The ratings system is a joke!!
With having recent correspondence with boxing governing bodies such as the WBC, WBA, IBF etc it seems that in order to get your fighter ranked it depends on the number of wins he has rather than the quality of the opponent. When questioning how Dean Francis has been ranked in the top 10 of the WBO Light Heavyweight rankings, since his loss to Matthew Barney in 2003 he has won his next 7 fights but all of which have been against poor opponents a 19-76-6, 18-23-1, 9-1, 20-24-1, 13-6, 13-7-1 and a 5-2, all on small domestic shows, the last one being for the Commonwealth belt against a guy who had lost his eliminator (Michael Gbenga). Note that he now fights for the Super Middleweight belt with a record of 5-3 and losing his last two fights. I was advised to just keep the fighter busy and the quality of the opponent is not really of concern. Does that mean you can fight a drunk from a bar every week for a year and come in with a 52-0 record with 52 knockouts and be ranked number 1 with the governing bodies?
It seems it's who you know and not what you do in the ring that makes the difference. These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke. Got an e-mail from the WBPF the other day with their rankings and a list of their world champions.... sorry WHO!
Something has to be done before our great sport turns into a JOKE!!
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmbtandy
These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke.
I think that is why we will see a shift by the networks to stop recognizing these alphabet trinkets and simply recognizing the linear/The Ring/Universally recognized champions.
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmbtandy
These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke.
I think that is why we will see a shift by the networks to stop recognizing these alphabet trinkets and simply recognizing the linear/The Ring/Universally recognized champions.
I would love to see this happen but I think there is just too much money involved for that to happen
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmbtandy
With having recent correspondence with boxing governing bodies such as the WBC, WBA, IBF etc it seems that in order to get your fighter ranked it depends on the number of wins he has rather than the quality of the opponent. When questioning how Dean Francis has been ranked in the top 10 of the WBO Light Heavyweight rankings, since his loss to Matthew Barney in 2003 he has won his next 7 fights but all of which have been against poor opponents a 19-76-6, 18-23-1, 9-1, 20-24-1, 13-6, 13-7-1 and a 5-2, all on small domestic shows, the last one being for the Commonwealth belt against a guy who had lost his eliminator (Michael Gbenga). Note that he now fights for the Super Middleweight belt with a record of 5-3 and losing his last two fights. I was advised to just keep the fighter busy and the quality of the opponent is not really of concern. Does that mean you can fight a drunk from a bar every week for a year and come in with a 52-0 record with 52 knockouts and be ranked number 1 with the governing bodies?
It seems it's who you know and not what you do in the ring that makes the difference. These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke. Got an e-mail from the WBPF the other day with their rankings and a list of their world champions.... sorry WHO!
Something has to be done before our great sport turns into a JOKE!!
You act like this is a recent occurrence.
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boozeboxer
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmbtandy
With having recent correspondence with boxing governing bodies such as the WBC, WBA, IBF etc it seems that in order to get your fighter ranked it depends on the number of wins he has rather than the quality of the opponent. When questioning how Dean Francis has been ranked in the top 10 of the WBO Light Heavyweight rankings, since his loss to Matthew Barney in 2003 he has won his next 7 fights but all of which have been against poor opponents a 19-76-6, 18-23-1, 9-1, 20-24-1, 13-6, 13-7-1 and a 5-2, all on small domestic shows, the last one being for the Commonwealth belt against a guy who had lost his eliminator (Michael Gbenga). Note that he now fights for the Super Middleweight belt with a record of 5-3 and losing his last two fights. I was advised to just keep the fighter busy and the quality of the opponent is not really of concern. Does that mean you can fight a drunk from a bar every week for a year and come in with a 52-0 record with 52 knockouts and be ranked number 1 with the governing bodies?
It seems it's who you know and not what you do in the ring that makes the difference. These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke. Got an e-mail from the WBPF the other day with their rankings and a list of their world champions.... sorry WHO!
