The Best vs the Best

[Ambling Alp II]

One thing that hear sometimes is that the top fighters don’t fight each other that much anymore. The top fighters rarely fight each other. Is that really true? I looked at the Ring heavyweight ratings every 10 years from 1925 to 2015. They I figured how many times for the fighters in the Top 10 actually fought each other (or against the champion) at any time in their career.
So for example, if you look at the champion and the Top 10 for 2015, you will see that so far there have 8 fights between them. After the Joshua-Klitschko fight, there will be 9. Both were ranked in 2015.

Here is how it stacked up:
1. 1975 27 matches between the contenders and champion. (37 including rematches)
2. 1955 25 matches (36 including rematches)
3. 1965 22 matches (28 including rematches)
4. 1925 21 matches (29 including rematches)
5. 1935 21 matches (25 including rematches)
6. 1985 20 matches (22 including rematches)
7. 1945 18 matches (26 including rematches)
8. 1995 13 matches (19 including rematches)
9. 2005 12 matches (16 including rematches)
10. 2015 8 matches (no rematches so far so it’s still 8)

It seems that it really is true, at least in regard to heavyweights. Matches between the best have been declining since 1985.
Any theories why this has been happening?

[ewenhay]

An increase in sanctioning organisations, promoter politics, an increasing stigma associated with a loss on a fighter's record, money. Those would be the 4 primary reasons for me.

[APerno]

What stands out is the absence of rematches.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Seems like some solid work from Alp to verify we weren't all imagining that top bouts are getting made less now in general.

In 2015 Wlad fought both Ring ranked Jennings and Fury to account for two of those heavy bouts that year, and yeah, I'd also agree with the reasons listed here already. Nothing more to see I guess, so moving on.......

[punchoutsb]

An increase in sanctioning organisations, promoter politics, an increasing stigma associated with a loss on a fighter's record, money. Those would be the 4 primary reasons for me.

I've always thought this was the main reason, and this is something MMA has much more in common with past eras of boxing than boxing today. A guy loses one fight and the internet explodes with people ranting he's been exposed yada yada yada. A loss is a loss, nothing more nothing less. It shouldn't be the end all, but these days it really seems like it is. An undefeated record only matters if that fighter fought the very best of his day; otherwise it's a sign you were never willing to step up to the plate.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The main reason is the money they make not fighting each other. They fight once or twice a year and make bank. Even guys like Leonard had to fight the big fights for millions.

[jas80s]

The main reason is the money they make not fighting each other. They fight once or twice a year and make bank. Even guys like Leonard had to fight the big fights for millions.

Spot on, and If I may, the money they make when they DO ultimately step up is off the charts...Thus, the sound business plan is to carefully navigate your way to that mega fight and the best way to do that is to keep the wins coming against reputable opponents who ideally represent little danger and then find that right moment for exactly ONE step up fight. It is now a ludicrous idea to send your promising fighter out there to face a string of other top fighters, all that will accomplish is bringing a couple of losses and knocking you out of the mega fight sweepstakes.

If a given commodity is worth literally hundreds of millions of dollars, it would be insane to think that those that handle that commodity wouldn't be extra careful to protect that investment. Boxing has too much money in it across the board. But, Joshua is fighting Klitschko, so perhaps the money is drying up, no gravy train rides forever.

Maybe part of this problem is that, despite there being more money, boxing is dying and the majority of fight fans now are more casual fans that don't really appreciate the difference between a bad match up, a decent match up, and a good match up. Obviously, that wouldn't really be referring to anyone on this board.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some of these things are interrelated. I think a key is the amount of WBS titles and therefore the increase in "champions". The decrease started in the 1980s when we started having having three, and eventually four "champions".

If you are a contender in the top 10, it doesn't make economical senses to fight another contender. The payday won't be anywhere near as much as a a WBS title shot. Since there are four "champions", there will be a minimum of 4 title defense during a year. Sooner or later, you and pretty win/loss record will get a shot. There is simply too much risk. A loss will stain the all important undefeated record, as some people have mentioned.

If there was just one champion (as there used to be) then it may make sense to fight other contenders. If establish yourself as the number contender you will get a title shot. Best way to that is to beat good competition.
Economically it makes sense because if there is only one champion, you probably won't get a title shot. The next best payday is fighting another name opponent.
There would also be less a risk of ruining your career with a loss because with top fighters fighting each other, almost everyone would have losses.

[Kalan]

The top Heavyweights DO face contenders... They can't make any money fighting Joe Blow from Kokomo but they cherry pick the contenders they fight.

Joshua's list is Klitschko, Molina, Breazeale, Martin, and Whyte for his last 5... Even Molina was ranked because of his win over Adamek.

