Well, if the sanctioning bodies keep creating divisions (see Bridgerweight), and there are too many divisions ...
I just find it interesting that he's spent 50 posts telling you the baord is wrong for having an inactivity policy, when he just made one himself at the very first challenge of his own, non numbered ranking. "I'd rank him as soon as he said he was fighting there" That's the Dubblechin Ranking Policy, you saw it here first.
Yes, because the fight, the reality, the real world happening thing will inform your thinking. Your preference is for more of a fantasy-fight best of the field thinking, sort of trusting your own boxing knoweldge to produce rankings. The problem is, nobody trusts your boxing knolwedge. RING tried it last decade, one guy essentially doing their rankings, and it was a total disaster that saw Broner ranking p4p. Essentially, Pacquiao right now is unknown. Nobody knows what he has left, because nobody has seen him fight, literally for years by the time he gets into the ring. Your opinion - a minorty opinion, held by few in the field - is that Pacquiao is the world's number two welterweight. He'd have to turn the clock back some distance to be a better fighter right now than Crawford is right now, but that is your position. You'd get voted out, of course, in any democratic organisation, so that's your second problem. It's just one man's opinion. That's not "ranking the best" and i'm absolutely sure you would go mad and have a million complaints for that rankings organisation too, if it i existed, which it never, ever will out side of your head.
I'm sure you'd be taken very seriously if every time a fight fan posted any opinion on your website you immediately changed your rankings to reflect it. Your rankings would be a colossal ****ing mess.
Everyone who isn't fighting today is unknown. LOL Just rate the rate the 10 best. Isn't that what the ratings are supposed to be? Not the 10 best who didn't violate the policy.
But a forty-one year old who hasn't fought in two year is indisputably more of an unknown than a fighter who has fought three times since he last did. That is not disputable. No. You clearly suffer from some sort of mental illness, but I can't allow you to continually mis-represent a) what rankings are and b) what the TBRB does without responding. SO again. For the twentieth time. With some curiosity as to what the illness could be that you don't already know the answer to this question given that I have provided it for you twenty odd times now: Every rankings organisation which has ever existed provides the rankings or the ten or eleven best active fighters in a given division at a given time. Next time you want to ask me a question, ask yourself, "is it possible that the answer is that Every rankings organisation which has ever existed provides the rankings or the ten or eleven best active fighters in a given division at a given time." If the answer is "yes", dont' ask the question, because that is the answer. So NO, that is not what ratings "are supposed to be" (that you believe this is your big problem, that and the OCD or whatever it is).
I'm not sure that's entirely true https://www.premierboxingorganisation.com/welterweight-147 (Also the Fres situation that ran for years with the WBA) Couldn't you just say, a fighter is in the rankings until they declare retirement or die. Just in the way you said to me you would continue to rank Hunter at Heavyweight and figured he would eventually be pushed off his spot by the fighters who are actively fighting better opponents below him, wouldn't that same reasoning apply to an "inactive" fighter like Pacquaio? As an aside I'm not sure about the logic in having a leniant rule for your champion and not applying the same rule to the contenders. I assume it is out of respect for the idea of creating a lineage. But again why have a different rule for contenders? I admit though it becomes tricky knowing where to rank fighters who are changing divisions. The only way to do that is declaration. We have to place trust that the fighter is not lying when they state their intentions (though you could couple that with what they actually do)
The problem is that the organizations need legitimate rankings and need to not fragment unified champions and block unifications.
GTFO with that nonsense. That is just fraud, and you know it. Are you honestly defending this BS, or just joking?
Systems will be governed by a basic set of rules. To rank someone when they declare their intention to compete in a division is a basic requirement of any divisional ranking system. Now of course you could create a new system of divisional rankings, but that would be a different conversation. But basically, if you don't recognize a declaration at even a basic level, you could even start ranking top amateurs in the pro ranks. To drop people who are "inactive" is optional in regards to how an organization deals with said fighters. Take the PBO for example. The fighter becomes inactive, but they retain their points (call that their level is placed understand reconsideration), they then re-enter the rankings when a fight is declared. Now whether or not Pacquaio should be considered top 2 is a different conversation, but actually Dubblechin is starting to win me over that Pacquaio should at least be in a top 10 under the given circumstances. Though I recognize you are far from convinced.
