anyone could think the curent state of boxing represents progress is beyond me. Its been a real eye opener on here between fans who think boxing is progressing, to weird and wonderful excuses for not making fights and championing promoters interests instead of fan interest, to wanting their favourite fighter to take on duff opponents because they are afraid they will lose. Thats before you even get into the guff of "pound for pound" best fighters and the boxrec/google merchants. At least it makes a bit more sense why boxing has become the way it is.

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:Was far bigger 60 years ago and we managed with 1

There were probably less than 10 true professional fighters in each division back then. Boxing has come a long way since glorified sparring sessions in circus tents were the norm.

Do you want to come out with the one about them training on whiskey whilst your at it, the spirit of Az lives on.

Training in the old days consisted of giving up beer and fags for 3 days before the fight. Whiskey was probably still allowed.

hazharrison wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:Football has lots of separate leagues, Boxing has lots of separate sanctioning bodies. The best from these leagues/sanctioning bodies usually end up meeting eachother to decide who's the best overall. Only difference being boxing 'leagues' are more flexible and are 'worldwide'.

'only difference' - wow, surely you recognise that there are more differences than that? Really fundamental differences. The two sports are almost incomparable. This is a terrible and pointless analogy.

Of course I'm not saying that Boxing and Football are similar sports. I'm saying they their respective 'league' structures leads to the worlds best rarely facing the worlds best.

If football can be so successful with this approach why can't boxing. Why aren't people clambering for a single 'world football league'.

A single 'world championship' in Boxing is a nonsensical pipe dream that, thank god, won't happen.

 
Got to be a wind up?
 
Football has structure -- the leagues are tiered, meaning that Manchester United (last year) were the best team in England. That makes sense, is easily accessible and logical to follow.
 
Likewise, the winner of the Champion's League is the best team in Europe.
 
Boxing, like tennis, is an individual pursuit. Would anyone watch Wimbledon if there were four winners, none of whom played on another?
 
The hard core supporters already understand who the real bosses in each division are: Klitschko, Stevenson, Ward, Martinez, Mayweather, Garcia etc. Clarifying that for the casual fan would make the sport far more accessible (most of my friends don't follow the sport because it doesn't make sense -- they don't understand who the champions are and who the paper titlists are).
 
So Carl Froch wouldn't have been a titlist over the past few years -- so what? He'd still have fought the guys he fought and still would have earned well as a top contender (which is what he is, in reality). Everyone would have known Ward was the champion, though (which the rest of us are aware of in any case).

Yes the leagues have structure, but the structure leads to the best teams in the world hardly ever meeting each other. Is this good or bad for football?

Az? Is that you?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Az? Is that you?

It is him isn't it?

Thing is even if boxing has moved on and boxers today are leaps and bounds in front of their older counterparts, which I don’t agree with but will not go into as it has been done to death, I struggle to see the correlation between this and the proliferation of governing bodies and belts.

Is what we really arguing that the sport is of such a high standard now and there are so many great fighters we need an impenetrable system that confuses people and turns casual fans away from the sport to do justice to their brilliance and the sophistication of their training regimes? Or are we saying due to the dedication and graft they put into training we need to reward this with meaningless trinkets, irrespective of whether it turns fans away from the sport.

I am really struggling to see the argument.

Rowley wrote:Thing is even if boxing has moved on and boxers today are leaps and bounds in front of their older counterparts, which I don’t agree with but will not go into as it has been done to death, I struggle to see the correlation between this and the proliferation of governing bodies and belts.

Is what we really arguing that the sport is of such a high standard now and there are so many great fighters we need an impenetrable system that confuses people and turns casual fans away from the sport to do justice to their brilliance and the sophistication of their training regimes? Or are we saying due to the dedication and graft they put into training we need to reward this with meaningless trinkets, irrespective of whether it turns fans away from the sport.

I am really struggling to see the argument.  

The mere fact that the boxers of old were able to train on a diet of bread & dripping, whiskey & fags and able to fight with a hangover and as often as every month shows in fact that the fighters of today are actually leaps & bounds behind the old timers!

sohotnot wrote:

Rowley wrote:Thing is even if boxing has moved on and boxers today are leaps and bounds in front of their older counterparts, which I don’t agree with but will not go into as it has been done to death, I struggle to see the correlation between this and the proliferation of governing bodies and belts.