Povetkin's list is Duhaupas, Wach, Perez, Takam, Charr, and Klitschko for his last 6... Duhaupas had that great KO of Helenius so he was ranked

Klitschko's list is Joshua, Fury, Jennings, Pulev, Leapai, and Povetkin for his last 6... Even Leapai got the shot by beating undefeated Denis Boystov

Wilder's list is Washington, Arreola, Szpilka, Duahaupas, Molina, and Stiverne... DW appears to be the ducker there, but he would be tough for anyone.

Ortiz's list is Allen, Scott, Thompson, Jennings, and before that NOBODY!!! ... Because after the Jennings fight NOBODY wanted to fight this guy. Jennings is an extremely rugged young Heavyweight who easily went the distance with Klitschko and beat Mike Perez.. Ortiz was murdering Jennings from the 1st minute of the fight.. Anybody who saw that fight had to be thinking "I'm not fighting this guy. There's other guys for me to fight." So now Ortiz is 38 years and obviously slipping a little. So I wonder if Joshua will fight him -- because he's still a very cagey and dangerous man, even at 38.

I don't think at any time in Heavyweight History you had a list of Top-5 Heavyweights like Joshua, Povetkin, Klitschko, Wilder, and Ortiz.

That's a pretty damned formidable group so I don't think you put Patterson, Johansson, Cooper, Folley, and Liston against them ... or even Ali, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, and Foreman ... Holmes, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Berbick, and Pinklon is getting slightly better ... and Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson, Lewis, and Mercer is looking better yet -- but I think Lewis is the only one who possibly prevails... But LL might be knocked dead by an Ortiz right hook straight left combo. LL never faced a southpaw... You'd have a lot of trouble trying to get the boys from the past to fight today's top Heavyweights. "Joe Frazier would you like to fight Luis Ortiz?" ... "Ahhhhmmmmm... well.. I like this guy Eric Molina."

[Crease]

One thing that hear sometimes is that the top fighters don’t fight each other that much anymore. The top fighters rarely fight each other. Is that really true? I looked at the Ring heavyweight ratings every 10 years from 1925 to 2015. They I figured how many times for the fighters in the Top 10 actually fought each other (or against the champion) at any time in their career.
So for example, if you look at the champion and the Top 10 for 2015, you will see that so far there have 8 fights between them. After the Joshua-Klitschko fight, there will be 9. Both were ranked in 2015.

Here is how it stacked up:
1. 1975 27 matches between the contenders and champion. (37 including rematches)
2. 1955 25 matches (36 including rematches)
3. 1965 22 matches (28 including rematches)
4. 1925 21 matches (29 including rematches)
5. 1935 21 matches (25 including rematches)
6. 1985 20 matches (22 including rematches)
7. 1945 18 matches (26 including rematches)
8. 1995 13 matches (19 including rematches)
9. 2005 12 matches (16 including rematches)
10. 2015 8 matches (no rematches so far so it’s still 8)

It seems that it really is true, at least in regard to heavyweights. Matches between the best have been declining since 1985.
Any theories why this has been happening?

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute. These days we just don't see the best fighters fight as regularly as they once did.

[Kalan]

The methodology is extremely flawed... The Best fighting the Best SHOULD mean: how many times did the top Heavyweights in that year fight top Heavyweights who were still good Heavyweights when they fought them -- not because they were ranked at some time.

Boxing rankings aren't static.. Many Heavyweights only achieve a ranking for one year and aren't heard from again. Maybe they were ranked for a few years and aren't any good anymore.. If you fight a name Heavyweight like David Price or Audley Harrison after they get smashed out a couple times it means zero.. Adamek, Boytsov, Dimitrenko and Arreola were ranked in 2010 -- but beating any of them now means nothing.. If you want a title shot what SHOULD happen is -- you look at the Heavyweights ranked ahead of you now, figure out who you can look good against, and try to get a fight with them. Unfortunately many rankings are more and more politicized as time goes on with some orgs -- to help their champions fight safe opponents for a nice fat fee. That may be why Joshua said "I don't give a fuking sh!t about titles" and he says he wants the fights that are in demand by the public, not pushed on him by money grubbing orgs.

I remember when Bernard Hopkins wanted to play the mandatory game. He fought the number 1 WBC contender, Morrade Hakkar, who nobody ever heard of, but he was the WBC's mandatory challenger... It was possibly the worst fight ever seen as Hakkar literally ran from Hopkins instead of boxing... After a couple rounds Hopkins shrugged apologetically as if saying, "I know the fight stinks folks. I'm here to fight. There's nothing I can do."

