Game,Set and Knockout

 In evaluating where Boxing began and where it is today the one area continually causing confusion among the general public always seems to be the proliferation of sanctioning bodies, and the forty thousand plus belts on offer. Championships appear a dime a dozen. With the WBC and the WBA starting the avalanche in the 1960’s , the IBF and WBO joined the fray in 1985 and 1989 respectively. The WBU,IBU,IBC and IBO have sprung up since – a myriad of minor level championships such as the WBC International title have joined the mix as well as the WBA’s fee grabbing ‘ interim ‘ and ‘ Super champion ‘ baubles which further mystify the man on the street. For a boxing fan to explain the sordid mess of belts to a casual observer the exercise takes an average of thirty minutes ; double that time if one is to add in the history of promoters affiliated with certain sanctioning bodies , shady dealings and the nonsensical ratings in place. All the conjecture raised must make all involved in boxing ask the pertinent question – is there a better way? In looking for a solution perhaps other sports serve as an alternative model , even if the change to be undertaken is radical. A brilliant model to start with has to be that used in men’s Tennis , by the ATP ( Association of Tennis Professionals ). The Tennis comparison is probably the logical one to start with as both sports have so much in common. Both sports are one on one , mano A mano. Both sports have dramatic and enduring rivalries – Ali V Frazier and Zale V Graziano ; Borg V McEnroe and Federer V Nadal. Both sports require extraordinary focus and mental strength , particularly at the top flight level. Both sports have a diverse mix of individual personalities – We have Jorge Paez and Naseem Hamed , Tennis has John McEnroe and Goran Ivanisevic. Both have extended distances at the championship level. Tennis has five sets with no tie break in the last set. We have 12 rounds of punching , and 15 prior to 1987. What makes Tennis so different from boxing though , is that ninety five percent of the time everyone knows who the premier player is , or for that matter which players occupy the top five slots in the world. Back in the halcyon days of the noble art it wasn’t uncommon for our fathers to know most of the top contenders by name if not by sight. This is a simple task when there are 12 weight divisions and one champion per division. Add free TV in the equation and you have a strongly informed public with concrete opinions on who beats who. The reason for this is simple – one governing body with rankings based on an achievement based points system. Yes , the cold hard stats of tennis are based on – wait for it – actual results on the court. This negates any chance for backroom bribes , political machinations , personal affiliations or as promoter Don King would say ‘ trickerations ‘. From a hypothetical standpoint , assuming we use Tennis as the model of progression – rather than regression – we can see that the Super Six tournament is the obvious precursor to greater things in the boxing space. In the Super six fighters gain points for a win and no points for a loss. Incremental extra points are also procured by a win by knockout or tko. The eventual man left standing at the conclusion of the tournament will have definitively proven his mettle by producing the best results , without question. The marketing tool that is an undefeated record also goes the way of the dodo in the Super six – Andre Dirrell has lost his initial bout and pristine ledger but gains respect for participating amongst some of the best at his weight and putting his credentials on the line. Not one Tennis player has a 40-0 record – Roger Federer is 688-162 in career stats and man ranked by most experts the premier player in ATP History. The presence of a world title in the Super six also seems incidental. Carl Froch and Mikkel Kessler entered the competition as World champions , but the belts associated seem less as important than the quality of matchups and unpredictability of the tournament itself. If the Tennis points rankings system was used in boxing on a larger scale the basic template utilized by the Super six could be the best way forward. In the same way Tennis assigns points for major tournaments – 2000 awarded to the winner of one of the four grand slams , 1000,500 and 250 for lesser tournaments -the same methodology could be applied in Boxing. A 12 round bout could be given 2000 points; a 10 round bout 1000. Commonwealth , National and regional titles assigned lesser denominations , down to the club fight level. As in the Super six scenario points would be gained for a knockout with lesser values for a Unanimous decision victory , Majority and split verdicts all having changing values. Equal points for a draw. Extra points could be merited for a win over a former World No.1 , or an Olympic Gold Medallist. The obvious differences are in activity levels and the sheer number of competitors between the two sports – In Wimbledon as well as the other three slams players have a possible total of seven five setters over 14 days to contend with , as well as possible nagging injuries , fluctuating conditions ( Day or night matches , weather ) and only a day to prepare for the next opponent in question. Obviously no fighter would compete seven times in 14 days , especially in 12 round bouts. It isn’t 1930 anymore and our premier fighters consider four fights per annum a taxing schedule. At the slam level in tennis 128 players are reduced to one champion over a two week period. The equivalent in boxing could be a knockout round robin between the top 10 ranked fighters per division over a calendar year. There would be a bye if numbers were uneven , substitute boxers from the 11-20 ranking tier if a competitor was deemed unfit to proceed to the next round of the tournament. Extra contingencies and disaster recovery practices would be in place. A gaudy world title belt would be given at the end of the penultimate bout. Just picture it. No moronic mandatories a champion has to oblige at a higher powers whim. No ranking a fighter like Peter McNeeley inside the top 15 Heavyweights without having beaten anyone with a medically verifiable pulse. Basing every division’s fighters on true measurable merit rather than conjecture and wishful thinking. Fascinating random matches that must be enforced rather than avoided by the contestants. We would all know who the greatest of all time were by this point through sheer number crunching. Sugar Ray Robinson’s general consensus position as the best fighter in history might be justifiable with 628 weeks at the top of the tree being the measuring stick others aspire to. What an ideal scenario! This isn’t to say the ATP hasn’t received a barrage of negative press or criticism either. It has been accused of pandering to certain players ( Mr Federer amongst them ) at the expense of other seeds as well as an overly hectic touring schedule which results in a diverse range of injuries to its participants. Nothing in the sports world ever satisfies everyone. And where money , greed and inevitably corruption intertwine a glittering prize can often become second rate offal. People fear change by default ; if implemented gradually it becomes second nature and eventually normal. If the powers that be aligned for the greater good of the sport a points system could be the greatest innovation ever seen. So far as we know common sense and boxing are as familiar as Jack the Ripper and Bambi. The gentlemen’s game gives food for thought on how boxing can lift its profile. As life continually shows us in the squared circle - never say never.