Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Yes.

It has become easier to crack the top ten, without fighting a dangerous challenger.

 

I would say yes seeing as how there are upwards of 30 or 40 "top ten contenders" and very few of them have ever faced an opponent they didnt know they could beat going in.

 

I havent paid attention to the Ring since about the time Oscar purchased it so I cant speak to that.

I think you are right that it is a question of semantics. The other problem is that ratings have always been flawed for one reason or another. People now act like the Ring ratings back in the old days were the be all and end all but those guys were trying to sell magazines and often had undeserving guys in their rankings and articles to that purpose. The sanctioning bodies rankings have at times been corrupted in various ways. In reality rankings have often, whether we want to believe it or not, been a popularity contest. If a fighter is visible, whether its a lot of Garden fights in the old days or HBO dates today, chances are hes going to get rated regardless of whether his opponent is really a worthy test of his skills. Thats the game today. Get a guy a TV date against somebody you know he can showcase against and who hopefully can make him look good and get ranked. Rinse repeat and move up the rankings. How many times have we seen a guy get a title shot today before we even know what he can do? Thats why I think the rankings suck today especially but then I think the sport as a whole has been so watered down and so devoid of talent that its hard to even watch anymore.

 

Yes.

And even when a fighter gets in there they take two steps backward to take one step forward ala Thurman/Bundu.

 

In economical terms, obviously. Scarcity determines value. 17 weight classes compared to 8.

 

You know its funny. A few weeks ago I was debating something with someone on another forum. We got to talking about ratings. He was going on about how someone was rated by the Ring and deserved this or that. I went through the Ring ratings, the WBA, and the WBC ratings for about a year or two following when this guy got rated, how, etc. Despite its reputation the Ring ratings were **** compared to the WBA and WBC. They were arbitrary, guys moved up and down the ratings based on nothing at all. Other guys were rated without ever having fought a contender. Still others would announce they were leaving their established division and without even having a fight in the next division up they would be rated highly. Whereas with the WBA and WBC there was a rhyme and reason to it all. You could track how and when a guy broke into the ratings, what fights moved him up or down, etc. the problem they ran into, and what made it easy for the Ring to thumb their nose at them were situations like when Joe Frazier refused to enter the elimination tournament because he was already rated #1 and then got dropped out of the ratings. High profile cases like this allowed the Ring to draw attention to such instances when in reality the Ring was doing stuff like that constantly just usually in the lower divisions or with fighters few paid any attention to. They all have their own motivations and there are always going to be weird situations that arise that dont fit into the ranking criteria that people will fall one side or the other of which will create divisions and cause some to question the rankings. Its an imperfect system I guess is what Im getting at and its only made worse by occasional corruption, bias, and now the watered down divisions and titles.

 

well considering that there are about 8 different factions you can be ranked by, then I suppose the answer is yes

 

Yes i do believe it has diminished. The only division where i feel the top ten is justifiably strong is the jww and ww division where alot of the top guys have fought each other, except the main 2

 

Unquestionably. In each division there are typically 30 plus top 10 contenders spread across the different orgs and it is an absolute puzzle how many of them actually got there.

The raw career figures for most read well, but a closer ****ysis shows some have beaten nobody of note. Their CVs consist simply of an accumulation of wins against overmatched opponents, and often their ranking has more to do with he influence of their promoter than who they have beaten.

Mediocrity has never been so well rewarded.

 

the only way i would say it has been diminished is because of the extra weight classes.
when there were only 8 div's the top ten still didn't mean quality proven fighters.

 

The additional weight classes even further dilute the talent pool.

 

What do you think about a lineal ranking system. Ie, the only way to advance is to fight and beat a boxer that is ranked higher than you are. I know it does have some problems, but i think that if it was adopted, but i think it would revolutionise the sport if one of the major organisations openly adopted it as its ranking system and it wouldnt be long before that organisation was recognised as the only real world championship.