Click the first link in TFA - the entire post is tongue-in-cheek.
Boxing has multiple world championships, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_c..., and so has chess boxing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing#WCBA_and_WCBO)
Why would chess be different?
In fact, chess _had_ multiple world championships for a while (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship#Split...)
You have the WBC, WBO, WBA (Super), WBA (Regular), IBF, The Ring and Lineal world champions. Having SEVEN possible different world champions at the same time doesn't seem like a great thing to me.
The only thing it does is increase marketability of more boxers and allow for more fights to be world title fights.
In Chess it might be good if we get some other "World Championship" that is more watchable than the FIDE version that can increase viewership. But I'm skeptical.
However, the different boxing championship organizations are not really distinguished by ruleset, as the ring size, glove size, and even the judges are negotiated on a bout-by-bout basis, and certain title shots are for multiple titles. It's really sort of nonsense.