Which ABC ranking do you take the most serious?

[LasPalmas]

And if you were a boxer, would you ever think to boycott a certain ABC? I think if boxers boycotted the ones that make no sense and are obviously getting there palms lined then would be the start of something good.

Why the heck do we need four boxing associations? Making crazy rankings and messing with people's lives and incomes etc? Let alone all the other small ones.

If somthing isn't done soon, we are going to lose Great fighters to all, this bullturd, Tyson fury for example, how he was treated by the ibf

A revolution is needed! And one board that everyone respects, and gives honest and fair rankings, and the rest everyone agrees to ignore and not pay any attention too!

[gilgamesh]

They're all crap. I wouldn't boycott any ABC org if I was a boxer that still needed them to draw interest or make people want to fight me, but if I reached big time star status like Canelo or someone like that I wouldn't bother with any ABC belts beyond winning them and dropping them.

I think a lot of guys like to keep those belts because then they can get away with fighting a guy who's "ranked" even though no credible rankings have him ranked anywhere the sh*tty belt they possess does rank the mismatched opponent they got their eye on.

Deontay Wilder is a perfect example.

All the guys he's defended against are ranked higher by the WBC than any respectable rankings would have any of them.

[Tanzio]

None of the above. Zer0

[funso banjo baby]

if fans are fed up with the sport, they have a choice not to subscribe to Sky et al and pay-per-view.

PPV in the 90's is what led to the sport's demise.

[Lennox]

www.premierboxingorganisation.com The best ratings based on what HAS happened not WHAT MIGHT

[RScarf1]

Those Premier Boxing Organisation rankings have Povetkin as the No. 2 heavyweight. I can dismiss those rankings just based on that.

[Lennox]

Those Premier Boxing Organisation rankings have Povetkin as the No. 2 heavyweight. I can dismiss those rankings just based on that.

Why is it wrong Povetkin is at 2?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

All the organizations and computer systems suck.

[Impractical Poster]

Is this a trick question?

[Lackeos]

I've repeatedly said that the IBO has better rankings than the big 4 and pulls a lot less bullsh*t. The big 4 do a lot more nonsense like...
-Stripping Chad Dawson before he was 4 months inactive, claiming that they projected that he wouldn't be able to make a defense within the 4 months. But then they let other champs hold onto their belt for like... a year and a half of inactivity.
-Allowing certain champions to make 5+ consecutive voluntary defenses, while forcing certain unified champs to fight mandatory after mandatory after mandatory with no relief.
-Stripping champions who attempt to unify.
-Lots of arbitrary enforcement of their bi-laws. If they don't like you, they will strip you for any violation of their ridiculously strict rules (i.e. defenses every 4 months, which no one ever fulfills), but give you infinite latitude if they like you.
-To protect their champions, they will magically elevate a bum who hasn't fought recently to merit reevaluation, and then order a mandatory between champion and the bum who the champion wanted to fight.
-Having 3-4 champions in a single division. "Oh yeah, this guy is the Super champ. This guy is the ordinary champ. This guy is the interim champ. This guy is the champion in recess. And this guy is the silver champ." Pardon me, but why is the champion defending his belt on the same night that another guy is fighting for a vacant interim championship?

[Lennox]

I have spent the last 25 years of my life studying this.

The best ratings by an ABC is;
1 IBO
2 WBC
3 IBF
4 WBO
5 WBA

The IBO were done by me and now done by Boxrec, with the champions taken out. They are based on results and non corruptable.
WBC are the next best they are reasonably orderly, you get a few wild ones and an occasional fighter challenging for a world title without them having beaten anyone in the top 50. The next three are all terrible, often (monthly) someone will get a title shot not independently ranked in the top 100.

The first thing to decide is should be objective and based on achievements/results in the ring or should it be subjective and based on the eye. If a rating is good or bad is obviously subjective in everyone's opinion, It is unlikely a top 10 will agree with everyone.

[apollo creed]

None.

[RScarf1]

Those Premier Boxing Organisation rankings have Povetkin as the No. 2 heavyweight. I can dismiss those rankings just based on that.

Why is it wrong Povetkin is at 2?

I think that Joshua and Ortiz are better than him.

[Lennox]

Ron it is a fair enough answer but pretty much all the better rankings have Povetkin ranked higher than Joshua and Ortiz.

Strange that the other day you said they were good.

[Crease]

The rankings that i find the most fair & impartial are the BoxRec rankings.

As someone highlighted before, there are numerous examples of each boxing body lacking consistency when dealing with various different fighters.

[greg]

I have spent the last 25 years of my life studying this.

The best ratings by an ABC is;
1 IBO
2 WBC
3 IBF
4 WBO
5 WBA

The IBO were done by me and now done by Boxrec, with the champions taken out. They are based on results and non corruptable....

..correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who's been criticizing Boxrec rankings for quite some time and now basically saying that IBO rankings done by Boxrec are quite reliable..I seem to remember this argument with JCS (??) a couple of years ago, not sure about the details though...

[Lennox]

Yes Greg. Whilst I think Boxrecs rankings are not very good they are miles better than any of the ABC rankings.

Until March 2014 I produced the IBO rankings. We did not agree over money and went our separate ways. IBO were forced to go with Boxrec.

The difference between the ratings I produce and Boxrec are different in that the PBO are all about lineage and the man that beat the man. They are about results and what happened and if Tyson Fury beat Wlad and Wlad beat Povetkin, its a simple 1 2 3. That is mirrored throughout 1-100 in every division. With Boxrec, I could beat you and be ranked above you, you fight the next day against someone useless and you go back above me.

