Reverting back to original 8 weight classes

It's no secret id be delighted if the Junior/Super divisions were abolished. With 36 hour pre weigh ins I see no necessity. Some questions

Which modern world title holder would benefit most if these were scrapped, for instance would Andre Ward reign supreme as a light heavy ?

Which fighter would suffer the most ? For instance where would Canelo fit in , too big for a welter and a mere contender as a middle ?

Which division would benefit the most, imagine how stacked they'd be ?

Which fighter could you see being most successful in jumping weight and being man ?

8 divisions 1 world champ how would it look ? Amazing, I can dream.

Cheers Rodders

Would say LHW would be pretty stacked:

Kovalev
Stevenson
Dawson
Kessler
Groves
Froch
Ward
Hopkins
Pascal
Dawson
Cloud

Wouldn't get much better than that for me. Oh and I forgot Enzo!

Would stop this nonsense of Pacquiao being a blah blah weight champ when he's able to not go for a dump before a weigh in and make up the 4lbs (at a lower weight) etc

I don't want to go back to the 8 original classes.............I like having two champions and I don't mind some jr divisions.........Although a lot of the small ones can go..

Generally you can tell who the man is and there'd be plenty of title action...........

We had shocking lists back in the day when we had one champion with guys FROZEN out.......Especially when the mafia were involved.......and some Promoters have more pull than others..

grew up with the WBC/WBA and I enjoyed seeing more action.........

8 divisions and one champion............Not for me.....Maybe about 15 and two..

Cheers Trussers.

Izzi wrote:Would stop this nonsense of Pacquiao being a blah blah weight champ when he's able to not go for a dump before a weigh in and make up the 4lbs (at a lower weight) etc

I know, he'd have to settle for just being the only man ever to win a title in four of the original eight divisions instead! Albeit he was only the man who beat the man in two of them (Flyweight, Featherweight).

175, 147 and 126 would be the hottest weight classes, for me.

It would be a dream to see boxing reverting back to 8 divisions with one champion (and same day weigh ins) who was mandated to fight their number one contenders.

It may have looked something like this:

Heavyweight: Klitschko
Light Heavyweight: Ward
Middleweight: Martinez
Welterweight: Mayweather/Pacquiao
Lightweight: Marquez (would not have needed to move up)
Featherweight: Rigondeaux
Bantamweight: Donaire
Flyweight: Yaegashi

Divisions would be stacked -- great fights all round.

Really Truss ? So you want 30 world champions ? Strange. I don't like generally knowing who the man is , when it's possibly we could find out for real. Fighters get frozen out today and we have copious amount of daft titles and weight divisions.

Maybe you don't like the best fighting the best , maybe the big 4 in the premier league shouldn't play each other and label all of themselves as league champions.

Cheers Rodders

Strangely, the division I'd keep is Cruiserweight, despite its traditional rubbishness. Just having anyone over 175 as a heavyweight is ridiculous, as to be a successful modern heavyweight you need to be at least 210 pounds well cut.

Yeh I have to agree with Truss here;

Whilst we have too many divisions and title at the moment I think the misconception amongst many is that reverting back to the 'classic old days' would be of benefit and I simply don't think that's the case.

Especially regards belts, where one belt would cause a huge headache of problems with the way promoters run these days. You'd have guys waiting out injuries to champions with nothing to do in the mean time, people avoiding fights once they get to number 3/4 in rankings for fear of losing thus missing out on a possible title fight etc etc.

For me 2/3 heck even 4 titles is fine (what needs to be done away with is Silver, Diamond, Champ Emeritus etc). I said to Truss on the Barker thread a while back...4 title's is fine...the onus should then be on those Champions fighting one another in order to be called 'Undisputed Champion'. It worked back in the late 80's & 90's.

Greed is the problem now...if you had seperate governing bodies i.e. IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO & then one large organisation overseeing it all and forcing title holders to fight one another then many problems we currently have would disappear.

For me the issue isn't the amount of governing bodies...it's the control they have over the sport..they should merely be organisations who answer to a 1 higher power!

Owen makes good points.....Look at Sonny Liston you could say he was past his prime when he finally got a shot...

No doubt If there were two titles back in the day..It wouldn't have offended as many to see Burley and Langford get cracks...

Too many good fighters miss out for me Rod.......Politics.........

Though I will say your 8 divisions is better than the mess we have these days...With Enzo getting a shot..

