First off, let’s get one thing straight: the sanctioning bodies in boxing are about as unsavory as they come, and I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if they met a fate befitting their greed. These organizations, which thrive off the hard work and suffering of fighters, are long overdue for a reality check. And yes, that includes the media that often turns a blind eye to their antics.
However, it’s not entirely bleak; occasionally, these so-called authorities do manage to produce something of value. Take, for instance, the multiple world champions they endorse. In online discussions lately, the abundance of boxing champs has been a hot topic, fueled by comments from Dana White, now associated with Saudi boxing ventures, who dreams of simplifying the landscape to just one champion per division. And then there’s ESPN’s Mike Coppinger, who seems eager to echo the desires of Saudi figurehead Turki Alalshikh.
Most boxing enthusiasts agree: too many belts dilute the prestige. I once stood firmly in that camp. It’s a common gripe among purists who long for boxing to mirror more straightforward sports. But does having a pile of champions really harm boxing? In truth, it’s been an asset, especially in recent decades when boxing has shrunk into a niche market.
These titles, while many, have been crucial in marketing the sport—opening doors in places like Eastern Europe and Asia. Boxing thrives on personality and regional pride, with fans bound to their local heroes. Having multiple champions allows these fighters to engage audiences globally, fueling growth and maintaining interest across various regions.
So imagine the potential impact of reverting to a single champion per division. It would stifle the sport’s expansion, severing international markets and shrinking its footprint significantly.
Sure, two top-tier fighters will always deliver an exciting match, belts or not. But a championship title adds weight, attracting viewers and enticing networks. Take the upcoming bout between Jaron Ennis and Eimantas Stanionis, for example. It stands out not just because it’s a great match-up, but because it’s a title unification fight, thus drawing more attention and possibly better sponsorship deals.
There’s more, too.
The financial implications of having multiple champions can’t be ignored. It provides fighters with more opportunities to earn and achieve recognition faster. Consider Terence Crawford: in 2014, he beat WBO titlist Ricky Burns. Without multiple pathways to a title, breaking through might have taken him much longer, delaying his rise to fame.
Boxing faces stiff competition for the public’s attention, and those who can make an impact need to do so swiftly. In most cases, viewers tune in for the personalities, the event’s magnitude, and not just the battle in the ring. At a time when boxing does little to introduce its athletes to the broader public, the significance of a championship fight still matters.
Let’s face it: nobody is boycotting boxing because they’re confused about who the actual super featherweight champion is. Complaints about the plethora of titles come from those who obsess over such details.
This isn’t unlike blaming potential football fans for avoiding the NFL due to the complexity of salary caps or prospective baseball followers for shunning MLB over playoff intricacies.
The real issue? Despite an increase in unified champions, boxing hasn’t suddenly seen a surge in popularity. If the singular champion model were a magic cure, Oleksandr Usyk would be a household name, celebrated worldwide.
So why do fans stay away? More often than not, it’s simple disinterest or a lack of familiarity with the sport or its athletes. Putting everything behind a paywall doesn’t help, either.
To “Make Boxing Great Again,” there needs to be a conscious effort to engage mainstream audiences and reassess how access is monetized. Perhaps with the right approach, the numerous championship belts wouldn’t be as necessary.
Ultimately, one of boxing’s big hurdles is its competition for attention in today’s world, filled with countless entertainment and sports options. Trying to shrink the sport to fit a purist’s vision is counterproductive.
What’s certainly not the solution? Handing over control to a mix of corrupt officials and exploitive business models, whether it’s the questionable practices of Saudi royalty or TKO and Dana White’s model of operation.
Got opinions or feedback? Send them my way at [email protected].
