By Gerardo Granados: A couple of weeks ago I read a tweet in which the author wasn’t pleased with so many belts for grabs and the excessive so called champions. It’s true that in the old days there were only 8 weight divisions; it is also true that four major boxing organizations might be too many, and it is irrational that on the same night at the same venue you get to see two different fights in which there are four fighters disputing the same weight division championship under two different names of the very same sanctioning boxing organization.
We cannot deny that prize fighters need to gain as much money as possible before they retire. The more belts for grabs the more title bouts there will be and by consequence more opportunities to earn money for prizefighters; so it sounds fair for boxers.
The Boxing Industry has grown since the 70´s and the Pay Per View has helped to increase profits; but what about the quality of fights? Is there the same level or even an increase on the boxer’s skills and the quality of the match making of prize fighting? Or has it lost quality due the numerous alphabet belts?
What is the sports media influence in this supposed decadence of Pro Boxing? I bet you all have heard that boxing is dead or dying, that other combat sports are taking over but until this day Pro Boxing still is on the top. I think sports media is highly responsible for the promotion of Pro Boxing and can help guide fight fans to see good fights and to follow talented fighters.
But if sports media calls everybody “champion” then the audience will be misled to believe it and the casual fans are an easy target. I challenge the reader to say the name of all the current belt holders, you have four major organizations plus sixteen weight classes; add the super, regular, interim, silver, diamond and emeritus, also the magazine belt of the so called champions. I bet the reader can’t recall one third of the current belt holders and even less will be able to list the current lineal champions.
Have you ever hear of a simultaneous “super and regular” football or baseball champion? If it is one competition then there must be only one champion.
Yesterday, I read an article that stated on its headline that certain fighter was now a “Champion” so I read it; the headline made me believe the author was referring to a championship bout but it was just an “interim” belt. It made me recall that tweet and by consequence the importance to distinguish between all those belt names.
Maybe we could refer to a boxer as an interim belt holder instead of interim champion; in general only call as Champion to the higher level the organization gives: Super would be Champion and the rest as belt holders (interim, regular, silver, emeritus or diamond). Would this help to clarify who is a true weight division champion from the rest?
I believe the point of view of fight fans is very important but it is even more important to hear the voice of the prizefighters on this particular subject. But, what about the reader; do you think it would help to stop calling champion to any belt holder?
@BN24GGranados
Comments are closed.