4 titles isn't fine it's nonsense , 4 mandatories need to take place etc, it makes no sense. Who wants to see the 4th best in the division fighting someone ranked 20th and claiming it's some-sort of world title?
No wonder boxing is losing appeal as a mainstream sport, when fans are happy with 60 world champions, its a mess right across the board.

Cheers Rodders

owen10ozzy wrote:

Especially regards belts, where one belt would cause a huge headache of problems with the way promoters run these days. You'd have guys waiting out injuries to champions with nothing to do in the mean time, people avoiding fights once they get to number 3/4 in rankings for fear of losing thus missing out on a possible title fight etc etc.

For me 2/3 heck even 4 titles is fine (what needs to be done away with is Silver, Diamond, Champ Emeritus etc). I said to Truss on the Barker thread a while back...4 title's is fine...the onus should then be on those Champions fighting one another in order to be called 'Undisputed Champion'. It worked back in the late 80's & 90's.

Greed is the problem now...if you had seperate governing bodies i.e. IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO & then one large organisation overseeing it all and forcing title holders to fight one another then many problems we currently have would disappear.

For me the issue isn't the amount of governing bodies...it's the control they have over the sport..they should merely be organisations who answer to a 1 higher power!

They could fight other contenders -- what's wrong with that?

I find it saddening that fans these days are happy with four world champions in a single division. There should be one champion and no more.

Yeh think it's too far gone now to say 8 divisions and 1 belt would stop all problems....

A happy medium could be found...for instance same day weigh ins (to stop the ridiculous rehydration which occurs) with maybe 12 divisions.

Like I said, in my opinion it is the control which organisations have which is the major thorn these days not necessarily the existence of them.

But that's the point isn't it Rodders,

Say you had one World Champion at Welterweight: Mayweather

behind him is:

Pacman
Bradley
Marquez

Now given the promoters you have...Pacman, Bradley & Marquez wouldn't fight each other whilst waiting to fight Mayweather...because if they lose they slip down the rankings? Therefore you've missed out on seeing 3 great fights...so does that benefit boxing?

Boxers can't be expected to sit and twiddle their thumbs whilst waiting for their shot at 1 champion....so in that sense 2/3/4 belts give them options elsewhere whilst waiting....like I said the onus should then be on governing bodies to demand unification match ups.

So for instance if we said 2 belts....every 2 years the current holders of those 2 belts are forced to fight and unify the titles. They can then either defend those titles as a pair...or if they want to fight against a 'voluntary guy' then the belts are up for grabs to those ranked 2 & 3.

Haz - See above...it's easy to say guys would fight other contenders...but would they. That would then rely on strict rules with regards to how rankings are sorted to ensure that happened. As I said...if your number 3/4 your going to avoid fighting those around you as you lose and your shot at a title down the line goes...you wait in line fighting stiffs and it will come.

Also if your ranked number 20...how are you supposed to get a shot...fight everyone between 19 & 2 until you get to 2nd in the world...guys careers would be over by time that happened.

Ah it is a dream Rodders. Personally would love one champion and eight divisions. Is true to say in the colour line days and mafia times folk were shut out. However those days were a long time ago. Should be possible in this day and age to create one governing body free of both prejudice and corruption.

Tend to agree light heavy would look absolutely stacked. Realise he is not still active but always felt Hatton would be absolutely hammered by the removal of junior divisions. Could not make lightweight without losing a limb and never convinced at welter.

The thing is, as I have always said around this debate is talent is talent, that does not matter if you have one champion or 20, or 8 divisions or 26 or however many we have now. Great fighters will always do the extraordinary. Jones would still have been good enough to win titles at middle and light heavy. Floyd would have won them at light and welter. Manny would have won them in more than one division and so on. Do get wound up when people moan that folk would not be able to division hop if we only had 8 divisions, good it is meant to be, go back far enough and there were only the truly exceptional who got to call themselves 3 weight world champions. Now Duke Mckenzie does it.

No you wouldnt miss out on those fights. In fact, those guys would have to fight each other to determine who challenges for the title in eliminators.

The 4 belt system is preposterous. The one belt system made more sense on so many levels its crazy to dispute it. A recognisable champion and a division full of challengers.

Rowley wrote:Ah it is a dream Rodders. Personally would love one champion and eight divisions. Is true to say in the colour line days and mafia times folk were shut out. However those days were a long time ago. Should be possible in this day and age to create one governing body free of both prejudice and corruption.

