WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF why there should be only one true champion!!
November 20th, 2010
By Gari Jones: Going by most boxing websites there are currently FOUR world of professional boxing organisations each with there own versions of a world title. Although there is the IBO and WBF who also have world titles for various weight classes, it seems the most recognized are the WBA, WBC, WBO and the IBF.
1.Strawweight/Minimumweight/Mini-Flyweight (105 lbs),
2. Junior Flyweight/Light Flyweight (108 lbs),
3. Flyweight (112 lbs),
4. Super Flyweight/Jr. Bantamweight (115 lbs),
5.Bantamweight (118 lbs)
6.Super Bantamweight/Jr. Featherweight (122 lbs)
7.Featherweight (126 lbs)
8.Super Featherweight/Jr. Lightweight (130 lbs)
9.Lightweight (135 lbs)
10.Super Lightweight/Jr. Welterweight (140 lbs)
11.Welterweight (147 lbs)
12.Super Welterweight/Jr. Middleweight (154 lbs)
13.Middleweight (160 lbs)
14.Super Middleweight (168 lbs)
15.Light Heavyweight (175 lbs)
16.Cruiserweight/Jr. Heavyweight (200 lbs)
17.Heavyweight (unlimited)
With the proud name of POUND 4 POUND best fighter on the planet belonging to only one fighter at a time, It makes we wonder – should there be only one true champion per weight class? The answer to that is should be a resounding yes.
In the Olympics there’s only one true champion for every one event and even Football/Soccer and Rugby the title of World Champion only goes to one winning team. By using this example then the world of Professional boxing should only have one recognized Champion.
But on the flipside unification fights have become something of spectacle in recent times, the expected fight between Haye and one of the Klitschko’s would be a unification fight, Devon Alexander, Timothy Bradley Amir Khan or Marcos Maidana any one of these names would make an exciting unification fight also.
Even in the past when Lennox Lewis fought Evander Holyfield for a unification fight for the WBA, WBC and IBF heavyweight championshp’s that became a huge box office sell-out. Its not just unification fights it also becomes exciting when a boxer defends his unified titles as well, during the 80’s when a young Iron Mike Tyson defended his IBF, WBC and WBA heavyweight titles or when Bernard Hopkins defended his WBC, WBO, WBA and IBF Middleweight belts they did manage to draw a huge crowd, It can also make the fights more interesting for the fans when there’s so much to lose for the defending champion.
But in that sense it also creates a dilemma, because there are so many titles and some boxers wanting to milk there versions for all they are worth, an undisputed titleholder tends not to happen very often. And some fighters who have a reputation can just step up to a different weight class and go gain a title shot without having to assert themselves first.
With one single champion per weight class would people like Manny Pacquiao, became an eight division world champion or would David Haye, Amir Khan, Roy Jones Jr or Oscar De La Hoya be able to move up or down a division and frog leap an entire list of contenders they most certainly and definitely not.
Even with a unified champion if the holder of those multiple titles does not defend one of the versions of it they tend to be stripped of it and it becomes vacated usually for the person who may have just lost it to be given a chance to win it back again. It tends to make a joke of the sport and demeans a title somewhat.
With one single championship belt per weight class I think that boxing would quickly become more prestige’s again and would it respects the fans who have fallen out of love with the sport because of the multiple champions and fighters ducking one another.
Tags: 29 Responses to “WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF why there should be only one true champion!!”
Leave a Reply
please use above banner to link back to us!
