Of course. One just needs to be doing better than the rest - or, beating someone who's doing better than the rest; the core of my previous explanations. For example... 1935 is a curious year, for sure. However, look at who was leaving the ratings by the end of it... - Art Lasky (previously rated #3) went 0-3, for the year. Braddock decisioned him before beating Baer for the Championship, later the same year (Both Retzlaff and Smith had subsequently beaten Lasky by Stoppage that year). - Baer (peviously the Champion) went 0-2, for the year; crashing out of the ratings having lost his title to Braddock and been beaten by Louis, the same year. - King Levinsky (previously rated #5) earned a string of wins against very poor opposition and was then wiped out by Louis in a round. - Patsy Perroni (previously rated #6) went 0-1, for the year... ...losing to Louis - Peterson (previously rated #7) went 0-2 for the year (quitting twice to unranked Neusel) - Brown (previously rated #8) went 0-3 for the year... ...one of those losses being to Louis - Ramage (previously rated #10) went 0-1 for the year... ...losing to Louis Ultimately, when a vacuum is created, something has to fill it.