Tend to agree light heavy would look absolutely stacked. Realise he is not still active but always felt Hatton would be absolutely hammered by the removal of junior divisions. Could not make lightweight without losing a limb and never convinced at welter.

The thing is, as I have always said around this debate is talent is talent, that does not matter if you have one champion or 20, or 8 divisions or 26 or however many we have now. Great fighters will always  do the extraordinary. Jones would still have been good enough to win titles at middle and light heavy. Floyd would have won them at light and welter. Manny would have won them in more than one division and so on. Do get wound up when people moan that folk would not be able to division hop if we only had 8 divisions, good it is meant to be, go back far enough and there were only the truly exceptional who got to call themselves 3 weight world champions. Now Duke Mckenzie does it.

One governing body free of prejudice...

Have to be non-Boxing fans because everybody has likes and dislikes..

gimme a break..

Fighters box for one thing Owen , that's money. The contenders would fight each other because (especially with the examples you've chose) are still marketable fights with huge purses. Mayweather wouldn't be able to his version of boxing X factor and vote for an opponent , 1 who hasn't even fought at the weight.

Cheers Rodders

Fighters box for one thing owen............

Fitzsimmons didn't do much after Corbett...........

All nice and well Utopia..........But it was bent back then and it would be full of self-interest now.......

FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

With 2 belts more chance of deserving fighters getting a break..

Rowley wrote:Ah it is a dream Rodders. Personally would love one champion and eight divisions. Is true to say in the colour line days and mafia times folk were shut out. However those days were a long time ago. Should be possible in this day and age to create one governing body free of both prejudice and corruption.

Tend to agree light heavy would look absolutely stacked. Realise he is not still active but always felt Hatton would be absolutely hammered by the removal of junior divisions. Could not make lightweight without losing a limb and never convinced at welter.

The thing is, as I have always said around this debate is talent is talent, that does not matter if you have one champion or 20, or 8 divisions or 26 or however many we have now. Great fighters will always  do the extraordinary. Jones would still have been good enough to win titles at middle and light heavy. Floyd would have won them at light and welter. Manny would have won them in more than one division and so on. Do get wound up when people moan that folk would not be able to division hop if we only had 8 divisions, good it is meant to be, go back far enough and there were only the truly exceptional who got to call themselves 3 weight world champions. Now Duke Mckenzie does it.

Spot on

Let's have four belts then because we can't rely on there being no corruption. Maybe if things get a bit more corrupt we could introduce another belt.

Makes me laugh, we can put men on the moon, pretty much recreate the atoms and conditions that started this planet but the thought of creating a governing body to run a sport in an honest, open handed and consistent manner is beyond the realms of possibility.

It isn't spot on because the big players would be giving backhanders to the people on the commission.....Look at property developers and local authorities..

Geez...

That four belts aimed at me...rowley ???...Silly comment If it is..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

FIFA are awful, nobody is arguing that. However not too sure you would find too much support with the idea that the best way to solve their ills is by creating a second governing body.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

Yes, let's look: We have 1 World Champion who everyone knows is the one and that is decided in a huge competition every 4 years where every country enters 2 years previously through a series of pre and inter-competition 'eliminators' in matches chosen out of a hat with no 'match-making' or 'cherry-picking'.

In the interim it delegates to regional bodies, e.g. UEFA for Europe, who run a similar system do decide their regional champion over-lapping the World competition by two years, and also to decide who the best club side is every year. That club side is then passed by up to FIFA who every year decide who the best club side in the world is through another 'fight/game' between two sides who've earned the right to be there and haven't 'cherry picked' or avoided anyone.

It's the problem with having one governing body......It promotes favoritism....

More than one does too I'm sure

With more than one Liston types don't wait till they are past their prime because they are UGLY DUCKLINGS.......

If Governments can be bought I'm sure a couple of knobs on a commission can be...

besides it gives us more title fights with two and less p**ing around..........just because there would be one champion again doesn't mean fighters go back to fighting less than 3 months at a time...

32 world title fights a year...With say two on a few cards = F**K all title action for 26 weeks a year...

Don't forget TV likes title fights and who is to say they'd pick up the non title ones ??

Go away Toppy..

That's happening anyway Truss, look at Chavez favourable ranking. Khan gets ranked at welterweight and hasn't dipped his toes In that weight yet. Multiplying the organisations , multiplies corruption

Cheers Rodders

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Go away Toppy..

Classy.