The top Heavyweights of 2015 fought 67 times against other top ranked Heavyweights at the times they fought them... Klitschko has been around for 21 years knocking out top guys and getting knocked out... He has 27 fights against top rated guys when he fought them -- to lead the pack in that stat.
So I don't know about modern Heavyweights not fighting top ranked guys, because that's fukking BS.

[Ambling Alp II]

One thing that hear sometimes is that the top fighters don’t fight each other that much anymore. The top fighters rarely fight each other. Is that really true? I looked at the Ring heavyweight ratings every 10 years from 1925 to 2015. They I figured how many times for the fighters in the Top 10 actually fought each other (or against the champion) at any time in their career.
So for example, if you look at the champion and the Top 10 for 2015, you will see that so far there have 8 fights between them. After the Joshua-Klitschko fight, there will be 9. Both were ranked in 2015.

Here is how it stacked up:
1. 1975 27 matches between the contenders and champion. (37 including rematches)
2. 1955 25 matches (36 including rematches)
3. 1965 22 matches (28 including rematches)
4. 1925 21 matches (29 including rematches)
5. 1935 21 matches (25 including rematches)
6. 1985 20 matches (22 including rematches)
7. 1945 18 matches (26 including rematches)
8. 1995 13 matches (19 including rematches)
9. 2005 12 matches (16 including rematches)
10. 2015 8 matches (no rematches so far so it’s still 8)

It seems that it really is true, at least in regard to heavyweights. Matches between the best have been declining since 1985.
Any theories why this has been happening?

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute. These days we just don't see the best fighters fight as regularly as they once did.

Thanks Crease. It was actually kind of fun. Most of the guys I was pretty familiar with; they were either contenders for several years or champions at one time or another. Occasionally you would see an unfamiliar name who was only rated for a a year or two. To be fair to 1945, there may have been a few more fights in the early 1940s if it wasn't for WW II. There definitely is a trend towards the top guys avoiding each other; it's been getting worse.

[Kalan]

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute

Except that I did exactly that it in my last post.

[Tomasino]

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute

Except that I did exactly that it in my last post.

How old are you again buddy?

[Crease]

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute

Except that I did exactly that it in my last post.

Yoy didnt. Trust me.

[jimglen]

One thing that hear sometimes is that the top fighters don’t fight each other that much anymore. The top fighters rarely fight each other. Is that really true? I looked at the Ring heavyweight ratings every 10 years from 1925 to 2015. They I figured how many times for the fighters in the Top 10 actually fought each other (or against the champion) at any time in their career.
So for example, if you look at the champion and the Top 10 for 2015, you will see that so far there have 8 fights between them. After the Joshua-Klitschko fight, there will be 9. Both were ranked in 2015.

Here is how it stacked up:
1. 1975 27 matches between the contenders and champion. (37 including rematches)
2. 1955 25 matches (36 including rematches)
3. 1965 22 matches (28 including rematches)
4. 1925 21 matches (29 including rematches)
5. 1935 21 matches (25 including rematches)
6. 1985 20 matches (22 including rematches)
7. 1945 18 matches (26 including rematches)
8. 1995 13 matches (19 including rematches)
9. 2005 12 matches (16 including rematches)
10. 2015 8 matches (no rematches so far so it’s still 8)

It seems that it really is true, at least in regard to heavyweights. Matches between the best have been declining since 1985.
Any theories why this has been happening?

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute. These days we just don't see the best fighters fight as regularly as they once did.

Thanks Crease. It was actually kind of fun. Most of the guys I was pretty familiar with; they were either contenders for several years or champions at one time or another. Occasionally you would see an unfamiliar name who was only rated for a a year or two. To be fair to 1945, there may have been a few more fights in the early 1940s if it wasn't for WW II. There definitely is a trend towards the top guys avoiding each other; it's been getting worse.

Great work here Ambling and Crease you are right too.

another thing that comes into play here is ALL the 20 - 30 Top 10 fighters per year... What you say?

well since the proliferation of sanctioning bodies you have potentially 5 champions and 50 contenders that are top 10 in the 5 major different alphabet groups... now it's clear that some of the Champs are also champs in some of the other Alphabet groups and likewise with Contenders, they too find themselves listed in the Top 10 other bodies as well. So you never really have 55 Champs & Top 10 in the listing, but certainly 25 fighters give or take regularly listed where there should only be 11 fighters cited.

this gives the last 30 years or so a wrongful 'misleading' hand...

to get the same number of Contenders before all these break away bodies, you would have to go to the Rings Top 10 and then the next 10 to 20 fighters listed in Group 1 as World Classed Rated fighters to even the numbers of contenders/fighters that fought each other, top 10ers and/or champs... increasing the numbers for these years further.

there has been a horrible decrease in TOP Fighters meeting each other regularly.

the 40s will have been effected by the war but looking at equal numbers you'd still have a hell of a lot of top fights!

love to see it done in ALL divisions, year to year... an amazing Amount of Work, but doable. Great work Amb.

