Are Fighters Protecting Their Rankings or Cheating the System?

By Billie Sloane, IFL TV

It’s one of boxing’s dirtiest little secrets—top fighters gaming the system to stay at the top of the rankings without taking any real risks. While fresh contenders grind their way up, some big names cling to their status by staying inactive or facing low-level opponents. The question is: should boxing force ranked fighters to face top-10 opposition to keep their place? It’s a radical idea, but would it bring the competition back to life or push fighters to the breaking point?

Ranking Without Fighting: The Stagnation Problem

Rankings are supposed to reflect who the best fighters are based on recent performances and the strength of their competition. But how often does that really happen? We’ve all seen fighters hold onto top-10 spots despite long layoffs or victories over opponents who barely register on the global stage. The result? Entire divisions become stagnant, while deserving challengers are locked out.

Take the heavyweight division, for example—how many times have we seen fighters sit on their ranking for a year without stepping up? Meanwhile, the next generation waits for their shot, stuck behind a wall of political maneuvering and easy fights.

Accountability and Action: The Case for Tougher Rules

Imagine if every ranked fighter was required to face at least one top-10 opponent annually to keep their spot. No more meaningless tune-ups disguised as legitimate competition. Suddenly, divisions would be buzzing with activity, and matchups would carry real stakes. It would force fighters to stay sharp, ensuring they earn their ranking through performance, not politics.

Eddie Hearn once pointed out in an IFL TV interview, “Fans want the best fighting the best—it’s that simple.” If a mandatory top-10 rule were in place, we’d see fewer protected records and more dream matchups. Fighters like Devin Haney, Shakur Stevenson, and Gervonta Davis wouldn’t have the luxury of dancing around each other forever. They’d have to prove who truly belongs at the top.

And let’s be real—a rule like this would make boxing a lot more exciting. Picture the drama as contenders are forced into high-stakes bouts to defend their ranking. The sport would be less about politics and more about pure competition.

The Risk Factor: Is It Too Much Pressure?

But let’s not act like it’s all sunshine and big fights. There are serious risks to a system like this. Fighters recovering from injuries might feel pressured to return too early, risking long-term damage to protect their ranking. Boxing is already brutal enough—do we really want to add that kind of unnecessary pressure?

Then there’s the issue of promotional politics. Not every fighter has access to top-10 opponents. Some might find themselves frozen out due to disputes between promoters. Should those fighters be punished for something that’s completely out of their control?

And what about career development? Not every rising star is ready to face elite competition straight away. Forcing them into dangerous fights too soon could derail their careers entirely. We’ve seen it happen—fighters rushed into high-level bouts too early, only to lose their confidence and never quite recover.

What’s in It for the Fighters?

Here’s the flip side—this kind of system could also be a game-changer for those willing to rise to the challenge. A top-10 mandate could create more opportunities for ambitious fighters, who might otherwise be stuck waiting for a shot that never comes. Imagine a world where every ranking fight comes with real stakes, sign-on bonuses, and a clearer path to world title contention.

For those willing to take risks, the rewards could be huge—more exposure, more credibility, and a direct path to bigger paydays. It might even encourage fighters to stay more active, knowing that every fight could move them closer to the big time. In a sport where careers are often uncertain, a little more structure might be just what fighters need.

Is Boxing Ready for Change or Stuck in Its Old Ways?

Boxing is at a crossroads. The sport needs innovation, but it’s also built on tradition and stubbornness. Could a top-10 rule inject fresh life into the rankings, or would it cause chaos in an already fractured system? Should fighters have to prove their worth year after year, or does that create unfair pressure in a brutal sport where one wrong move can end a career?

The truth is, boxing can’t keep playing it safe. The divisions need to stay active, and fighters must be held accountable. But how far are we willing to push for change? Would a rule like this make boxing better or break it apart? One thing’s for sure: the days of sitting on a ranking without proving your worth need to end.

So, what’s the answer? Would you support a rule forcing top-10 matchups? Should fighters have the right to choose their own path, or does the sport need more structure? One thing’s certain: boxing doesn’t move forward without a little pressure. Let’s see who’s ready to fight for their spot and who’s just holding on for dear life.

Billie Sloane takes a ‘no holes barred’ approach as he has his say on some of the major talking points in the crazy world that is boxing.