I’m not from that Ali generation,but I have studied the sweet science for over 20 years. I have don the gloves myself for only 2 1/2 years as a teenager and have worked corners and helped trained amateur boxers while I was in the Army. I have over a 1000 fight archives and books from the latest to the turn of the century way back from when Sam Langford was one of your true pound for pounds in history. Way before the title p4p was phrase. He fought at lightweight to heavyweight and had more knockouts than Foreman and Tyson combined. Majority of his losses came towards the end of his career when he was going blind. And guess what….he was only 5’6″ 1/2. His body was a physical specimen. When you all get a chance look him up. Jack Johnson who barely beat Langford before he won the title refused to give him a rematch. Jack Dempsey who I believe was probably the meanest SOB to ever step in the ring did not want no part of him either. Arguably Sam in my eyes was truly best p4p fighters of all time that did not win the world title. ( due to politics)
Godfather of Boxing i agree with what u say, i am not old enough to remember ali, frazer etc in person but i think u make a great pointm one champion, 2 or three contenders on the undercard,= value for money for the fans.
Not only that but the true champ will make the big big money as they should.
So yes I agree these governing bodies should come together and make one true world champion.
I also agree with koko, however i feel the ring mag is a decent indicator as to who the best is and whos who in boxing, but a mag that has a history of corruption and controversy as ring should we as boxing fans really trust there ratings?
Someone else mentioned corruption of the big promoters, if there was to be a big shake up within boxing would it be impossible to create some regulations to stop more dodgy Don King style promoters?
I agree with this author 100%. You see back in the days you had to fight the best and the champion had no other choice to fight the #1 contender. But better than that you had more competitive under cards. And the winner of the co-main event would face the champion next. The fans at the time did not get cheated. I remember even when you had fighters like Marvin Hagler on the same card when Ray Leonard fought Winfred Benitez for the title. I remember when you had George Foreman on the under card of Tyson vs Tillis. Also you had Julio Caesar Chavez on the under card of a Tyson main event. We can go further than that. I remember when you had Foreman and Frazier on the same card and they both had different opponents. What i am getting at is this would not just be good for boxing but also be good for the fans. The fans would not be getting ripped off on ticket prices or ppv showings because you have one main event and 3 supporting fights that no one is interested in or the casual fan can’t even identify the other fighters. Also this will filter out the pretenders of the sport. So if you say your the best you have to prove it. That’s what made Ali so great. Not because he said he was great but he proved he was great. He fought everybody and anybody. He went into hostile territory and fought the best of what that particular country had to offer and he never had a rematch clause in his contract. in that era of heavyweights in the 60′s and 70′s anybody of the top ten could of been The Heavyweight champion. We need to go back on how it use to be. One champion one division.
i thing it’s not that mutch the number of belt or organisation who kill the sport of boxing, but coruption does !!! even if we create a system with just one champion by category, the thing who gonna hapen is that a boxer from a small country or from a small organisation will never get they chance at the title cause of coruption, the big promoter will continue to pay for the boxer they want to be on top of the list, and because they will be only one list a lot of boxer will never have they chance
i like the ideal, but i don’t thing it’s can work unfortunaly
@Jimmy K
Look it up, the WBA was formally the National Boxing Association which started back in 1921. The NBA changed its name to the World Boxing Accosiation back in 1962. The WBC (World Boxing Council) was formed a year later in 1963.
okay i was wrong
and no the WBC came first before the WBA
Ummm does anyone here care for the true WORLD TITLE….the Ring Magazine Title……..oh yeah and believe it or not there is also a WBB title…there is…
Ring belt needs more love, one champ per division.
The WBA has been around longer than any governing organization, so whoever holds a WBA championship should be recognized as the legitimate champion over all other organizations. The WBC a close second, followed by the IBF.
Too bad boxing politics has taken over the word “legitamacy.”
if your going to submit an article you should at least proof it first !
I like your ideas though.
There are far too many alphabet-soup governing bodies which have ruined boxing in my opinion. I would dearly love to see most of them go bust.
Unfortunately for the fans, boxing is more of a money making business than a sport these days. I often wonder if we will ever get to see Mayweather versus Pacquaio or Haye versus a Klitchko brother. Probably not (sigh!).
