I know AJ was no.1 in the WBC ratings at some point (probably before he got the IBF strap). Why do the other orgs drop a champion from another org ? I mean it sounds daft and petty...do they really not think AJ is top 10 in the world of boxing at heavyweight? And Suliman sounded very pro AJ when he was in London recently for the Brook GGG fight. Sounded like he loved the idea of Wilder vs AJ....so hows he gone from no.1 to nowhere ?
Once you win a belt in another organization, you're dropped from the other organizations rankings. That's the way it is.
That pretty much sums it up. Unifications are usually big fights, it´s a wonder that the ABC´s dont seem to care to cash in on those.
just makes a mockery of the ratings - completely blanking out other Orgs champions....as if they don't exist. Pathetic!!
Because the organizations can't make the champions of the various organizations fight each other. What sense would it make to have Anthony Joshua as the No. 1 contender for the champions of the other organizations when no one could enforce the mandatory? Why isn't Deontay Wilder Joshua's No. 1 mandatory contender, for that matter? Same reason.
Lets say that the WBC decides that Joshua is now Wilders mandatory and they order the fight. If Joshua isn´t interested, Wilder will just move on. But now if Wilder does not come to the table, he looses the belt. It´s a moronic buiness move not trying to make such fights. Remember when Marquez fought Juan Diaz for the first time? It was for the vacant WBA and WBO belts.
Because alphabet rankings are an industry, and that industry is interested primarily in making money rather than providing sensible, reasonable rankings. The way they make money is to take money from fighters fighting for their belts (that is why there are so many - the WBA names three heavyweight world champions and rakes in three sets of sanctioning fees at HW). Of course, now there are so many belts that there can be massive, gaping holes in alphabet rankings. If there are four-seven champions in any given division, an individual rankings organisation might exclude four or five beltholders from its own rankings. Rendering them all but meaningless.
Well this pretty much ends this thread. The sad thing is if we did have one body that wasn't a corrupt, money driven business I think it'd be quickly rejected by powerful promoters and the sports marquee fighters.
Case by case on whether it's good business to try to make unifications. Sometimes they won't agree on a 50-50 split (say WBA makes Wilder the mandatory for Joshua, it would be a 70-30 split if it went to bids -- would that be good business for Wilder to take the short end?). Timing is also a big factor --- a newly-crowned WBO champ might not draw more than the No. 10 contender in one of the organizations, but after 3-4 defenses he might be in a position that the fight would be worth the money. Too many factors to say it's moronic not to make all unifications.
The marketplace has to decide. If you had pre-retired Floyd Mayweather fighting one of the 147 beltholders, it doesn't get made at 50-50, nor should it. Same with GGG-Billy Joe Saunders.
Yeah, I think people would complain. Hey Canelo, your next fight in Cowboys' Stadium, you need to split the purse 50-50 with one of those Charlo brothers. That'll work.
Right, so Golovkin gets 50-50 with Saunders even though Golovkin has about a dozen more defenses than him? And I suppose Canelo should be 50-50 with Charlo? Should Cleverly be 50-50 with Kovalev even though Kovalev already beat him? Should Crawford go 50-50 with Ricky Burns for his belt? There are many cases that where an even split wouldn't make sense. Think Mayweather vs Guerrero/Ortiz, etc.