Is what we really arguing that the sport is of such a high standard now and there are so many great fighters we need an impenetrable system that confuses people and turns casual fans away from the sport to do justice to their brilliance and the sophistication of their training regimes? Or are we saying due to the dedication and graft they put into training we need to reward this with meaningless trinkets, irrespective of whether it turns fans away from the sport.

I am really struggling to see the argument.  

The mere fact that the boxers of old were able to train on a diet of bread & dripping, whiskey & fags and able to fight with a hangover and as often as every month shows in fact that the fighters of today are actually leaps & bounds behind the old timers!

Either that or their opponents were also $hit.

What is this Floyd Mayweather character on about "hard work and dedication" what does he know. He should forget training and fight bin men every-other week like the good old days.

You've still not explained why this quantum leap in quality requires four governing bodies

Rowley wrote:You've still not explained why this quantum leap in quality requires four governing bodies

Agreed. The debate of 'boxers are better nowadays' is largely irrelevant here. The real issue is: does having 4 governing bodies with multiple titles in each weight class improve the sport?

You seem to be suggesting that it enhances competitiveness somehow. But, this is clearly not the case. Boxers are allowed to avoid each challenges more easily. Undeserving challengers can become champions more easily.

I'm really lost as to why you think this is a good thing.

Of course, you're probably on the wind up.

Rowley wrote:You've still not explained why this quantum leap in quality requires four governing bodies

There are a plethora of reasons why your 'one champion' solution won't work.

I'll give you one simple example.
So you want one world title per division, so that only the worlds best can be considered champ. Problem is with your system fighters like Mayweather and Ward would be stripped of their titles and obviously no longer be considered the best, even though they quite obviously are. Your idea is a huge paradox.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:You've still not explained why this quantum leap in quality requires four governing bodies

There are a plethora of reasons why your 'one champion' solution won't work.

I'll give you one simple example.
So you want one world title per division, so that only the worlds best can be considered champ. Problem is with your system fighters like Mayweather and Ward would be stripped of their titles and obviously no longer be considered the best, even though they quite obviously are. Your idea is a huge paradox.

If there was one champion, and the system was properly regulated, Mayweather and Ward would be presented with number one contenders, who they'd be forced to fight. Ward has pretty much done that anyway.

So what happens when Ward is out for a year? and Mayweather decides he only wants to fight once every 18 months?

With Haz on this one, not sure why they would be stripped. If they were champions they would have to face their number one contender once a year, if they fought more frequently than that they could fit in voluntaries. As the rankings would be run properly their number one contender would be an excellent fighter, if Mayweather or Ward chose not to face them they would be rightly accused of ducking and would get all the grief they would deserve.

If you only wish to fight once in 18 months then you don't deserve to be regarded as the best in your division.

Right so if Mayweather doesn't fight for a year he gets stripped and then Canelo is the best in the world, even though Mayweather is quite clearly the best?...and this system is supposed to help people understand who's the best.

That's the fault of Mayweather not the system.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If you only wish to fight once in 18 months then you don't deserve to be regarded as the best in your division.

But Mayweather IS the best. How is losing a nailed on ATG of the sport going to help boxing?

2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the fault of Mayweather not the system.

So to improve boxing you'd throw out it's biggest asset???

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Brings us back to the point though that you would not need to be a world champion to make a living. Cooper, Tendler and Shavers to name but a few all made good money out of the game because they were good to watch triers who were just a step short of the top level. We only dismiss Euro and domestic belts now because the plethora of belts have cheapened and marginalised these belts.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the fault of Mayweather not the system.

So to improve boxing you'd throw out it's biggest asset???

Well the alternative you seem to be proposing is introduce and tolerate a system nobody can follow to accommodate one fighter. Tail wagging the dog much.

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Brings us back to the point though that you would not need to be a world champion to make a living. Cooper, Tendler and Shavers to name but a few all made good money out of the game because they were good to watch triers who were just a step short of the top level. We only dismiss Euro and domestic belts now because the plethora of belts have cheapened and marginalised these belts.

