The hand-wringing over the KSI vs Paul six-rounder and the BMF fight, predictable as it was, only underscores how many folks in and around combat sport simply don’t understand it. 1/
A few weekends at local boxing cards headlined by six-rounders or MMA smoker held in nightclubs would lend these holier critics some much needed perspective. 7/
Soccer/football/tennis etc were created from bottom up. Rules were invented and refined to create a sport that didn't exist. 8/
Title belts have always been gimmicks, dating back to 1809 when Tom Cribb vs Jem Belcher winner was presented with one by the King of England (The Rock was unavailable, I guess). 10/
Beating Fighter A doesn’t mean you’ll beat everyone Fighter A has. For this reason rankings and leagues are an uneven fit for combat sports. 11/
Every fight echoes the winner take all history of genuine prize-fighting; where combatants fight for the championship of each other. 12/
They especially cared about beating and not losing to the other, so fans cared too. 13/
Promoters use titles and contender structures to form a wider narrative. Championship belts are symbols, props on a stage helping tell a longer, endless story than doesn't end with each fight. 14/
But in the biggest fights, the gold belt acts as a catalyst. It is the subplot, not the main story. 18/
But when you use worse like ‘farce’ and say it is proof that boxing is dying etc you are outing yourself as an ‘expert’ only of the last few years of the sport. 19/
ENDS
But there are some with a megaphone who try to hide their lack of knowledge by rubbishing what's popular. Criticism without context is merely a statement of personal taste.