WBA rankings

**barron71** · 02-16-2009 02:46 AM

Why do they take so long to do there rankings. The also dont bother ranking every month.

**CFH** · 02-16-2009 03:43 AM

Maybe they wait for all the payoffs to come in from the promoters before deciding who gets a title shot?

**blegit** · 02-16-2009 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by CFH

Maybe they wait for all the payoffs to come in from the promoters before deciding who gets a title shot?

I almost laughed until I realized you're probably exactly right.

**killersheep** · 02-16-2009 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by barron71

Why do they take so long to do there rankings. The also dont bother ranking every month.

The WBA is fast becoming the worst of the alphabet titles, with all the different versions of the actual title it's just too complicated. I assume you are looking to see where Mack is rated. More important than the WBA, The Ring now has Mack rated at #10

. Ultimately those are the rankings that count.

**Lance Uppercut** · 02-16-2009 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by barron71

Why do they take so long to do there rankings. The also dont bother ranking every month.

The WBA is fast becoming the worst of the alphabet titles, with all the different versions of the actual title it's just too complicated. I assume you are looking to see where Mack is rated. More important than the WBA, The Ring now has Mack rated at #10

. Ultimately those are the rankings that count.

I am sort of glad the WBA is so ridiculous, so that we can speed up the ultimate collapse of the alphabet gangs; however, i wonder if any of the other organizations ever tell them: "dude, your making us all look stupid, stop creating titles"