Isn't Shavers still working the doors up in Liverpool??

Enzo Maccarinelli has made more money than all those names put together.

Having one champ means all the money, fame and power goes to one person. No money is going to filter down to unheralded 10 round qualifier fights. Having four belts splits the money four ways, and allows four times as many challengers to make a decent wedge each time. It also allows rival champions time to build up their profile for massive unification fights - something that simply wouldn't be possible with one title. We would see the same horrific problems UFC is suffering where top contenders are thrown in with the champ before they can build up decent experience and a following.

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the fault of Mayweather not the system.

So to improve boxing you'd throw out it's biggest asset???

Well the alternative you seem to be proposing is introduce and tolerate a system nobody can follow to accommodate one fighter. Tail wagging the dog much.

If you believe boxing would be a better place without Floyd Mayweather then you shouldn't be trusted with a dog.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Brings us back to the point though that you would not need to be a world champion to make a living. Cooper, Tendler and Shavers to name but a few all made good money out of the game because they were good to watch triers who were just a step short of the top level. We only dismiss Euro and domestic belts now because the plethora of belts have cheapened and marginalised these belts.

Isn't Shavers still working the doors up in Liverpool??

Enzo Maccarinelli has made more money than all those names put together.

Having one champ means all the money, fame and power goes to one person. No money is going to filter down to unheralded 10 round qualifier fights. Having four belts splits the money four ways, and allows four times as many challengers to make a decent wedge each time. It also allows rival champions time to build up their profile for massive unification fights - something that simply wouldn't be possible with one title. We would see the same horrific problems UFC is suffering where top contenders are thrown in with the champ before they can build up decent experience and a following.  

If more people watched boxing -- because it wasn't totally incomprehensible, there'd be more money in the sport and more prize money to fight for. Everyone would profit.

So would it be better to have more world titlists? Everyone could be a champion!!!

Manchester utd vs Swansea on free view got 1.7m views.

Tyson Fury vs a Croatian road sweeper got 6.1 m views.

I don't know where people get this idea that no one watches boxing.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the fault of Mayweather not the system.

So to improve boxing you'd throw out it's biggest asset???

Well the alternative you seem to be proposing is introduce and tolerate a system nobody can follow to accommodate one fighter. Tail wagging the dog much.

If you believe boxing would be a better place without Floyd Mayweather then you shouldn't be trusted with a dog.

Have I ever argued it would?

He hasn't argued it.......and he still shouldn't be trusted with a dog !!!  

I'm a cat man Truss, can barely look after myself, need a pet that is self sufficient.

I'm a sheep man.........

Take it easy !!.....All the best..  

mobilemaster8 wrote:For example at welterweight:

Bradley vs Mayweather in May with the under card/joint main being Porter vs Broner.

Winners from each bout fight each other in September to become the WUC (World Undisputed Champion) Champ.

If Floyd won for example, the Broner, Porter, Bradley would all jump to 2,3 and 4th respectively.

The rest of the top tens get put into one sanctioning body (WUC) and fight to number one contender status.

The best vs the best with one lineal champion who MUST defend it 3 times per year or vacate the title.

So in your hypothetical example by September next year the Welterwieght division is basically over. Broner, Bradley and Porter all have losses and the next big mandatory in December would be Mayweather vs the likes of Guerro or Maidana. And of course Mayweather can't move up to lightmiddle or he'd lose his belt and no longer be considered the best welter on the planet even though he obviously would be. What would happen if he stepped up anyway? would he have to wait for a year long tourney between the top lightmiddles to finish before he could fight the winner?

What would actually happen is the top fighters would say screw you to the single sanctioning body and just pick and choose who they fight knowing that boxing fans are well informed enough to know who the true best are. They might just even invent their own titles - sound familiar?

Why people think one sanctioning body would improve boxing is baffling, the corruption would be astronomical. It would be like having Don King control the whole sport. What do you think the fighters would get paid if they had no alternative but to fight for one organisation. What do UFC fighters get paid again, oh yeah, peanuts.

Having four belts takes control away from corrupt sanctioning bodies by creating competition. More money goes to more boxers, which greatly increases the depth, competition and talent in the sport.

