Forget the IBF

[Steak]

Nah, say Cotto, PWill, Clottey, Mosely, and Berto are ranked 1-5 respectively and lackluster names filled the bottom 5. If Cotto were to lose to mosely and pwill were to lose to clottey, neither still wouldnt drop below to the lower eschelon because they are still better than that bottom five and you would have a revolving circle of the same fighters fighting one another if you consistently were trying to make the best fights, just doesnt work IMO.

No, because when you lose youre dropped a couple spots down. to get back up, they have to fight the bottom 5 guys. if the bottom 5 guys are actually good fighters worthy of getting a title shot, then thats their chance to get thrown to the top.

its not always 'fair' to the lower level guys, but thats not the point of having mandatories, is it? the best man ought to get a title shot, if he deserves it.

plus, if the title belt in question was smart, they could have a tournameant. that way, the lower level guys could have their chance to rise to the top or at least put up a good enough performance to be higher rated and get their title shot later on.

sounds good to me. and fighters dont often stick around in the same place for that long, the rankings will be changing constantly, and youd get a steady rotation of new fighters.

[Bhopreign]

No, because when you lose youre dropped a couple spots down. to get back up, they have to fight the bottom 5 guys. if the bottom 5 guys are actually good fighters worthy of getting a title shot, then thats their chance to get thrown to the top.

its not always 'fair' to the lower level guys, but thats not the point of having mandatories, is it? the best man ought to get a title shot, if he deserves it.

plus, if the title belt in question was smart, they could have a tournameant. that way, the lower level guys could have their chance to rise to the top or at least put up a good enough performance to be higher rated and get their title shot later on.

sounds good to me. and fighters dont often stick around in the same place for that long, the rankings will be changing constantly, and youd get a steady rotation of new fighters.

Thats not how ratings work. Its about who the organization thinks that guy can beat. Thats why a guy can move to a new weight class having never fought there and be ranked high, sometimes number one as in the case of Joan Guzman when he came to 135. Even though he had never fought at the weight in their mind he could beat those guys who were ranked at the top and understandably so.

[Steak]

Thats not how ratings work. Its about who the organization thinks that guy can beat. Thats why a guy can move to a new weight class having never fought there and be ranked high, sometimes number one as in the case of Joan Guzman when he came to 135. Even though he had never fought at the weight in their mind he could beat those guys who were ranked at the top and understandably so.

so? and whats wrong with those kind of rankings?

if one guy loses to the champion, the belt certainly isnt going to rank him the mandatory anytime soon, since its unlikely he would not have a good chance against the champion when he just lost to him.

you wouldnt see the same guy as the mandatory over and over, especially since the Champion gets voluntary defences occasionally, so that would spread out the mandatory defences.

[Bhopreign]

so? and whats wrong with those kind of rankings?

if one guy loses to the champion, the belt certainly isnt going to rank him the mandatory anytime soon, since its unlikely he would not have a good chance against the champion when he just lost to him.

you wouldnt see the same guy as the mandatory over and over, especially since the Champion gets voluntary defences occasionally, so that would spread out the mandatory defences.

The point Im making is that a class like welterweight where the top five's talent is alot more superior than the bottom five, when one loses to the other he will never drop below number five, therefore making 6-10 never fighting for a title if youre going to always have the best fighting the best.

[Steak]

The point Im making is that a class like welterweight where the top five's talent is alot more superior than the bottom five, when one loses to the other he will never drop below number five, therefore making 6-10 never fighting for a title if youre going to always have the best fighting the best.

and thats a bad thing? sounds perfectly fine to me. in a world of one belt, it would look like this.

Cotto wins vacant belt against Mosley
Cotto loses to #1 contender Margarito
Margarito loses belt against #1 contender Mosley
Cotto and Clottey fight for the #1 spot to fight Mosley, Mosley gets a voluntary defence in the meantime.

worst case scenario, Cotto and Mosley have to fight a rematch. sounds badass to me.

and as for the bottom 5, with Berto, Collazo, Quintana, maybe Judah...they can fight each other to get higher in the rankings. from there, they can fight a guy in the top 5, and get their mandatory shot...

I dont really see the problem.

[Bhopreign]

and thats a bad thing? sounds perfectly fine to me. in a world of one belt, it would look like this.

Cotto wins vacant belt against Mosley
Cotto loses to #1 contender Margarito
Margarito loses belt against #1 contender Mosley
Cotto and Clottey fight for the #1 spot to fight Mosley, Mosley gets a voluntary defence in the meantime.

worst case scenario, Cotto and Mosley have to fight a rematch. sounds badass to me.

and as for the bottom 5, with Berto, Collazo, Quintana, maybe Judah...they can fight each other to get higher in the rankings. from there, they can fight a guy in the top 5, and get their mandatory shot...

I dont really see the problem.

But thats my point, the way the organizations rank, the bottom six would never get into the top five if the top five only fought one another. If they feel either of those top five can beat any of the bottom five that guy will always be ranked ahead of them, at best by your suggestion, the numer 5 guy would fight the number 6 guy and the number 6 guy would have to win in order for any change in rankings as far as 6-10, all of this would take years and years to unfold in which time would make it not even worth it for either of the bottom 5.

[PlasticFlamingo]

And to think that all this mess is Cintron's fault, for stepping out of a mandatory to steal a draw against Martinez.

[boxaholic]

Not sure what that means.

Meaning...

BHOP #1 mandatory was Hakkar. It doesn't make sense. I want to see the best fights more often in each division. Just because the sanctioning body wants a fighter like Hakkar to be #1 contender for the belt doesn't make him that. Given your intention that Mandatories are Ok against subpar competition.

[Bhopreign]

Meaning...

BHOP #1 mandatory was Hakkar. It doesn't make sense. I want to see the best fights more often in each division. Just because the sanctioning body wants a fighter like Hakkar to be #1 contender for the belt doesn't make him that. Given your intention that Mandatories are Ok against subpar competition.

Say what you want but Hakkar isnt a bad fighter, he actually had a gameplan in that fight, he moved the first round and started to sit down in the 2nd round. He was EBU champ and Hopkins was scheduled to fight another fighter but he dropped out and thats why he fought Hakkar that night.