Reverting back to original 8 weight classes

First topic message reminder :

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

You're so right MC, it was corruption that enabled Fitzsimmons, Armstrong, Ross and Canzoneri to win world titles in three different weight classes, nothing to do with them being the best.

It's a completely workable system, if you want a shot at the champion you better get a move on, fight more often and earn that shot instead of waiting around for it.

As for money only being there for title fights, there were no titles on the line for any of the following big money fights.

Mayweather vs Mosley and Marquez
Pacquiao vs De La Hoya, Marquez IV and Rios

Lumbering_Jack wrote:So are you seriously suggesting that the possibility of having 85 world champion across 17 weight divisions is the best option?

50-odd champs in a sport that has 10000+ professional participants is about right I'd say.

So 1 in 200 professionals deserve to be a world champion, that's 0.5%, doesn't seem very elitist to me.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're so right MC, it was corruption that enabled Fitzsimmons, Armstrong, Ross and Canzoneri to win world titles in three different weight classes, nothing to do with them being the best.

It's a completely workable system, if you want a shot at the champion you better get a move on, fight more often and earn that shot instead of waiting around for it.

As for money only being there for title fights, there were no titles on the line for any of the following big money fights.

Mayweather vs Mosley and Marquez
Pacquiao vs De La Hoya, Marquez IV and Rios

How exactly do you get a shot when the champ only fights once every two years and that fight might be against another champ moving up in weight? What do all the other fighters in the division do for that 2 or 3 years, wait around twiddling their thumbs?

It's simple really, the champion has to defend his title every 6 months or he gets stripped. Strange how Jim Driscoll who never won a world title will be more fondly remembered than almost every British fighter who won a mere alphabelt.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So 1 in 200 professionals deserve to be a world champion, that's 0.5%, doesn't seem very elitist to me.

Yes, that's very much in line with Tennis and Golf with their Major winners.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's simple really, the champion has to defend his title every 6 months or he gets stripped. Strange how Jim Driscoll who never won a world title will be more fondly remembered than almost every British fighter who won a mere alphabelt.

Right, so Floyd Mayweather and Andre Ward would not be considered world champions.

There's only one world number one in each sport, the Majors aren't world championships.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's simple really, the champion has to defend his title every 6 months or he gets stripped. Strange how Jim Driscoll who never won a world title will be more fondly remembered than almost every British fighter who won a mere alphabelt.

Right, so Floyd Mayweather and Andre Ward would not be considered world champions.

Not if they didn't fight often enough, they wouldn't be worthy of being called world champion if they couldn't fight at least twice a year.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There's only one world number one in each sport, the Majors aren't world championships.

This is the crux of the problem. The 'world' in world championship means open to competitors from around the world. It does not mean the absolute best boxer on the planet. If you want to find out which boxer is the best in the world look at the world rankings.

Just think of the four main belts as an equivalent to major championships in Tennis and Golf. Simple.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's simple really, the champion has to defend his title every 6 months or he gets stripped. Strange how Jim Driscoll who never won a world title will be more fondly remembered than almost every British fighter who won a mere alphabelt.

Right, so Floyd Mayweather and Andre Ward would not be considered world champions.

Not if they didn't fight often enough, they wouldn't be worthy of being called world champion if they couldn't fight at least twice a year.

You expect 37 year old Floyd Mayweather, and an injured Andre Ward, to fight "at least" twice a year?

If they don't then they are not worthy of being called a world champion which no matter how you try and spin it has always meant the best in the world.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's simple really, the champion has to defend his title every 6 months or he gets stripped. Strange how Jim Driscoll who never won a world title will be more fondly remembered than almost every British fighter who won a mere alphabelt.

Right, so Floyd Mayweather and Andre Ward would not be considered world champions.

Not if they didn't fight often enough, they wouldn't be worthy of being called world champion if they couldn't fight at least twice a year.

You expect 37 year old Floyd Mayweather, and an injured Andre Ward, to fight "at least" twice a year?

1) yes, the 37 year old should fight twice a year. Why should he allowed to keep a title because of his age? He should fight all contenders untill he is beat or retires.

2) The injured fighter should be stripped, if he doesn't defend. if hes good enough he'll regain the title when recuperated.

Given there are 17 divisions and four governing bodies that would suggest there are 68 champions. Allowing there will be a few less due to unification without goggle or cheating can anyone name 40?

On the basis the current system is brilliant and we are all hardcore fans surely this should be pretty straight forward.

So the sole reason for wanting a single belt system is so that only the best fighter in each division is called world champ. Yet in the system you propose the undoubted best 2 boxers on the planet would NOT be world champions. How in anyone's mind could it be good for Boxing to lose it's prized asset in Floyd Mayweather, and then consider Carl Froch better than Andrew Ward? It's a farcical paradox.

