Should boxing go to a tournament type of system, where the boxers in a division have a type of fight-off?

Question

What I don't like is that these governing bodies (IBF, WBC, WBA and WBO) have no say in who fights who. I mean at times they do, but now fighters don't even care if they vacate a belt, so long as they can fight whoever they want.

Should we be watching fights that promoters and boxers hype up and then turn out to be duds ?

Answer 1

i can see a tournament system but how often would you do it. another system that might work is making it no guaranteed money and the boxer have to put in an anti. a split pot of 75/25 to the winner goes 75 and the loser gets 25. that should add to the boxer's motivation instead of a guaranteed money.

Answer 2

I don’t agree that “the governing bodies (IBF, WBC, WBA and WBO) have no say in who fights whom."  They have a LOT of say, both about who DOES and who DOES NOT fight whom!  Just look at their some examples of their rankings, plus those of The RING:

PAVLIK is designated the 160-pound champion by RING, WBC and WBO.  He is not ranked by WBA or IBF.  TAYLOR is ranked #1 by WBC, #3 by RING and WBA, but is not ranked by the WBO.

Mayweather is designated the 147-pound champion by RING and WBC, but he is not ranked by WBA, IBF or WBO. Cotto is designated co-champion by WBA and #1 by RING, but is not ranked by WBC, IBF and WBO.  So, Mayweather's governing body (GB) does not rank Cotto and Cotto's GB doesn't rank Mayweather.  Do you wonder why they're not scheduled to fight?

Shane Mosley is ranked #2 by WBO and #3 by RING, but only #6 by IBF and #8 by WBA.  He is not ranked by WBC.

Each of the four GBs has WORLD champions in almost all divisions, even if they do qualify their designations by saying, for example, “The WBC Heavyweight Champion of the WORLD!”  The next thing we know some organization will have “The South Wilshire Boulevard Heavyweight Champion of the WORLD!”

I know why Mayweather is not ranked by WBA, IBF and WBO.  If they rank him at all, they have to rank him #1, and that makes him the mandatory challenger for their own titleholders.  They sure as h**l don't want THAT because one of them would lose its sanctioning fees if its guy doesn't win!

Answer 3

I don't agree with a tourney system because it would be next to impossible, but I would like to see only one governing body and have that be the only championship belt. But that will never happen so we are stuck with what we have.  Fighters should not be able to choose who they fight, they should always have to fight the next best guy.

Answer 4

Get rid of the promoters and boxing might have a chance. Too much talk. Unify all the belts and let the best compete against the best.

Answer 5

a tournament system wouldnt work.  with so many boxers in each division, it would take 10 years to decide a champ and by that time, the guys are old and ready to retire, it would never end, so what's the point?  

you say the dont care if they vacate a title, but thats usually not the case.  say a fighter has WBA and WBO titles.  WBO will set a mandatory opponent and so will WBA, usually a different fighter.  each one says they will strip you if you dont fight the mandatory next.  what do you do? you take whichever fight has a bigger payday and vacate the other.  your title is stripped and fans hate you for vacating a title.  

remember too, there's a lot of "title eliminator" fights, to determinte who will fight a champ for the title.  thats as close as boxing will ever get to a tournament system.  

Roy Jones, during his light heavy reign turned down numerous big money fights to fight his mandatorys and keep his belts, but now, people say he only fought bums and never really proved himself.  it's a no-win situation for fighters today.  either take your cheap mandatorys and get criticized for not fighting anyone, or take big money fights that vacate belts and get criticized for not having titles.  give them a break.