When you feel there are 10 boxers BETTER THAN HIM. RATE THE 10 BEST IN EACH DIVISION!!!!!!! Do you honestly work for a ratings board? Oh my god.
So you would literally rank a fighter in a division he has not fought in for 4 years, if in your opinion he was among the ten best? Oh my god Volunteer. But the only reason you find that upsetting is that you reject the notion of removing inactive fighters from the rankings. Surely you see and understand, based on this thread alone, that you are in a minorty? That most people support the notion of removing inactive fighters? I've seen one person, in ten years, say they didn't like a fighter removed for inactivity, but even he seemed to think that eventually removing them was reasonable. That only the length of time was in doubt. You actually believe that an inactive fighter should never be removed from rankings for inactivity alone. That's inane. I would actually bet that nobody else in all the world of boxing would agree with your bizarre position. Which, tbh, I don't think you even really hold. I think you just painted yourself into that corner in your determination to avoid further embarrassment in this thread. Nobody - surely - could be so stupid to believe that a fighter who doesn't fight in a given division should be ranked amount the ten best fighters in that division. Nobody can really believe that.
You mean like Jack Dempsey between the Firpo and Tunney fights? Yes. You mean like Ali between the Folley and Quarry fights? Yes. You mean like Vitali between the Williams and Peter fights? Yes. I don't have a problem with that at all. And, after talking with you, I think they need new ratings board members. (LOL) Good luck with your policies. All people want are ratings that include the 10 best fighters in the division. That's it. They don't care about "policies." Rate the best. That's it. If you don't believe those are the 10 best fighters in any division ... and you have omitted some because they didn't follow your rules ... then you have failed as a ratings board.
A champion, agree. Interesting that you have to go back literally a hundred years. Champion. Agree. How tf can you still be confused about the difference between champions and contenders? It's incredible, wilful stupidity. By who? He was stripped of his ranking by RING. Who continued to rank him for those three years please? Neither do I actually, for the most part (slaps face) What YOU want has never existed. That's because it's made up fantasy from your head. There has never been a rankings/ratings organisation, and never will be one, who do not remove fighters from their rankings for inactivity in that division. Only the LEVEL of inactivity varies. It's more fantasy from the fantasist.
Someone start a thread when a ratings org ACTUALLY rates the 10 best in each division. Because these guys aren't doing it either.
We rank the ten best active fighters in each division. This has been absolutely clear from the off. You're right to call for a new ranking org to fulfil your weird fantasies - because there has never been one. Becasue it wouldn't work. It would be awful. Rankings stuffed with fighters who didn't fight there. Nobody wants that nonsense, that is why it has never occurred. Naoya Inoue ranked in every division where a group of people voted he could probably still make weight. "Good lord." Who continued to rank Vitali between the Peter and Williams fights?
Yeah, that never happened. By the way, have you ever heard of Henry Armstrong? Short guy. About so high. I'm done now. Enjoy stripping fighters of their ratings. That's what everyone wants from ratings bodies. Not the accurate ratings part. Go Jamal James!
Sorry, we are not able mathematically compare any boxer from 20 and more rounders era vs 15 rounds fights era or 12 rounds era. Time scheduled for fight does matters a lot. Okey, then you most likely might agree with Charr ranking in some boxing orgs few months earlier? He did not had fought any one more than 2 years and still was one org champ in recess or like this. Okey, he now had one fight ( recently ). I ofc respect fighters legacy, even these that had passed away, boxing should be alive and I think legacy rankings should be different from actual today's rankings.
What? (LOL) I, at no point his career, have ever regarded Manuel Charr as one of the 10 best heavyweights. Long story short, all people want are ratings that include the 10 best fighters per division. And this Transnational Board isn't providing that, either. And its board members shouldn't consider such a request "outrageous" or "fantasy."
Of course not it would be crazy. Sure. Is there something you want to say about him? Was he ranked as a contender for a number of years? Or is this just like above where you make a rash claim about Vitali, are asked about it twice, and refuse to answer? Because that's the vibe i'm getting: a fantasist who really doesn't like being held to account. For about the seventh time It's the toughest part of things. But that's why every single ratings organisation tends to have a limit on months of inactivity rather than do it case-by-case because it removes the emotional response. You're such an expert on what the people want from ratings bodies despite the fact: 1 - I don't think a single post you've made in discussion with me has had a single like from a single boxing fan. 2 - Despite this desperate need for a rankings organisation to rank inactive fighters for seven or eight years after they stop competing in a given division, non has ever appeared to fill it. Your supposed tap to the feelings of "the people" is another one of your fantasies i'm afraid. Every single organisation in the history of the sport that organised active fighters in a list for consumption by the public has removed fighters for inactivity, without exception. NBA, NYSAC, RING, your beloved WBC, Fightnews back in 2010 when they were the best, Boxing Monthly when they were at it, every single one without exception. The only person that I've ever talked to that thinks fighters should be ranked indefinitely is you. You are absolutely unique in your stupidity.
Ten best active fighters per division. Like every single other rankings/ratings body that has ever existed without exception. Try to remember that.
No one from boxing orgs cares what do you think. They had fed and approved Charr as challenger for Vitali Klit for his title. This was one from these ABC orgs. While I agree that both: Charr and Chisora then had relatively high theoretical chances to win cos Vitali then was old fighter, almost 1 handed 40 y.o + boxer. If by the best you mean historical value, I can't compare modern boxers vs old era long fights boxers directly. We don't know even were they able to box 20 rounders, 30 rounders, 15 rounders etc.
Not indefintely. Just rate the 10 best in a division. If you don't think 10 are better, don't remove someone you think is one of the best JUST BECAUSE THERE IS THIS POLICY and put someone else in who you DON'T believe is better. Stupid is removing people you know and believe are better ... and replacing them with people you think are inferior. So we are left with INACCURATE ratings. And then argue with someone for 13 pages that all the other ratings bodies and orgs who also provide inaccurate ratings and who EVERYONE is sick of ... DO the same thing. We are sick of them. WHY would you do the same thing? DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Rate the 10 best. That's what people want. But you, like the others, aren't providing that. So, thanks for nothing.
It is not possible to sort top 10 if you do not start rank earlier, at least from top 25 and I think if you do rank top 25, best method to get proper rankings might be if ranking will be started with TOP 100.