Wlad
Stevenson, Kovalev, Shumenov, Hopkins
Ward, Froch, Bika, Stieglitz
Martinez, Golovkin, Quillin, Sturm, Murray?
Mayweather, Molina, Bundrage?
Mayweather, Bradley, Maidana, Porter
Provodnikov, Garcia, Peterson
Burns, Vasquez, Abril?

Rigondeaux, Santa Cruz, Gonzalez, Moreno, Narvaez, Quigg, Martinez, Salido

I make that 35 off the top of my head with three i'm not entirely sure about.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So the sole reason for wanting a single belt system is so that only the best fighter in each division is called world champ. Yet in the system you propose the undoubted best 2 boxers on the planet would NOT be world champions. How in anyone's mind could it be good for Boxing to lose it's prized asset in Floyd Mayweather, and then consider Carl Froch better than Andrew Ward? It's a farcical paradox.

Being the best isn't proven on paper, it's proven in the ring, if you can't do that then you're no good to boxing and it's fans.

Rowley wrote:Given there are 17 divisions and four governing bodies that would suggest there are 68 champions. Allowing there will be a few less due to unification without goggle or cheating can anyone name 40?

On the basis the current system is brilliant and we are all hardcore fans surely this should be pretty straight forward.

The WBA have 2 champs Jeff so would be 85, not 68.

Unless a boxer has a good reason for a fight not happening for 6 months then he should be stripped. It is not unreasonable to expect them to compete twice a year.

If they want to fight less frequently then they have to accept they are not the champion.

And I would argue 6 months is generous. No reason they couldn't be out every 3 months.

You don't need 12 week training camps. Keep yourself fit all year round (like most other sportsmen) and you can fight in shorter notice.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:And I would argue 6 months is generous. No reason they couldn't be out every 3 months.

You don't need 12 week training camps. Keep yourself fit all year round (like most other sportsmen) and you can fight in shorter notice.

This is a good point, never understood the need for such rigorous lengthy camps. This would be quite understandable if they were at least learning the trade but most of the time it's weight crashing module.

Cheers Rodders

It's also (allegedly) about tactics too. They need months and months of specific sparring and training for one fight. Nonsense.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So the sole reason for wanting a single belt system is so that only the best fighter in each division is called world champ. Yet in the system you propose the undoubted best 2 boxers on the planet would NOT be world champions. How in anyone's mind could it be good for Boxing to lose it's prized asset in Floyd Mayweather, and then consider Carl Froch better than Andrew Ward? It's a farcical paradox.

What are you talking about? If there was a one belt system then the previous 'family tree to A title', and all the fights that it involved in making alphabet champions, would be null and void, they may not have happened. Mayweather would still be champ at welter, and ward would still be champ at SMW, because in most cases, the best would still be The Champ.

Would Mayweather be the champion at Welterweight though?

Ward, Martinez, Mayweather (154lbs) and Rigondeaux would be the only cast iron certainties in that regard.

Would Pacquiao not have got there first?

I think so, he'd certainly be favourite. I can't say so for sure though,... thats why we need one belt!

It probably doesn't matter if pacquiao had got there first, if they'd fought at the same weight, under a one champ system, then they would have fought by now and in my opinion Mayweather would have won.

I don't think it changes much, if they could both make good money without eachother then I see no reason why a world title would change anything when it hasn't thus far.

1) Would both have made enough money under a one belt system to want to avoid each other?

2) If they campaigned at the same weight, with only one world champion, I think they would have fought by now. I think lots of fights would have been made which, at present, promoters would prefer to avoid.

3) Under a one belt system Manny wouldn't be an 8 weight world champion, same with Floyyd. This would mean their reputations, with the casual sports fan, would not be as elevated, therefore they'd have earned less money. Belts, like it or not, do bring in money. 

4) Under a multiple belt system a belt can add an element of legitimacy to claims of being the best, at least in the mind of a casual sports fan. In a one belt system fighter would not be so fortunate.

Typo above corrected..In a one belt system fighterS would not be so fortunate.

3fingers wrote:1) Would both have made enough money under a one belt system to want to avoid each other?

2) If they campaigned at the same weight, with only one world champion, I think they would have fought by now. I think lots of fights would have been made which, at present, promoters would prefer to avoid.

3) Under a one belt system Manny wouldn't be an 8 weight world champion, same with Floyyd. This would mean their reputations, with the casual sports fan, would not be as elevated, therefore they'd have earned less money. Belts, like it or not, do bring in money. 

4) Under a multiple belt system a belt can add an element of legitimacy to claims of being the best, at least in the mind of a casual sports fan. In a one belt system fighter would not be so fortunate.

1. You are placing too much emphasis on world titles, they would still have beaten the men they have, would still have the same styles and skill so the fans would flock to see them world title or no world title.

