DO TITLE BELTS MATTER? THE DEBATE RAGES!

July 27th, 2009 By Brian Gorman

Pittsburgh, PA- Outside of boxing’s four major sanctioning organizations themselves (WBA-WBC-IBF-WBO), you’ll have a hard time finding anyone to defend their practices of creating a mind-boggling number of “champions,” and for good reason. ESPN’s Dan Rafael constantly rails against them, particularly the WBA & WBC, in the harshest possible terms. But Steve Kim of MaxBoxing.com, who deserves credit for being the unusual independent thinker, reopened an interesting debate this week by arguing that “The Belts Matter” (July 22, 2009).

DO THESE GAUDY BELTS MATTER?

Kim contends that these belts bring fighters the status and name recognition they need to lure big and lucrative fights, saying “the reality is that those who capture the belts almost always make more money afterwards and… attract opponents. And regardless of what certain networks claim, they absolutely recognize and covet world title fights.” He goes so far as to call them “vital to a fighter’s career prospects.” Much as I loathe to come across as an alphabet defender, Kim is correct, and HBO and Showtime’s premier series are both called “Championship Boxing” – those “championships” must derive from somewhere. The flaw in Kim’s argument (and for those who take the opposite stance) is that he’s asking the wrong question: it isn’t whether the belts matter, it’s the amount they hurt boxing because they do matter.

THE NUMBERS DON’T LIE

According to ESPN.com, the four major sanctioning bodies currently have 80 – you read that right, we’re up to 80 – occupied belts and six vacant ones. Of the 80 current titles, 62 are considered “champs,” with 18 other titlists regarded as “regular,” “interim” or “champion in recess.” The WBA is by far the worst offender, with 27 titlists in 17 weight classes. They are followed by the WBO (21), WBC (20) and the IBF (12). Next month alone already has 14 title fights scheduled, and not even boxing fanatics are particularly looking forward to August. And this doesn’t even include The Ring Magazine and IBO titles, which take us into the triple-digits in so-called “champions.”

PICK A WEIGHT CLASS, ANY WEIGHT CLASS

Just look at one division (you can do this several times a year with almost all of the divisions), the junior welterweights (140 lb.). Next Saturday, Tim Bradley squares off against Nate Campbell for the WBO title, while Junior Witter faces Devon Alexander for the WBC title on the same Showtime card – and neither of those fights will decide the generally-recognized true 140 lb. championship, which changed hands when Manny Pacquiao stopped Ricky Hatton less than three months ago. And that’s not the end of it: Pacquiao and Hatton competed for none of the four major alphabet belts, as Amir Khan just grabbed the WBA version last week, and Juan Urango will defend the IBF strap later in August against Randall Bailey. That, my friends, is indefensible and borderline insane.

BOXING NEEDS MORE STARS, NOT MORE BELTS

Individual sports’ ups and downs correlate with the existence of stars and, in rare cases, household names. Golf obviously went through the roof when Tiger Woods burst onto the scene. Tennis has enjoyed somewhat of a resurgence with Roger Federer’s amazing recent run. People watched boxing to watch Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson and Oscar De La Hoya, not to engage in a damned debate about which of the five belt holders is the real champ. Perhaps the alphabets serve a necessary current evil; i.e., to give official status, and therefore apparent legitimacy, to potential stars while providing us with “champs” in a decentralized, fractured sport. In that respect, yes, they matter. But far beyond that, they have caused long-lasting and perhaps irreparable damage by devaluing the word champion in this sport in favor of giving contenders – and even mere prospects – perceived credibility with a belt. I’d love to see Campbell, Bradley, Alexander or Khan earn the glory of becoming a junior welterweight champion; they could say they were the champs of the same division as the great Aaron Pryor. To say that, though, they sure as hell better beat the real champ, Pacquiao. Then again, who would know any better, other than me, you and the few others who know and care enough to see through this entire mess?