Yeah, I've never seen anything like it on the forum ever tbh. And so much if it is just nonsense. Actually arguing that Pacquiao should have been two when he was stripped makes more sense but he gave up on that waaay before this other weird thing. It's one for the hall of fame, certainly, I've definitely enjoyed it.
I am sure an October rating that removes Wilder from his #2 position and wipes him out of the top 10 entirely - because Fury got Covid - will be viewed by all as an accurate representation of the 10 best heavyweights in the world. Especially with Luis Ortiz moving up. Can"t slow down that juggernaut.
This is the thing mate, if he'd have been like "I think with covid, there's an argument to be made Pacquiao should have kept his ranking" I'd have been like "yeah maybe you have a point, but ah well they voted against it" And it kinda should end there, how does he have the desire to basically say the same thing 15 pages in a row, with the odd extreme strawman chucked in for good measure.
Although you would love this to happen, it almost certainly won't. The board will probably give him a "special circumstances" pass if his fight falls through awkwardly AND he doesn't have anything planned. Which probably won't happen. But, keep fantasising about it, and you never know - sometime between October and December you could be bumping this thread in glee Wilder having been stripped, you never know.
If the fight is postponed, and re scheduled, it wouldn't be the case, at all. Also Fury went inactive after beating Wlad, and was rightly dropped in the rankings by everyone. No one complained then. In fact he was that lowly regarded he was seen as a cherry pick by Wilder.
There are two instances, ever, of people complaining about a guy being dropped from the rankings for inactivity. In ten years Including this one...
Ah, giving a contender a pass and allowing them to remain in the ratings because of the Covid pandemic, even though they don't have any fights scheduled, what a novel idea.
Maybe because it was such a dumb mistake given there was a global pandemic and all ... and it takes more money to put on a Pacquiao fight than, say, a Jemal James fight.
No, that's more fantasy on your part, it's something you have made up, once more, from the inside of your fevered head. We've been through this: Pacquiao could have fought as many as six times since his last fight. That he didn't was his choice.
The Ring and Transnational are independent rating bodies, and as you say they do not agree on things, but i guess you could grab 2 independent folk here on this forum, and might well find that they do not agree on fighter ratings, independence does not mean authoritative/irrefutable. Opinions, money, favouritism, influence.....the list is endless when it comes down to ratings etc . I note from their site that one of Transnational members has a pet cockatiel called Canelo, how can he give a unbiased rating of the ginger one,
No, it's an absolute fact. Obviously I don't mean he should have fought six people. But there were numerous occasions on which he could have fought. Other fighters ranked in the WW division had as many fights, or nearly, as I posted. It is NOT true that Pacquiao could not have fought in the 25 months between his last and next fights. He could have. You are wrong.
What will be even dumber is when you magically rank Pac at the top of the welterweight ratings in a couple weeks ... and you have to admit you guys INTENTIONALLY posted a welterweight top 10 for MONTHS that didn't include all the boxers you thought were the best welterweights ... because he violated a dumb policy you guys came up with. It's basically no different than the orgs not rating all the best fighters in a divsion because their policy prevents them from rating other champs. Just post the best fighters in a division. You don't have to give anyone a "special circumstances" pass. You clearly can ignore your policy when you choose to. That's sanctioning body Garbage 101. Just RATE the top fighters in a division and quick dicking around. That's all we ask. People rate their 10 best in divisions day and night around here. But you join a ratings board and all of sudden it's "we need a policy about this so we can exert some authority." You're rating fighters. That's it. So rate them, and don't leave people out over a made-up POLICY.
Yeah, for the sixteenth time: we rate the ten best active fighters in the division. We make a judgement about when a fighter becomes active. We contend that an inactive figher is not among the ten or eleven best in the division. This is the same as every rankings organisation, ever No; it's more like no different to the orgs not rating what you consider to be all the best fighters in the division because of inactivity Which every single one of them does. No reason for one of your fantasy parallels. You can just use the real one.
