True about the belts and the politics, Yogi. But one benefit is that the proliferation of belts, divisions, organizations, etc., has provided incentives for more fighters to compete. At least some of them, mostly in the divisions through Middleweight, are as good or better than many in past decades. Freddie C. named quite a few: Cotto, Pacquiao, Oscar, Floyd, Kostya, Hatton, Calzaghe, etc.

The worst effect has been in Heavyweight--a bad joke overall. Only Klitschko is worthy of being called "a contender," and he could easily have been knocked off by Tyson or Lenox Lewis in their prime.

I read an interesting article on the decline of Heavyweight last year:

The writer said the reason that Eastern Europeans dominate is because Americans just aren't hungry enough anymore. But he cited another reason: The emphasis on personal bests and records (same phenomenon that drives steroids use) means that any American kid who's big and has some athletic abiity is going to be steered into baseball, hockey, soccer, or other team sports that formerly didn't depend on large physical size and strength alone--rather than toward boxing. In boxing, only a very few top contenders make any real money, and it's likely to be stolen from them by crooked managers and promoters. In the team sports, an average-to-good player can make very decent money and play for years without having the s**t pounded out of him in the process.