The Number 1 position being unmovable

Out of interest maybe I’ve missed something but why does being the number 1 mean you cannot lose that spot.

for instance Frank Warren keeps saying Joyce is the WBO number 1 and that’s our spot etc. but why is this something he does not lose unless he fights elite opposition. For instance Joyce just fought Hammer and Parker fought Chisora. Both will fight on September.

If Joyce fought Chisora next for instance and Parker fought a Michael Hunter who is rated number 7 by the WBO would it not make sense for Parker to replace Joyce as number 1.

it would make all divisions so much more entertaining if guys can lose the No 1 spot and not get in position and plod along. If you could win the spot by taking a gamble and fighting another high rated fighter it would make it much more exciting and mean better fights get made

 

It's almost as if he paid good money for that spot.

 

It's boxing. Look at the Hrgovic situation.

 

They need more belts. Make enough of em and EVERYBODY can be number one.

 

This makes sense to me

 

I’m pretty sure Warren has some serious dirt on the WBO president.

 

A jar of dirt?

 

Good post. It sounds like the most logical thing to do but it's boxing so hey ho.

 

Warren and Hearn promoted WBO titles when they were otherwise meaningless; they owe loyalty back the way.

 

They should have ranking points for the Top 40. Anyone from #41 downwards doesn't have a Ranking Point but they obviously can earn them by fighting those in the Top 40. This is where the cherry picks spring surprises.

If #40 (worth 1 point) beats #25 (worth 16 points), then these 16 points are added to their accumulative total which after 3 years loses Year One so the Rankings are then always based upon 2 years worth of fights.

I am surprised that this hasn't been done before. I reckon that some of these "avoided fighters" suddenly wouldn't be avoided anymore.

By the way, how do the Orgs determine who is #11, who is #5, etc? Is it just announced on a whim?

 

there has ALWAYS Been Boxing B.S and Protection of Fighters, which included "Ducking" Top Opponents and in some cases Shutting some Fighters completely Out of Title Shots... SADLY Boxing is NOT a Sport but a Corrupt & Crooked Business.

but at least in different times in History Contenders used to Fight one another and earn their way to the TOP and many a Champion did have to meet the No.1 man... but as already stated some 'champions' didn't.

Nowadays it is a plethora of Watered Down Belts and a lot of title defences aren't against the TRUE Top Belt holders, never mind against True Top Contenders.

I'd say it was a joke, if it wasn't so Disgusting - Denying & Stealing lives & opportunities from some truly talented Top & Capable fighters.

 

Trafford the Matchroom employee wanting a Queensberry fighter knocked off top spot!

 

What if the number 1 and 2 contenders fight each other whilst the champ makes a voluntary defence against the number 10... Does that make the winner of the first fight champ? No it doesn't. Apply the same logic

 

The broadcasters battling hard for viewers and a huge battle for the wooden spoon between Deadzone and Boxnation - bit similar to the Pudding Pulev v Pudding Chisora contest this week.

1. Sky Sports
2. BT Sports
3. Channel 5
4. DAZN UK
5. Boxnation

 

One is the champion and is ordered to make a mandatory defence. It is not the same logic at all.

The situation i am talking about it slightly hypothetical and just proposing a question as to why a no 1 ranked fighter can remain number 1 no matter what oppositon they face.

For instance Zach Parker fought Morrison, Khusanov and Alexander in his last 3 fights. If someone like John Ryder for instance has just beaten Jacobs and then proceeded to fight and beat De Carolis and Yerbossynuly for instance why should he not get the merit for taking chances with the opposition. A position should be something thats defended not just protected by fighting lesser opposition