100% AGREE
YOU FORGOT THE………IBA BELT
The key is the interest of the casual fan – their money is what supports the top end of the professional game, boxers, promotors and commissioners alike. The split of belts allows them to manipulate the sport too well for their own gain, boxers aside, and this is what’s so stupid. A casual fan asks who’s the world champion they want one simple answer – as soon as you start talking about different belts they switch off. Just like little by little the public are switching off. It dilutes what the belt means and the fight instantly becomes less important to joe public. They’re stifling boxing.
Too MANY paper championships out there its ridiculous. I concur 1 Division = 1 Champ
ecxactly…
TOO MUCH MONEY INVOLVED THATS WHY THERE ARE 100 BELTS FOR EACH CLASS. THATS WHY THE BELTS DONT MEAN MUCH.
one champ per weight and a ban on clinching, that should make boxing more exciting
I also think they should have a super heavy weight division! Some of them heavies are really big!
Boxing is in a sad state when it comes to “titles”.. Thats why I laugh when people say Pacquiao is champion of 12 titles or whatever! They find a vacant title (which means really one nobody wanted) and pay the fee and BOOM! , instant champion! Then they rarely if ever defend them at all..Throw away the meaningless titles and just fight the best! Every single fight should not be for a title or belt or whatever..If Pacquiao or anyone boxing was a true champion they would clean out ONE division to become champion and defend it several times! What a concept.. Not move up in weight, fight for a belt not ever having fought at that weight ever! JOKE I TELL YA!!
AGREE 100%%%%.
One weight class = One Champion
Plus: Get Rid of Promoters who are screwing us around.
Like the NBA, NHL, NFL playoffs or Olympics there should elimination fights until the best fighter remains.
This way, no promoters, no cherry picking.
i think if boxing will change its one champ to division, it will be for the better. plus we can have two or more divsion undisputed champs which we can’t have today, setting up a more clearer P4P fighter(s), more reconziable fighters and even huge fights constantly. i think this decsion will make critics be on the fence, since we are reforming to the old days but at the same time, to MMA(MMA organizations tend to have an undisputed champ and an interim if the champ cannot defend due to injury[the champs will have a unification fight shortly after the interim champ is decided])
68 TITLES PLUS 68 INTERIM -SILVER – SUPER CHAMPION
looks like the three previous comments are from hates
LINEAL Champion must be considered the only Champ!!!!
organization titles are trophies for boxers.they bring some respect and recognition but anyone can start another organization and there would be more and more champions.these titles will never be unified.so to find the true champ has nothing to do with the organizational titles theyre holding.the ring has been good so far in listing the true champs.I have no respect for the rings ratings and I dont like the idea of a magazine owned by a promoter being the one to highlight who the true champs are but theyre the only one to look to at the moment and so far theyve been honest and accurate with the champions.I feel their ratings system is corrupt though.the rest of the press needs to join in on this or this sport will die from all the confusion.these organizations need to be treated as they really are.in the old days there were no organizations.in the old days the press knew.nobody had to tell them who was the champ they knew who was the champ and they told everyone else.why do they need 4 or more organizations taking that away from them ? these organizations have no legitimacy but when the coverage says they do,it distorts reality.reality is that there can only be 1 champ so there is only 1 champ or the title is vacant
Ali-Frazier, Foreman-Ali, Monzón-Nápoles, Leonard-Durán, Leonard-Hagler, Hearns-Leonard, Tyson-Holyfield… The world was paralyzed by these fights, because they define the true champion and, sometimes, the true pound for pound champion.
Now boxing is a joke. Some people think they can define who is the best pound for pound fighter. Nobody cares.
Look. De la Hoya – Mayweather wasn’t even televised here in Argentina and nobody but the hardcore boxing fans knew about the fight. Every fight I mentioned before attracted the atention of the general public.
The current situation is killing boxing. Maybe for the better…
Everybody knows what the real problem is with boxing – too many weight divisions and too many so called champions. In the old days there was something like only eight or nine weight classes and only one world champion respresenting each. Now there are so many belts to go around that it almost seems like anybody who boxes can call themselves a “champion”. No wonder boxing is in so much trouble.