What happened to undisputed heavy weight boxing champions?

[tzimmerman]

When I was a kid, back in mike tyson’s heyday, it seemed like there was always an undisputed heavyweight champion, and EVERYBODY knew the guys name. It was tyson, or hollifield or douglas etc. And it also seemed like there was a title fight every few months.

Nowadays, I can’t remember the last time there was an undisputed champ, or the last time there was a title fight. What the hell is wrong with these boxing associations? Don’t they realize the vast majority of the public only cares when it’s an undisputed heavyweight title fight? It’s like they are trying to torpedo the sport.
Does anybody know why it’s like this now? Did they change their regulations or something?

[RealityChuck]

The more champions, the more money you can make. More fights can be billed “Heavyweight champions,” so the various boxing associations spring up to do it. The boxer can bill himself as champion, get a champion’s payday, and not have to fight another boxer who might be a real threat (but who is a different champion).

It’s the same thinking as to why there are so many more weight classifications than there were in boxing’s heyday (1930-1960s).

This doesn’t even count the fact that in the past, some of the boxing associations were basically set up to shake down promoters (“You can be our champ, but you’ll have to pay us.”)

Since boxing is a dying sport, the fans don’t care.

[tzimmerman]

I agree that boxing is driven by greed and often corruption. But when you say a champion’s payday, it can’t be anywhere near the paydays for the mega pay per view extravaganza’s of the 1980’s.

The same goes for the boxing associations. Sure it means working in concert with other associations to put on these “undisputed” bouts, which means splitting the profits. However, splitting 10’s of millions a few ways has to be better than keeping a few hundred thousand from events that nobody cares about.

It seems like mismanagement and squabling is what’s really to blame, but I could be wrong.

[aldiboronti]

Wikipedia has a useful article on this.

Prior to the 1960s, most champions were “undisputed”,[3] although the term was rarely used; it does not appear in one 1970 Boxing Dictionary.[4] Early boxing champions at various weight divisions were established by acclamation between 1880 and 1920. Once a consensus champion had been awarded the title, the championship could usually be taken only by beating the reigning holder, establishing a lineal championship.

The NBA (later renamed the World Boxing Association) used to be pretty much the only game in town, hence the undisputed championships. Then rival organizations began sprouting like mushrooms: the WBC, the IBF, the WBO.

With as many as four sanctioning bodies now in consideration, Bob Hanna commented in 2007, “Becoming or remaining an undisputed champion is virtually impossible, since with each alphabet group having its own rankings and mandatory challengers, a champion would have to defend his title every two months.”

[tzimmerman]

@aldiboronti

Wikipedia has a useful article on this.

The NBA (later renamed the World Boxing Association) used to be pretty much the only game in town, hence the undisputed championships. Then rival organizations began sprouting like mushrooms: the WBC, the IBF, the WBO.

That seems to make sense. It’s a shame though. It’s pretty ridiculous what the sport has done to itself.

[Colibri]

Moving to The Game Room from GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[RealityChuck]

Agreed. With the emphasis on “Greed.” Whereas other sports were able to channel that greed, boxing only drove away fans. Pay per view was good for the promoters, but bad for the sport, and the cost kept kids from becoming fans. The lack of a single champion and the expansion of weight classes (There were eight in the 1950s and seventeen now) meant casual fans lost interest and even serious fans can’t name all the champions at any time.

[anson2995]

@RealityChuck

Since boxing is a dying sport, the fans don’t care.

@tzimmerman

It’s a shame though. It’s pretty ridiculous what the sport has done to itself.

I’m a longtime sportswriter who has covered pro boxing… With all due respect, I think you folks are off base. Boxing isn’t what it used to be, but it is surviving just fine. You could make the argument that with more sanctioning bodies and an endless supply of championship belts, they’ve fractured the audience. I would counter that this has resulted in generating more regional interest (rather than a worldwide audience for American boxers), and that the sport has thrived at a time when the sports audience and money are being gobbled up by the bigger players. Boxing will never compete with the NFL and baseball in the US, or soccer in Europe. Rather than slumping off into obscurity (like IndyCar racing did in the US), they found new audiences.

Folks in the states may have lost interest because the heavyweight champ is from Russia or Germany, but that doesn’t mean boxing is dead. It just means folks in the states have lost interest. Boxing is huge in Asia and South America and Eastern Europe and other regions of the world.

@tzimmerman

But when you say a champion’s payday, it can’t be anywhere near the paydays for the mega pay per view extravaganza’s of the 1980’s.
a few hundred thousand from events that nobody cares about.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Oscar DeLaHoya earned $20 million for his fight this weekend, which is not chump change. And that was not a title fight. Oscar’s bout with Floyd Mayweather last year set records for PPV buys (2.4 million) and DeLaHoya earned $52 million. the largest purse that Muhammad Ali ever won was $2.5 million.

Even if you adjust for inflation, the top purses for boxing are bigger now then they have ever been, and there is more money on the undercards and in regional bouts.

We’ll never go back to the time where there is a single boxing champion. That doesn’t mean boxing is dead.