Why do you come on a forum if it pains you so much to debate with someone that either a) disagrees with you; or b) dismantles your arguments easily; or c) a bit of both??

Rodney wrote:That's happening anyway Truss, look at Chavez favourable ranking. Khan gets ranked at welterweight and hasn't dipped his toes In that weight yet. Multiplying the organisations , multiplies corruption

Cheers Rodders

Yes it has happening Roddy but It's not stopping others getting shots.....

TV these days as I said like title fights......

No guarantee you see all these eliminators Mate..

How is it not stopping others getting shots if people like JCCjr are playing the system to jump the line and get the shots instead of those who've earned them?

I get what you mean Rodders and in theory it could perhaps work...but the rules and regulations and ranking system itself would have to be so strict and take into consideration so many factors I don't think it would be possible... for instance imagine the Welterweight divison looked like this:

Mayweather (Champ)

1:Bradley
2:Pacman
3:Marquez
4:Porter
5:Maidana
6:Alexander
7:Thurman
8:Khan
9:Malignaggi
10:Brook

Now...Bradley fights Mayweather and loses....at the same time Pacman fights Marquez and wins..leaving Pacman vs Mayweather to fight next....great, exactly what we want to see...

However: What happens to Bradley & Marquez? Where do you move them to in the rankings? Do they slip to the back of the queue behind Brook? Surely that wouldn't be fair given they got beat by #Champ & #2 respectively...yet if you don't then how does Brook ever get up to Number 1...he may keep winning but others might not drop?

It becomes even more complicated if you factor in who beat who...so imagine Pacman starts at number 8...beats guys Thurman, Maidana, Porter, Marquez before facing the Champ..by time he has got there Mayweather has retired..we've missed out on seeing a potential greatest fight in history. Even if he does get to him in time...assume he wins...what is Mayweather expected to do restart and earn his chance to fight the champion again..he could have already beaten the top 6 guys by time Pacman had got to him; hardly fair he'd have to fight them all again before earning another shot..

The Garcia decides to step up to Welterweight from say Lightweight (again just an example)..he does so as the Champion at 135...so surely he is the big name and money fight so should go straight into a fight with the Champ at 147...but then hold on...the guy ranked number 2 has been waiting 12 months for his shot...what's he supposed to do sit and wait? Or take a fight against the number 3 guy who he already beat...maybe slip up and then he has never had his shot which he earnt in the first place....

Obviously names etc don't have to be those, just used them as my example. However the point is when you factor in all those things I'm not sure it becomes any easier to make big fights with that 1 champ system than it does right now.

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

FIFA are awful, nobody is arguing that. However not too sure you would find too much support with the idea that the best way to solve their ills is by creating a second governing body.

Does show though you can get away with anything......Look at this Qatar world cup........

What is the problem with less world title shots, all it would mean in reality is matches between contenders would mean something, as would domestic match ups. Cooper, London and the likes frequently filled arenas over here in the 60s. They did not need a WBO silver belt to do it either. They did it because they were good to watch and made for entertaining, largely even match ups.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
FIFA is the one soccer governing body and look at them........

FIFA are awful, nobody is arguing that. However not too sure you would find too much support with the idea that the best way to solve their ills is by creating a second governing body.

Does show though you can get away with anything......Look at this Qatar world cup........

But as corrupt as the Qatar decision was, the end result is still going to be an undoubted undisputed World Champion that's beaten everyone who's beaten anyone else.

owen10ozzy wrote:I get what you mean Rodders and in theory it could perhaps work...but the rules and regulations and ranking system itself would have to be so strict and take into consideration so many factors I don't think it would be possible... for instance imagine the Welterweight divison looked like this:

Mayweather (Champ)

1:Bradley
2:Pacman
3:Marquez
4:Porter
5:Maidana
6:Alexander
7:Thurman
8:Khan
9:Malignaggi
10:Brook

Now...Bradley fights Mayweather and loses....at the same time Pacman fights Marquez and wins..leaving Pacman vs Mayweather to fight next....great, exactly what we want to see...

However: What happens to Bradley & Marquez? Where do you move them to in the rankings? Do they slip to the back of the queue behind Brook? Surely that wouldn't be fair given they got beat by #Champ & #2 respectively...yet if you don't then how does Brook ever get up to Number 1...he may keep winning but others might not drop?