You guys ever heard of the Monopolies Commission?

How do we know Mayweather is the best if he doesn't beat the best?

Frankly I'm amazed you guys spent so long arguing the point with this muppet - clearly a WUM upon whom reasoned debate is wasted.  

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Brings us back to the point though that you would not need to be a world champion to make a living. Cooper, Tendler and Shavers to name but a few all made good money out of the game because they were good to watch triers who were just a step short of the top level. We only dismiss Euro and domestic belts now because the plethora of belts have cheapened and marginalised these belts.

Isn't Shavers still working the doors up in Liverpool??

Enzo Maccarinelli has made more money than all those names put together.

Having one champ means all the money, fame and power goes to one person. No money is going to filter down to unheralded 10 round qualifier fights. Having four belts splits the money four ways, and allows four times as many challengers to make a decent wedge each time. It also allows rival champions time to build up their profile for massive unification fights - something that simply wouldn't be possible with one title. We would see the same horrific problems UFC is suffering where top contenders are thrown in with the champ before they can build up decent experience and a following.  

I agree with you, the more world champs there are, the better boxing is. So to improve boxing even more, we should have at least 8 sanctioning bodies. Imagine how great that would make boxing. Another idea is to maybe do away with the idea of winning a title in the ring. Why can't we just award then to fighters. It could be like having a government job. Certain minorities would get given a world title as well as females. That way we could really spread the wealth.

Atila wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Brings us back to the point though that you would not need to be a world champion to make a living. Cooper, Tendler and Shavers to name but a few all made good money out of the game because they were good to watch triers who were just a step short of the top level. We only dismiss Euro and domestic belts now because the plethora of belts have cheapened and marginalised these belts.

Isn't Shavers still working the doors up in Liverpool??

Enzo Maccarinelli has made more money than all those names put together.

Having one champ means all the money, fame and power goes to one person. No money is going to filter down to unheralded 10 round qualifier fights. Having four belts splits the money four ways, and allows four times as many challengers to make a decent wedge each time. It also allows rival champions time to build up their profile for massive unification fights - something that simply wouldn't be possible with one title. We would see the same horrific problems UFC is suffering where top contenders are thrown in with the champ before they can build up decent experience and a following.  

I agree with you, the more world champs there are, the better boxing is. So to improve boxing even more, we should have at least 8 sanctioning bodies. Imagine how great that would make boxing. Another idea is to maybe do away with the idea of winning a title in the ring. Why can't we just award then to fighters. It could be like having a government job. Certain minorities would get given a world title as well as females. That way we could really spread the wealth.

 

Hammersmith harrier wrote:How do we know Mayweather is the best if he doesn't beat the best?

Has he not proven himself to you yet?

Atila wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:2000 pro boxers aiming for 1 fight title fight per year....no one's going to take up boxing with those odds.

Brings us back to the point though that you would not need to be a world champion to make a living. Cooper, Tendler and Shavers to name but a few all made good money out of the game because they were good to watch triers who were just a step short of the top level. We only dismiss Euro and domestic belts now because the plethora of belts have cheapened and marginalised these belts.

Isn't Shavers still working the doors up in Liverpool??

Enzo Maccarinelli has made more money than all those names put together.

Having one champ means all the money, fame and power goes to one person. No money is going to filter down to unheralded 10 round qualifier fights. Having four belts splits the money four ways, and allows four times as many challengers to make a decent wedge each time. It also allows rival champions time to build up their profile for massive unification fights - something that simply wouldn't be possible with one title. We would see the same horrific problems UFC is suffering where top contenders are thrown in with the champ before they can build up decent experience and a following.  

I agree with you, the more world champs there are, the better boxing is. So to improve boxing even more, we should have at least 8 sanctioning bodies. Imagine how great that would make boxing. Another idea is to maybe do away with the idea of winning a title in the ring. Why can't we just award then to fighters. It could be like having a government job. Certain minorities would get given a world title as well as females. That way we could really spread the wealth.

What do you mean at least 8. There are probably 28 already. Only three or four are taken seriously though.

If you guys think Boxing is so awful at the moment, what are you doing here? The UFC board must be missing some meat-heads.