[Kalan]

The top Heavyweights of 2015 fought 67 times against other top ranked Heavyweights at the times they fought them...[Here's a clue for dummies. That is clearly a higher number than 27] Klitschko has been around for 21 years knocking out top guys and getting knocked out... He has 27 fights against top rated guys when he fought them -- to lead the pack in that stat. So I don't know about modern Heavyweights not fighting top ranked guys, because that's fukking BS.

[gilgamesh]

One thing that hear sometimes is that the top fighters don’t fight each other that much anymore. The top fighters rarely fight each other. Is that really true? I looked at the Ring heavyweight ratings every 10 years from 1925 to 2015. They I figured how many times for the fighters in the Top 10 actually fought each other (or against the champion) at any time in their career.
So for example, if you look at the champion and the Top 10 for 2015, you will see that so far there have 8 fights between them. After the Joshua-Klitschko fight, there will be 9. Both were ranked in 2015.

Here is how it stacked up:
1. 1975 27 matches between the contenders and champion. (37 including rematches)
2. 1955 25 matches (36 including rematches)
3. 1965 22 matches (28 including rematches)
4. 1925 21 matches (29 including rematches)
5. 1935 21 matches (25 including rematches)
6. 1985 20 matches (22 including rematches)
7. 1945 18 matches (26 including rematches)
8. 1995 13 matches (19 including rematches)
9. 2005 12 matches (16 including rematches)
10. 2015 8 matches (no rematches so far so it’s still 8)

It seems that it really is true, at least in regard to heavyweights. Matches between the best have been declining since 1985.
Any theories why this has been happening?

Fantastic post and research Alp

[Kalan]

It's nothing but a complete misrepresentation -- which makes it an utter lie -- but I'm glad you guys like it.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fantastic bit of research there Mr Alp. And impossible to refute. These days we just don't see the best fighters fight as regularly as they once did.

Thanks Crease. It was actually kind of fun. Most of the guys I was pretty familiar with; they were either contenders for several years or champions at one time or another. Occasionally you would see an unfamiliar name who was only rated for a a year or two. To be fair to 1945, there may have been a few more fights in the early 1940s if it wasn't for WW II. There definitely is a trend towards the top guys avoiding each other; it's been getting worse.

Great work here Ambling and Crease you are right too.

another thing that comes into play here is ALL the 20 - 30 Top 10 fighters per year... What you say?

well since the proliferation of sanctioning bodies you have potentially 5 champions and 50 contenders that are top 10 in the 5 major different alphabet groups... now it's clear that some of the Champs are also champs in some of the other Alphabet groups and likewise with Contenders, they too find themselves listed in the Top 10 other bodies as well. So you never really have 55 Champs & Top 10 in the listing, but certainly 25 fighters give or take regularly listed where there should only be 11 fighters cited.

this gives the last 30 years or so a wrongful 'misleading' hand...

to get the same number of Contenders before all these break away bodies, you would have to go to the Rings Top 10 and then the next 10 to 20 fighters listed in Group 1 as World Classed Rated fighters to even the numbers of contenders/fighters that fought each other, top 10ers and/or champs... increasing the numbers for these years further.

there has been a horrible decrease in TOP Fighters meeting each other regularly.

the 40s will have been effected by the war but looking at equal numbers you'd still have a hell of a lot of top fights!

love to see it done in ALL divisions, year to year... an amazing Amount of Work, but doable. Great work Amb.

There are now 5 major alphabet soups? Besides WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO, who else is HBO now saying is a major organization?

As far as other weight classes, I have thought about doing another one; not sure which.

[Kalan]

All the divisions are much deeper today. The competition is so much better that the first 100 deep in each division are as good as the top-10 used to be.

For instance, take Heavyweight Don Cockell.. He was the top rated Heavyweight at one point. He was a short, small, fat, pasty, pudgy, plodding punching bag. Cockell was knocked out many times before he fought Marciano, including by Middleweight Randy Turpin and by feather punching Light Heavyweight Jimmy Slade.. His next 2 opponents after Marciano also knocked him out.. He wouldn't be ranked in the top 1000 today.. It really doesn't matter if he was ranked. He was ranked by default because there were no Heavyweights. If you beat him it didn't mean you were real good.