2. The fact they haven't fought with the money that has been on offer doesn't make me think a single world title changes that.

3. If we're talking about the current 17 divisions then the pair would still be at least four weight world champions (a shared record) possibly more if they change their previous matchmaking. Mayweather might have faced Hatton for his 140lb title instead of Gatti or as well as.

4. A one belt system never made us think that Patterson was the best heavyweight in the world or that Maxim was the best light heavyweight or that LaMotta was the best middleweight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

3fingers wrote:1) Would both have made enough money under a one belt system to want to avoid each other?

2) If they campaigned at the same weight, with only one world champion, I think they would have fought by now. I think lots of fights would have been made which, at present, promoters would prefer to avoid.

3) Under a one belt system Manny wouldn't be an 8 weight world champion, same with Floyyd. This would mean their reputations, with the casual sports fan, would not be as elevated, therefore they'd have earned less money. Belts, like it or not, do bring in money. 

4) Under a multiple belt system a belt can add an element of legitimacy to claims of being the best, at least in the mind of a casual sports fan. In a one belt system fighter would not be so fortunate.

1. You are placing too much emphasis on world titles, they would still have beaten the men they have, would still have the same styles and skill so the fans would flock to see them world title or no world title.

2. The fact they haven't fought with the money that has been on offer doesn't make me think a single world title changes that.

3. If we're talking about the current 17 divisions then the pair would still be at least four weight world champions (a shared record) possibly more if they change their previous matchmaking. Mayweather might have faced Hatton for his 140lb title instead of Gatti or as well as.

4. A one belt system never made us think that Patterson was the best heavyweight in the world or that Maxim was the best light heavyweight or that LaMotta was the best middleweight.

1) I'm rightly placing emphasis on world titles. Titles would be revered under a one belt system. They would not have faced the all of same opponents, their career paths would have been very different. While still popular, they may not be marketed as multi multi-multiweight world champions. Yes they'd have fans, but not as many 'casual sports fans'. Meaning less money.

2) Regardless of money, if they fought at the same weight, under a one belt system, one of them would be mandatory. This would havemade a match up more likely.

3) The post is about a reversion to the old eight weight categories. They would not be 4 weight world champions. Even in the 17 weight categories, under a one belt system, they might not have become four weight world champions, especially since their careers would have progressed in a very different ways. It's quite possible, but there is no saying really.

4) I stand by my statement. A belt, under a one belt system, gives an ELEMENT of legitimacy to claims of being the best, certainly to the CASUAL SPORTS FAN.

1. They would still be four weight world champions and would be marketed as such, in a one belt system that would mean far more than the current 8 weight and 5 weight garbage. They don't want to face each other, the demand couldn't have been higher, a world title makes no difference.

2. Pacquiao was the mandatory for Mayweathers WBC title, the fight is no closer to getting made.

3. Well Pacquiao would have been the champion at Flyweight, Featherweight then possibly Lightweight and Welterweight too. Mayweather at lightweight and Welterweight. Worth remembering also that aside from the 'original 8' 130lbs and 140lbs are the oldest of the other divisions being inaugurated in the 1920's.

4. It does yes but fighters would still cherry pick and avoid challenges if they could. A one belt system is the answer but lets not make out it solves problems like the Mayweather/Pacquiao debacle because it wouldn't.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:1. They would still be four weight world champions and would be marketed as such, in a one belt system that would mean far more than the current 8 weight and 5 weight garbage. They don't want to face each other, the demand couldn't have been higher, a world title makes no difference.

2. Pacquiao was the mandatory for Mayweathers WBC title, the fight is no closer to getting made.

3. Well Pacquiao would have been the champion at Flyweight, Featherweight then possibly Lightweight and Welterweight too. Mayweather at lightweight and Welterweight. Worth remembering also that aside from the 'original 8' 130lbs and 140lbs are the oldest of the other divisions being inaugurated in the 1920's.

4. It does yes but fighters would still cherry pick and avoid challenges if they could. A one belt system is the answer but lets not make out it solves problems like the Mayweather/Pacquiao debacle because it wouldn't.

1. In a 17 weight boxing world, with one belt per weight, they may still be 4 weight world champions. Maybe not though, their careers would have taken alternative paths, each with different opponents along the way. In which weights would they be 'unified undisputed' and in what years? Genuine question. We are talking about a reversion to 8 weights though, so its ok to say it's unlikely either woukd be four weightworld champion.

2) Manny was floyds mandatory. He relinqueshed his titles because he had other options (other belts and junior weights). Under a 8 weight, one belt system, those options would not exist.

3) No way of knowing. I doubt he would have been lightweight champion. How many times has Manny been a unified champion. Too many unknowns, missing opponents, to say he would have been a four weightworld champion under a one belt system.

