"Would you rank me #1 over fighters who have faced tough competition over and over?" Lets have a look at featherweight now. Out of the 9 wins of Hrnandez, I can only derive 3 competitive fights she's, against stiff opposition (Fiorento, McCarter, Brown). What about Menzer? She's won two acknowledged belts, fought former world champions in Esther Schouten, Yasmin Rivas, Silke Weikenmeier...to name just a few). She has never lost or even drew to any of these stiff opponents. How do you base your argument about "stiff opponents over and over"? Logically there is a big gap!
Also, the rating points are not division specific.
You're basing your opinions on pure numbers. I could win 50 times and get 50 KOs against debuting fighters. Would you rank me #1 over fighters who have faced tough competition over and over?sweet-s wrote:"Hernandez accumulated quite a bit of points at higher weight divisions and took them down to Feather. Usually, heavier divisions are considered stronger ones." Still, she could be ranked high in the featherweight division, but with a tko on her account and two draws, it doesn't make her number 1. Menzer almost has triple the number of fights and never lost. Her tko rate is more than triple the amount of Hernandez. This makes the ranking questionable.
"Galassi and Kentikian are separated by only two points. That is basically a toss-up and not worth discussing." Again, a fighter who has fought at flyweight all the time, with almost only one third of the fights of number two ranked Kentikian, who has amazing 16 tkos, why on earth should she be ranked number 1. This is not at toss up at all! This is wrong.
"Also, the rating points are not division specific." What is that supposed to mean? We have seen a Manny Pacquiao tko Oscar de la Hoya! So why should Hernandez have more points than Menzer, just because she dropped down from light weight? Also a qustionable practise.