PBO is more of a formula than it is computerized.

www.premierboxingorganisation.com

[RScarf1]

Ron it is a fair enough answer but pretty much all the better rankings have Povetkin ranked higher than Joshua and Ortiz.

Strange that the other day you said they were good.

I think boxrec is the best rating system right now. I said another one was good, but I can't recall which one. There are so many these days. The Transnational Ratings has Povetkin No. 1 heavyweight contender, Canelo as middleweight champ and Golovkin as No. 1 middleweight contender. Didn't Canelo go to super welterweight? Boxrec is not perfect and no computer ratings is because results can be based on biased decisions and stoppages, but I think it is the best right now. WBAN ended their women's boxing computer ratings and follow boxrec. This happened 2 months after I criticized their ratings in an article which I don't think is a coincidence. IBO ratings are different from boxrec as you know, but both are computer ratings. I think that the sanctioning bodies should use boxrec ratings, but also use their own judgment such as if someone is rated high because of a bogus win, then that boxer should not be rewarded with a title shot.

[RScarf1]

Yes Greg. Whilst I think Boxrecs rankings are not very good they are miles better than any of the ABC rankings.

Until March 2014 I produced the IBO rankings. We did not agree over money and went our separate ways. IBO were forced to go with Boxrec.

The difference between the ratings I produce and Boxrec are different in that the PBO are all about lineage and the man that beat the man. They are about results and what happened and if Tyson Fury beat Wlad and Wlad beat Povetkin, its a simple 1 2 3. That is mirrored throughout 1-100 in every division. With Boxrec, I could beat you and be ranked above you, you fight the next day against someone useless and you go back above me.

PBO is more of a formula than it is computerized.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

I don't agree with the man who beats the man argument. When Lennox Lewis retired with the belt, who was the man after him? He retired after winning against Vitali Klitschko whether people agree with the stoppage or not. There is no lineal champ because boxers retire as the champ sometimes. This is boxing, not geometry.

[BitPlayer]

None of them

[Lennox]

Yes Greg. Whilst I think Boxrecs rankings are not very good they are miles better than any of the ABC rankings.

Until March 2014 I produced the IBO rankings. We did not agree over money and went our separate ways. IBO were forced to go with Boxrec.

The difference between the ratings I produce and Boxrec are different in that the PBO are all about lineage and the man that beat the man. They are about results and what happened and if Tyson Fury beat Wlad and Wlad beat Povetkin, its a simple 1 2 3. That is mirrored throughout 1-100 in every division. With Boxrec, I could beat you and be ranked above you, you fight the next day against someone useless and you go back above me.

PBO is more of a formula than it is computerized.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

I don't agree with the man who beats the man argument. When Lennox Lewis retired with the belt, who was the man after him? He retired after winning against Vitali Klitschko whether people agree with the stoppage or not. There is no lineal champ because boxers retire as the champ sometimes. This is boxing, not geometry.

Ron you have become a laughing stock in boxing. It does not suprise me you dont think the man that beat the man is the correct way. 99% of the stuff you came up with in the 90s was absolute shite. When Lewis retired the next best was Chris Byrd, who was eventually beaten by Wlad but Wlad beat him from the the no4 position. It was not the finest hour for boxing, John Ruiz, Valeuv were the #2 and #3. You can only adopt lineage from the next best. What do you propose Ron ....all have a piss and the highest up the wall?

[Lennox]

Ron it is a fair enough answer but pretty much all the better rankings have Povetkin ranked higher than Joshua and Ortiz.

Strange that the other day you said they were good.

I think boxrec is the best rating system right now. I said another one was good, but I can't recall which one. There are so many these days. The Transnational Ratings has Povetkin No. 1 heavyweight contender, Canelo as middleweight champ and Golovkin as No. 1 middleweight contender. Didn't Canelo go to super welterweight? Boxrec is not perfect and no computer ratings is because results can be based on biased decisions and stoppages, but I think it is the best right now. WBAN ended their women's boxing computer ratings and follow boxrec. This happened 2 months after I criticized their ratings in an article which I don't think is a coincidence. IBO ratings are different from boxrec as you know, but both are computer ratings. I think that the sanctioning bodies should use boxrec ratings, but also use their own judgment such as if someone is rated high because of a bogus win, then that boxer should not be rewarded with a title shot.

The real truth is you dont know or can remember what you are saying.

[RScarf1]

I was not writing about boxing in the 90s. I began writing in 2006. I was a college student in the 90s. You have me confused with another writer.

The man that beat the man means just that. Not No. 2 or No. 3 or No. 4. Also, show me a quote where I wrote that I supposedly said all rating systems are good.

[Crease]

I think boxrec is the best rating system right now.

1 thing to BoxRec's credit is that they don't accept money from Promoters.

These days we have promoter's paying "sanctioning fees" to fight for the WBC International title (or the like)
- so that win their guys do win against a lower ranked opponent, it gives them big rankings boost with that body.

A cynical man could say that is a form of bribery.....

At least on BoxRec you have to work your way up. There are no great shortcuts.

[RScarf1]

For the most part, there are no shortcuts. There are exceptions though because of corruption which I wrote about recently. Elina Tissen went from No. 25 to No. 5 at female featherweight because of one win in which her promoter picked all the biased officials and picked the opponent with a losing record who had a somewhat high super bantamweight rating on boxrec, so that bogus win enabled Tissen to move up 20 spots. In general, a boxer has to earn their boxrec rating. There are some sanctioning bodies like the IBF that have the words "not rated" in some of their spots. I guess those are for managers or promoters who pay for a rating for their boxer. I called the IBF and spoke to the guy in charge of their ratings and told him that the IBF ratings stink. He said to me "That's your opinion."