What's In A Name, pt 2: Why Have A Champion Anyway?

Jason Peck, the author of the article linked and referenced in 'What's In A Name, pt 1: The Number One Contender?', has once again written an article deliberately defending the most absurd practices of the extortionists who claim to rule boxing. What's more, he goes quite aggressively on the offensive against the nearest thing to legitimate universal rankings and legitimate championship listings in the sport: he chooses to attack the championship policy of The Ring magazine. Judging from the comments in the thread attached to his article, there are a number of boxing fans who agree with his views.

I'm going to start by saying that The Ring is not perfect. I have noted definite changes in advertising content since its purchase by Golden Boy Enterprises. They have added some higher ticket sponsors (Southwest Airlines and Tecate beer), substituted Rockstar energy drink for the old Gatorade ads, and eliminated most (but not all) of the boxing equipment ads in favor of ads for various Golden Boy events and publications (Mosely-Judah and Oscar De La Hoya's autobiography). Nigel Collins' second editorial since the buyout (the first defended the sale and declared the principles of the magazine would not change) defended the inevitable De La Hoya-Mayweather rematch (which most of the magazine's writers explicitly oppose) on economic grounds, reminding us all that boxing is a business. My response to that is on this blog too.

All that said, The Ring provides the only championship policy untainted by the extortion and corruption practiced by the alphabet cartel. Their policy awards the title to men who win it in the ring and only grants it to another man if he wins it in the ring. This is the only possible policy that does not, inevitably, mire itself in corruption. The insistence on 'mandatory' title fights and the stripping of champions who do not defend against their 'mandatory' challengers is the third leading cause of the fringe status of boxing today. (For those who care curious, number one is the fact that the greed of promoters has put all the fights worth seeing on pay cable and pay-per-view outlets, profiting from the loyalty of established fans but shrinking the available pool of new fans. Number two is the fact that when I can name six different organizations recognizing alleged 'world champions.')

Sanctioning bodies of one kind or another have been around for a long time, as long as boxing has been legal: when the British government legalized boxing, they created the British Boxing Board of Control (which recognizes the Scottish, English, British, and Commonwealth champions and used to recognize a world champion) to oversee it. When boxing was completely legalized in New York State, boxing in New York became the purvue of the New York State Athletic Commission and the NYSAC was respected around the nation and world and its opinions as to the legitimate identity of a champion was taken seriously if not always unanimously supported. The National Boxing Association (NBA) came later, also in the U.S., and it also claimed to have a stake in recognizing the world champion. For many years, however, none of these organizations stripped champions and when champions were stripped it happened rarely. In nearly all cases, once a fighter was declared undisputed world champion he was not ever stripped.

During the years that the International Boxing Club controlled boxing, it was able to achieve a great deal of influence with the NBA. Sugar Ray Robinson was stripped by the NBA because he refused to fight IBC opponents, and while this had little effect on Robinson's career (the star will always make money) it negatively impacted his conqueror: Paul Pender never received undisputed recognition as world champion because the NBA sanctioned a title fight between Gene Fulmer and Carmen Basilio and eventually convinced the NYSAC to recognize Fulmer. Robinson had not lost the title in the ring at the time he defeated Pender, Pender defeated Robinson, Pender deserved recognition. He was one of the 'unknown but talented' fighters Mr. Peck claims to defend, and he only suffered from the policy that Mr. Peck claims defends fighters like him.

Everyone in boxing, with the exception of the most die-hard Mayweather fans, wants to see Mayweather fight the winner of Cotto-Margarito and will feel his legacy as welterweight champion is incomplete if he does not do so. Most knowledgeable students and fans of boxing consider Mayweather's legacy to be incomplete across the board because he has studiously avoided fighters like Kostya Tyzyu and Joel Casamayor in favor of the Arturo Gattis and Oscar De La Hoyas of the sport. No one doubts Mayweather's gifts, but we would all like to see him fight the best fighters in the divisions in which he claims championships.

That said, he is still the legitimate welterweight champion of the world. Zab Judah won the legitimate welterweight title by beating Cory Spinks, Carlos Baldomir beat Judah, and Mayweather beat Baldomir. No one has yet beaten Mayweather. The only legitimate champion is the man who beat the man. That man is Floyd Mayweather. Regardless of our opinions of him. Recognizing any other man as champion, at this time, devalues the bedrock principle of boxing: to be the best you have to beat the best. As champion, Mayweather is 'the best' until someone beats him. He should be criticized for not fighting his top contenders, he should be pressured to fight to them by any means possible, or he should retire. Until he does so or is beaten, he is the man. No one else can be the man, legitimately, without beating him.

Mr. Peck claims not to be defending the alphabet cartel. I disagree. By choosing to defend the most pernicious of their policies, he is acting as their spokesman whether he means to do so or not. By promoting the very bad ideas that have brought boxing to where it is now, he has chosen to be part of the problem and not the solution.

That is truly failing boxing.