It becomes even more complicated if you factor in who beat who...so imagine Pacman starts at number 8...beats guys Thurman, Maidana, Porter, Marquez before facing the Champ..by time he has got there Mayweather has retired..we've missed out on seeing a potential greatest fight in history. Even if he does get to him in time...assume he wins...what is Mayweather expected to do restart and earn his chance to fight the champion again..he could have already beaten the top 6 guys by time Pacman had got to him; hardly fair he'd have to fight them all again before earning another shot..

The Garcia decides to step up to Welterweight from say Lightweight (again just an example)..he does so as the Champion at 135...so surely he is the big name and money fight so should go straight into a fight with the Champ at 147...but then hold on...the guy ranked number 2 has been waiting 12 months for his shot...what's he supposed to do sit and wait? Or take a fight against the number 3 guy who he already beat...maybe slip up and then he has never had his shot which he earnt in the first place....

Obviously names etc don't have to be those, just used them as my example. However the point is when you factor in all those things I'm not sure it becomes any easier to make big fights with that 1 champ system than it does right now.

Fighters still could make voluntary defences back then Owen...Patterson - Rademacher !!...So If you are ranked number 2 you could be waiting a year and a half...

Like I said one is preferable to what we have now.......But two for me opens more doors and gives more customer satisfaction

When Spain won the world cup did they earn the right to be considered the best football team in the world?

When Nathan Cleverly won the WBO world championship did he earn the right to be considered the best light heavyweight in the world?

owen10ozzy wrote:I get what you mean Rodders and in theory it could perhaps work...but the rules and regulations and ranking system itself would have to be so strict and take into consideration so many factors I don't think it would be possible... for instance imagine the Welterweight divison looked like this:

Mayweather (Champ)

1:Bradley
2:Pacman
3:Marquez
4:Porter
5:Maidana
6:Alexander
7:Thurman
8:Khan
9:Malignaggi
10:Brook

Now...Bradley fights Mayweather and loses....at the same time Pacman fights Marquez and wins..leaving Pacman vs Mayweather to fight next....great, exactly what we want to see...

However: What happens to Bradley & Marquez? Where do you move them to in the rankings? Do they slip to the back of the queue behind Brook? Surely that wouldn't be fair given they got beat by #Champ & #2 respectively...yet if you don't then how does Brook ever get up to Number 1...he may keep winning but others might not drop?

It becomes even more complicated if you factor in who beat who...so imagine Pacman starts at number 8...beats guys Thurman, Maidana, Porter, Marquez before facing the Champ..by time he has got there Mayweather has retired..we've missed out on seeing a potential greatest fight in history. Even if he does get to him in time...assume he wins...what is Mayweather expected to do restart and earn his chance to fight the champion again..he could have already beaten the top 6 guys by time Pacman had got to him; hardly fair he'd have to fight them all again before earning another shot..

The Garcia decides to step up to Welterweight from say Lightweight (again just an example)..he does so as the Champion at 135...so surely he is the big name and money fight so should go straight into a fight with the Champ at 147...but then hold on...the guy ranked number 2 has been waiting 12 months for his shot...what's he supposed to do sit and wait? Or take a fight against the number 3 guy who he already beat...maybe slip up and then he has never had his shot which he earnt in the first place....

Obviously names etc don't have to be those, just used them as my example. However the point is when you factor in all those things I'm not sure it becomes any easier to make big fights with that 1 champ system than it does right now.

The governing body would match fighters in championship eliminators to determine the number one contender. Brook would have to beat the men above him to advance rather than relying on a promoter to buy him an alphabet rating.

Do you not understand an honest rankings system based on merit?

Garcia shouldn't walk into a championship fight as he's unranked at welterweight. He'd -- guess what -- need to fight a ranked contender to EARN his shot.

Pretty simplistic argument.......Rowla

Did Qatar earn the right to host the world cup......How did Russia get the world cup......

Not talking about fixing boxing matches.......or fixing football matches..

Talking about fixing rankings Mate..

Good debate Rod...

Rowley wrote:When Spain won the world cup did they earn the right to be considered the best football team in the world?

When Nathan Cleverly won the WBO world championship did he earn the right to be considered the best light heavyweight in the world?

I believe Cleverly only ever beat one top ten ranked light heavyweight in Murat. Mind boggling.

How many did Rademacher beat ??

Rowley wrote:When Spain won the world cup did they earn the right to be considered the best football team in the world?

When Nathan Cleverly won the WBO world championship did he earn the right to be considered the best light heavyweight in the world?

