IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
> Too Many Weight Classes, Does boxing need 17 world champions?
jazz
post Jul 25 2013, 07:32 PM
Post #1


Amateur


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 30-May 13
Member No.: 13,936



I have always said that there are way too many weight classes in boxing. There are 17 weight classes, some only separated by three or fou pounds. I know that some people will argue that three or four pounds can make a lot of difference, but I don't think the difference is that great in most cases. The main reason we have all these weight classes is so that sanctioning bodies can make more money, and I think it is time that somebody stepped up and brought some common sense back to boxing. If some of these weight classes were eliminated, it would create fewer world champions, but more competitive and better fights because fighters could not build records and win world championships fighting a steady assortment of bums. If it were my choice, the weight classes would be:

108, 115, 122, 130, 140, 147, 154, 160, 168, 175, 200 and heavyweight.

There would be 12 weight classes instead of 17. If we did this and eliminated the bullsh.t such as interim, super, champion-in-recess and diamond champions, boxing would be much more exciting. All it would take is for someone like Floyd Mayweather saying he won't pay a sanctioning fee or fight for a bogus "super championship belt" or one major boxing commission such as Nevada or New York saying they won't recognize or allow these bogus belts to be contested in their states and things would change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
klonopinz
post Jul 25 2013, 09:23 PM
Post #2


Lightweight


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 24-March 13
From: philadelphia
Member No.: 13,879



yes, i thing take away all belts except the wba and wbc, that way you can have unifications, but not paper champions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack 1000
post Jul 25 2013, 10:41 PM
Post #3


The Consultant


Group: Root Admin
Posts: 9,735
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 14



QUOTE (klonopinz @ Jul 25 2013, 09:23 PM) *
yes, i thing take away all belts except the wba and wbc, that way you can have unifications, but not paper champions.


Those were the first two alphabet belts. In 1962 the WBA was formed off of the original NBA (National Boxing Association) The WBC started in 1963. With few exceptions, they kept the champions unified and united until about 1975. In fact the WBO and IBF were created as sort of off-shoots of the WBA and WBC.

The IBF began in mid 1983 under the United States Boxing Association. Former President Bob Lee had ran for WBA Presidency in 1982 against Gilberto Mendoza Sr. and lost. Lee felt that the WBA/WBC were not properly representing enough Black fighters in their ratings at the time. Also, Lee believed that their should be a championship organization that was more representative to American boxers. This was at the time that Hagler and Spinks were unified champions, it was also the time that the WBC began to enforce that Hagler abide by their 12-round rule for there fights involving their mandatory challengers. Hagler said he won the title in a scheduled 15 rounder and wanted to defend it in a 15-rounder. Hagler defended (and won) the older version of the IBF title (The USBA belt) in a scheduled 15-round fight against Wifred Scypion. (KOing him in four rounds.) That got the IBF off the ground.

The IBF gave Larry Holmes their championship belt around the fall of that year. The also gave Donald Curry their belt without a fight.

The WBO was formed in 1989 by about twenty guys who disbanded from the WBA because they did not like some politics of Gilberto Mendoza Sr. Their stupidity was recognizing Francisco Dominani as their champion instead of recognizing Mike Tyson. And it took them a long time to get recognized and recover from that blunder. Even though in the early days of their foundation and even today they have a very strong foothold in European countries, especially Great Britain and Germany.

One belt would risk a monopoly in boxing. I would like to see boxing go back to the main WBA and WBC just for simplicity of champions. Within that context, encourage title unification elimination matches to produce undisputed champions whenever possible.

Jack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klonopinz
post Jul 26 2013, 08:09 PM
Post #4


Lightweight


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 24-March 13
From: philadelphia
Member No.: 13,879



QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Jul 25 2013, 11:41 PM) *
Those were the first two alphabet belts. In 1962 the WBA was formed off of the original NBA (National Boxing Association) The WBC started in 1963. With few exceptions, they kept the champions unified and united until about 1975. In fact the WBO and IBF were created as sort of off-shoots of the WBA and WBC.

The IBF began in mid 1983 under the United States Boxing Association. Former President Bob Lee had ran for WBA Presidency in 1982 against Gilberto Mendoza Sr. and lost. Lee felt that the WBA/WBC were not properly representing enough Black fighters in their ratings at the time. Also, Lee believed that their should be a championship organization that was more representative to American boxers. This was at the time that Hagler and Spinks were unified champions, it was also the time that the WBC began to enforce that Hagler abide by their 12-round rule for there fights involving their mandatory challengers. Hagler said he won the title in a scheduled 15 rounder and wanted to defend it in a 15-rounder. Hagler defended (and won) the older version of the IBF title (The USBA belt) in a scheduled 15-round fight against Wifred Scypion. (KOing him in four rounds.) That got the IBF off the ground.

The IBF gave Larry Holmes their championship belt around the fall of that year. The also gave Donald Curry their belt without a fight.

The WBO was formed in 1989 by about twenty guys who disbanded from the WBA because they did not like some politics of Gilberto Mendoza Sr. Their stupidity was recognizing Francisco Dominani as their champion instead of recognizing Mike Tyson. And it took them a long time to get recognized and recover from that blunder. Even though in the early days of their foundation and even today they have a very strong foothold in European countries, especially Great Britain and Germany.

One belt would risk a monopoly in boxing. I would like to see boxing go back to the main WBA and WBC just for simplicity of champions. Within that context, encourage title unification elimination matches to produce undisputed champions whenever possible.

Jack


Im sure you remember the NYSAC (new york state athletic commision) belt as well, as NY was the fight capital of the world back in the first half of the 20th century, new york had its own regional belt which was as prestigious as the nba if not more. the nba was really the first World title. Ali backed the wbc in 1963 and won their title, i credit him for the wbc's rise in boxing. wba and wbc is all that is needed. they have the most history. although i do love the ibf belt itself, i think its the best looking out of all of them, but 2 is more than enough.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 12:18 AM