Floyd Mayweather has now been stripped of his WBO title which he captured from Manny Pacquiao in March. It’s making headlines around the world – but really, does anyone care?
Should Mayweather be demonized for not writing a check for $200,000 for one of the four (major) Welterweight straps? Mayweather says he never received the belt, the WBO says he did, yada, yada, and so it goes on…
But when it comes down it, whatever the reason for his refusal to pay, none of us should spare the issue much thought. The guy shouldn’t be judged harshly, or seen in any kind of bad light. Why? Because world titles are no longer glamorous, and certainly carry little clout in today’s fight game.
Long before the Mayweather vs Pacquiao unfolded, we already knew Mayweather was the pound for pound best fighter on the planet. Or at least, for the sake of argument, certainly the number one ranked Welterweight at the time.
That wasn’t because he held the WBC and WBA belts at the time – it was because he’d looked next to flawless in the ring. We don’t need a bunch of titles to tell us how good a fighter is. And anyone who follows the sport closely knows that.
Mayweather often speaks of titles as take it or leave it-type objects, and one’s he’ll perhaps vacate to give someone else a chance to win. That’s not just arrogance, that’s a telling sign of what titles have become: accolades that feel a lot more hollow than their sparkling, golden faces might imply.
Sanctioning bodies, their titles and ludicrous fees are the reason we are seeing more and more world titlists fighting in catch-weight bouts nowadays; quite simply, fighters don’t want to shell out for the privilege of defending them.
And don’t even get us started on all those Diamond, Silver, Super World, and Super-Duper Whopper titles – or whatever names they go by. They mean little to fighters – next to nothing to fans – and only one thing to sanctioning bodies: big bucks.
One might argue that multiple titles create the opportunity for more combatants to become world champions. It’s said with good intentions, but that argument in itself is convoluted and absurd. Like all sports, each division needs one champion. And one champion only.
Otherwise you get multiple champions which is a huge turnoff. Particularly to casual boxing fans. There’s no easy way to explain to anyone unfamiliar with the sport that a fighter, for example, holds one world title, and is therefore a ¼ champion. Not exactly a good ad for boxing.
There’s a chance you could get a genuine titlist if a fighter unifies all the belts to become a ‘whole champion’, some might say. It’s possible, yes. But it’s also pretty rare. There’d be a lot of sanctioning fees to pay in that case – and what fighter, after winning all those titles, would be keen on paying for the privilege of defending them?
If the WBO demanded $200,000 for one title – think how much it would cost to defend the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF! And that is the reason why there are no unified champions right now in the sport (don’t quote us on that – we didn’t care enough to double check).
What are your thoughts on the whole Mayweather vs WBO debacle? And, the confusing world of alphabet titles in general? Good for the sport? Bad? Or are you simply beyond caring?
The BoxingBase.com writing staff provide worldwide boxing news, coverage and analysis – they can be contacted via email and social media.
