:huh Theoretically and in a perfect world it would be determined by the 1 and 2 fighting. But that ISN'T going to happen here so a fight between the 1 and 3 is the next best thing.
My whole point is that "next best thing" and "might as well give it to him" are shitty reasons for Ring to crown a champion.
Wlad could arguably be champion now, this win would mean he has 3 belts and a win over 3rd ranked Chagaev
In both of those cases though the skill/achievement gap between 2 and 3 was much, much smaller than this one.
Didn't Vitali get his belt for beating #3 in Sanders? Yet for Margarito vs. Shane (1 vs 3, and already beat #2), that wasn't enough for some bull**** reason of Paul WIlliams. Maybe Wlad should go and beat Sanders first...if they want to be consistent with their inconsistency.
The question was seen to on Boxing Girl's radio show earlier today (On The Ropes). The answer is a conclusive no.
Exactly. The likelihood of his fighting #2, as much as some of might like to see it, is minimal. #3 is the only realistic option, and it's justifiable.
Incorrect. Margarito was number one ranked, Cotto number two and Mosley number three. The Ring polled the panel that decides the ratings who voted that bthe belt should not be awarded in that case. From the scene of boxing:
I'm not sure. Their rationale for awarding Calzaghe the belt after he beat #3 Lacy was that there wasn't an appreciable difference in the ability or the records of Lacy and Kessler. In this case there's a huge difference between Vitali and Chagaev. The only reason for awarding the title to the winner of this fight is that the top two heavyweights will never fight each other. That's understandable in this case but where do you draw the line? If the top two are good friends? What if the #1 goes on record as saying he will never fight the guy who's #2? Do they just accept that and ask him to fight #3. I agree with them voting on situations like this on a case-by-case basis - hopefully it won't happen too often.