The WBC had 458 contests with differing championship tags, the WBO 260, the WBA 207 and the IBF 122. No wonder there is such confusion from the general public over what is actually happening in the sport.
And that extends to those in the sport – as the emerging details over the Khan-Peterson fight have detailed over the last month.
Promoters have long had close relationships with the four main sanctioning bodies – the IBF, WBO, WBA and WBC. Therein lies a complex world of schmoozing, deals and relationships.
Then there is the politics. Both the WBA and the IBF have passed the buck several times in the whole saga over the controversy raised by Golden Boy Promotions and Khan's camp in the wake of the British fighter losing the two titles in Washington DC.
Add in the fact that the DC Commission, the local body overseeing the fight, is run by a group of part-time employees, and it is clear to see why the event has thrown up the vagaries of three bodies running an event which has lacked cohesion in its explanations since several matters have been raised.
The bottom line is that the fight itself was both thrilling and entertaining. Khan lost on two judges' cards by a hair's breadth. He exposed his strengths and weaknesses.
Lamont Peterson enjoyed the success of a man who had dragged himself up from the streets. I scored the bout 113-112 in Khan's favour.
I would take no argument with the two judges who scored the bout 113-112 in Peterson's favour. We differed only on the eleventh round. The judge who scored the bout 115-110 for Khan, in my view, was off the pace on the fight.
The bottom line is that what cost the British fighter the contest were the two points deducted by referee Joe Cooper, for pushing, in the seventh and twelfth rounds. Points not deducted, Khan would have won by unanimous decision.
The officials of the sanctioning bodies have a duty to clear the matter up. Why has there been no statement from the IBF separating themselves from Ameen, and assuring that individuals who are not officials with the sanctioning body will never again be credentialed in their name for a ringside seat.
Why have the WBA not insisted that its supervisor Michael Welsh make a public statement? And why has the DC Commission not sought to clarify the views of referee Joe Cooper, and ask him to issue a statement?
By not doing so, the three bodies involved have left the contest obfuscated in mystery and grey areas.
If they do so – or had already done so – the facts would be out there for all to see.
Transparency is clearly needed now, just as it was three weeks ago.