4) Not really much to say other than under a one belt system, as champ, you'd, for most part, only have 10 options from the unified top 10 ranked boxers, other than voluntary defences. There are something like 30 boxers occupying the top 10 positions in the current multibelt system.

I don't really see why their career paths would be any different, their alphabelt fights would still happen but would be fights against fellow contenders instead.

Pacquiao would still be the champion at Flyweight and Featherweight, in a one belt system he would still beat Sasakul and Barrera. As for lightweight he would probably still skip straight to Welterweight where THE title would be up for grabs. Mayweather would still have been the best at lightweight and Welterweight. I don't think reverting to the orignal 8 divisions is at all workable, super featherweight and light welterweight have been around on/off for almost 100 years.

I think their careers would have taken different paths to the ones they did because there'd be one unified top 10, not options at 30 boxers occupying 10 spaces over 4 seperate top 10's. Weight hopping wouldn't happen on a whim, options would be limitted and contenders and champions woud, foe the most part, be real. Almost evergy fighters career would have been different under a one belt system.

The odd fight might change but the following still happens.

Pacquiao beats Sasakul for THE Flyweight title, Barrera for THE Featherweight title, Marquez for THE Super Featherweight title and Hatton for THE light Welterweight title hence a four weight world champion.

Mayweather beats Hernandez for THE Super Featherweight title, Castillo for THE Lightweight title, Baldomir for THE Welterweight title and Alvarez for THE Light Middleweight title hence a four weight world champion.

I don't see any of that changing, the fights in between might change slightly but not drastically, for the most part they have faced genuine top ten opposition almost every fight.

I agree, some fights would be the same and some wouldn't, meaning their careers would have been different.   

But they would still have been four weight world champions in a one belt system, that they might not fight the likes of Gerena and Juuko is pretty meaningless, all of their big fights still happen.

But surely everyones career would have been different under the one belt system. Baldimor might not have been champ, perhaps margarito would have been, or someone else. Perhaps the years in which they moved up would have been different under the one weight system. Maybe they would have fought mosely earlier, for instance.

I don't see the lineal titles changing too much, worth remembering that under a one belt system it was the ring magazine rankings that were used.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:And I would argue 6 months is generous. No reason they couldn't be out every 3 months.

You don't need 12 week training camps. Keep yourself fit all year round (like most other sportsmen) and you can fight in shorter notice.

It isn't the 1950's

If Floyd Mayweather, probably the most supreme athlete on the planet, needs a 10 week training camp - he needs a 10 week training camp. They don't do it for $hits and giggles.

Ezzard Charles and Ray Robinson didn't need 10 week training camps so none of the current lot do unless the old timers were naturally more talented they didn't need to train as much.

So let's consider Floyd is WW champ and Pac LW champ in a 'one belt' system. For Pac to get a crack at Mayweather he'd have to relinquish his title at LW, move up to WW, fight a few ranked WW contenders just to get a shot. If he lost his fight with Mayweather where would he go? Either back to fighting WW contenders or back down to LW to fight contenders. What fighter in their right mind would throw away a 'proper' world title for that sort of risk? Champs would simply never step up in weight unless they can't make weight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ezzard Charles and Ray Robinson didn't need 10 week training camps so none of the current lot do unless the old timers were naturally more talented they didn't need to train as much.

They're just genetically better I suppose.

Or it could be that the guys they were fighting probably had less than a weeks notice of their fight.

He wouldn't have to throw away his title, a lot of the old time greats moved up in weight relinquishing titles on the way. Duran didn't step straight from lightweight to Welterweight, he had to take on a fairly high risk fight in Palomino first, he wanted the challenge so risked it all. You'll be hard pushed to find many greats who didn't move up.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ezzard Charles and Ray Robinson didn't need 10 week training camps so none of the current lot do unless the old timers were naturally more talented they didn't need to train as much.

They're just genetically better I suppose.

Or it could be that the guys they were fighting probably had less than a weeks notice of their fight.

They themselves wouldn't have much longer than a weeks notice of the fight either then would they.

In the space of 12 months, Charles beat Burley, Maxim, Christoforidis, Yarosz and Basora, he didn't need 12 week specific camps to do that and I very much doubt Mayweather does either. You won't find many opponents on Charles' record that are mexican cab drivers either, it's full of quality from Overlin all the way through to Marciano in which time he lost only 11 times in 95 fights against the toughest opposition possible.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ezzard Charles and Ray Robinson didn't need 10 week training camps so none of the current lot do unless the old timers were naturally more talented they didn't need to train as much.

...because they fought more often, they wete in better condition throughout the year. Nowadays, 1 or 2 fights a year mean you need a 10 week training camp.

If the current lot weren't so lazy ballooning up in weight between fights then they wouldn't need to.

If they fought more often then they wouldn't be so 'lazy'