If Brazil win the World Cup this year...do they earn the right to be called the best football team in the world...or did the fact it took place in a climate and continent more suited to them and their players play a key factor? Or if Germany were to win it...are they the best team in the world or are they & poland given half of the players aren't actually born in Germany?

Just to play a bit of devils advocate!   

It's not devil's advocate...It's fixing the venue.........Easy as fixing the rankings Owen..

If you have the money !!

and by the way this is a great debate Rodders.

I am always intrigued as to whether anyone has actually come up with a better system than now...

As in actually thought one up and worked out all the factors that come into play. I'm sure if we all took what we think is the best way to do it and actually attempted to play it out on paper we would all find some major flaws with our ideas.

Not sure anyone is arguing there would not still be poor matches Truss. Under a perfect system a champion would be obliged to fight his mandatory challenger once a year. If he chose to fight more than that he could take voluntary guys. Now personally I would mandate that even voluntaries had to be in the top 15 at least, that would stop fights like Radmacher happening now, as it should have done then.

They earn the right to be world champion Owen, environmental advantages are part and parcel of sport, sometimes they go for you, sometimes they don't. Would personally not argue their failure to have fought outside the US diminishes what Ward or Floyd have acheived.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pretty simplistic argument.......Rowla

Did Qatar earn the right to host the world cup......How did Russia get the world cup......

What is the RELEVANCE of the host nation to who the best TEAM is in the world?????!!!

That's like saying you are only the boxing world champ if you win in Vegas not Atlantic Cit or MSG.

Rowley I see your points..

But If a guy is well liked...........He becomes mandatory........

Then the champ has two voluntaries and a mandatory............Before say the best challenger gets his shot...Four fights down the road...Maybe one and a half years If he's ranked as high as two that is !!!!...

Two titles MAY give him options as well as JR divisions

I'd go for your idea Mate If it was an honest commission...

Boxing is full of dishonest types as we know..

good debate though

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pretty simplistic argument.......Rowla

Did Qatar earn the right to host the world cup......How did Russia get the world cup......

What is the RELEVANCE of the host nation to who the best TEAM is in the world?????!!!

That's like saying you are only the boxing world champ if you win in Vegas not Atlantic Cit or MSG.

Very true, is like saying a win for Manny over Floyd would not count if the MGM outbid MSG

Talking about fixing rankings Rowley.......FIFA gave the world cup away to QATAR...

Easy to fix rankings...

Ok so how about two belts lets call them Belt A & Belt B ....

When fighting you can only go for one of them and have to decide which route...should you choose to change route then you have to start over in the rankings..

Each fighter must fight a minimum of two fights per year, at least one of these has to be against the guy ranked either directly ahead or behind you. Points are allocated to each position and you move up and down on the basis of the amount of points you receive over the course of the year....

Every two years the Champions must fight each other to decide who is the best in the division...they do not actually win both belts (that would then make the rankings irrelevant) but they are regarded as the true number 1 in the division...

owen10ozzy wrote:Ok so how about two belts lets call them Belt A & Belt B ....

When fighting you can only go for one of them and have to decide which route...should you choose to change route then you have to start over in the rankings..

Each fighter must fight a minimum of two fights per year, at least one of these has to be against the guy ranked either directly ahead or behind you. Points are allocated to each position and you move up and down on the basis of the amount of points you receive over the course of the year....

Every two years the Champions must fight each other to decide who is the best in the division...they do not actually win both belts (that would then make the rankings irrelevant) but they are regarded as the true number 1 in the division...

The system worked well in the 80s Owen..

Mate......It would be less corrupt...(That's obvious).....But the fighters hurt by it would have to wait longer for redress with one title...

2) Too many invested interests...to ever go back

3) Keep dreaming.

Boxing is about making money..

owen10ozzy wrote:Ok so how about two belts lets call them Belt A & Belt B ....

When fighting you can only go for one of them and have to decide which route...should you choose to change route then you have to start over in the rankings..

Each fighter must fight a minimum of two fights per year, at least one of these has to be against the guy ranked either directly ahead or behind you. Points are allocated to each position and you move up and down on the basis of the amount of points you receive over the course of the year....

Every two years the Champions must fight each other to decide who is the best in the division...they do not actually win both belts (that would then make the rankings irrelevant) but they are regarded as the true number 1 in the division...

And so splitting the division in half. That's garbage. There's only one world. There should be only one world champion.

Imagine what an achievement that would be.