Something has to be done before our great sport turns into a JOKE!!
You act like this is a recent occurrence.
It is getting worse!
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
I find the Super Middleweight division particularly bad for this and it has been this way for quite a while. Take a look at Anthony Mundine's last few opponents to get an idea. Kessler's next opponent and many previous ones. Even Joe basically had a picnic in there for years and never had to face championship caliber opposition.
I remember a couple years ago when everyone was saying how great the Super Middleweight division was. I was really thrown back by it as it was basically two good fighters, beating on guys who had no business even fighting for a world belt.
The talent is so watered down in the sport and it is not getting any better.
The Jr. Middle, Middleweight and Heavyweight divisions are now thinned out and has joined the super middles in the doldrums. Welterweights are still ok, but for how long?
Basically anything above welterweight is is in dire straits right now. The talent pool is soooo thinned out. I guess it can be attributed to the decline in popularity of the sport. Less people entering the sport directly translates to less of a gene pool of talent.
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmbtandy
These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke.
I think that is why we will see a shift by the networks to stop recognizing these alphabet trinkets and simply recognizing the linear/The Ring/Universally recognized champions.
This would be even more of a disaster cause they don't have a ranking system at all for fighters outside the top 20.
While the alphabets are pretty shit, they do offer a way for a fighter to work up a ladder.
The reason there are so many 'crap' fghters in alphabet top 10 is because they predominantly put fighters who favour their organisation above another. While this seems wrong, as long as the fans recognise that a single belt only represents dominance over a section of the competition (and as long as unification fights are regularly made) the hierarchy can still be maintained.
If there was only one organisation like 'ring' making the decisions, however impartial they would want to be, inevitably some good fighters will be frozen out of the loop due to a lack of marketability and it would be even harder to decipher who the best is. While the system at the moment is far, far, far from perfect, the solution isn't as simple as most fans believe.
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
I was going to post, but too exasperated to bother.
Re: The ratings system is a joke!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmbtandy
These guys are ruining the sport, not only does a new world title belt pop up every week, the ranking are a joke.
I think that is why we will see a shift by the networks to stop recognizing these alphabet trinkets and simply recognizing the linear/The Ring/Universally recognized champions.
This would be even more of a disaster cause they don't have a ranking system at all for fighters outside the top 20.
While the alphabets are pretty shit, they do offer a way for a fighter to work up a ladder.
The reason there are so many 'crap' fghters in alphabet top 10 is because they predominantly put fighters who favour their organisation above another. While this seems wrong, as long as the fans recognise that a single belt only represents dominance over a section of the competition (and as long as unification fights are regularly made) the hierarchy can still be maintained.
If there was only one organisation like 'ring' making the decisions, however impartial they would want to be, inevitably some good fighters will be frozen out of the loop due to a lack of marketability and it would be even harder to decipher who the best is. While the system at the moment is far, far, far from perfect, the solution isn't as simple as most fans believe.
While I hate to merely hit the 'agree'-button, I have to give my sympathies to this post. I agree completely.
Boxing needs a ladder. FWIW I kinda like the IBO ratings as well, hell even the Boxrec ones can be alright sometimes, if only to gauge where (very circa-ish) a boxer is on a ladder. Reducing everything to The Ring's ranking is essentially the same as saying that there would be no difference between Edison Miranda and Froch's recent Polish friend.
Also, the rankings and the organisations may be terrible, but it is only because the fans and the media lets them be. Noone has a problem with all the tournaments and trophies in tennis, because fans and the media know that winning at Eastbourne and winning at Wimbledon isn't the same thing, and that there is a clear hierarchy there. Why cannot sport journalist seem to comprehend that it is the same in boxing?
[Or is it only in Denmark that the mainstream medias tap into boxing once in while, complaining about the lack of transparency, the multitudes of titles etc, without attempting one bit to actually do anything to clarify things? If so, I apologize for my ramblings. But many boxing fans I've come across seem to not understand this either.]
