I mean you can't even explain Skoglund being higher than Shabranskyy. No sane person would have that. As I said, Shabranskyy is consensus in the top 10 at LHW. Lebedev being below Huck and Glowack is a crime. Lomachenko not being #1 at featherweight is not right at all under any circumstances.
Uh, just checked the middleweight rankings. How can you have Khurtsidze under Khytrov and Korobov? At the very least, Khytrov has fought no one. Nick Brinson is probably Khytrov's best win.
Yes if Canelo fought Roman Gonzalez it registers a 1. Every lower weight class restricts the available points for the winner so it counteracts that and different weight classes are taken into account. In 26 years no fighter has ever fought one from four weight classes different.
I agree and the ratings agree that Lomachenko's win over GRJ is made better with GRJ subsequent achievements. The ratings operate a tagging system (up and down). You are held/tagged to another fighter for 36 months in the top 10 and 12 months outside the top 10. Lomachenko is 2 in the ratings. I agree subjectively with you he is the best. These rankings are objective based on actual results which is typical of how we rate and measure all sports. The Skoglund-Shabranskyy situation is the same. Skoglund has beaten a number of reasonable fighters, at the time of fight ranked 20-25-38. Shabranskyy has only defeated 1 top 50 opponent who was ranked 48. If the two fought tomorrow like you I would bet Sharanskyy.
Stevenson is the linear champion and gained a lot of points by beating Dawson. Stevenson is yet to since be defeated. This is a case of there being a huge gap between number 1 and 2 at the time. Kovalev has met great opposition over the last 24 months and the gap is narrowing and Kovalev will take over ascension of the #1 postion when/if he beats Ward. Ward would not take over if he beat Kovalev. Subjectively I would bet Kovalev over Stevenson.
Huck was number 1 for nearly 4 years,which counts as ruling in my book, he was close with Pablo Hernandez for a while but yes this division did not unify so I understand your point.
Same sort of reasons. Khurtsidze best ever position was 8th, he has been very inactive, fought low level opponents and is now 37 years old, he just beat an opponent ranked 34 after 5 yeas in the wasteland. Korobov defeated an opponent ranked 16 in the last two years. Khytrov has defeated a few around the top 50 level and still undefeated.
That's where boxing stats rankings fail: the fact that boxers/promoters negotiate their opponents. Boxers get fights they don't deserve and don't get fights they do deserve. There's no sense in the matchups and barely sense in weights these days so there can't be sense in divisional rankings. Divisional rankings only loosely made sense in the past because boxers fought so much more often, the best fought the best, and weight limits were actually followed rather than made up. So there can't be such thing as 'climbing up the rankings'. As it is, a fighter often leaps up these stats rankings after a win then falls down if he loses next and that win was proven to be over a fighter with wins over hype-jobs, whereas in a sensible world boxers would have to consistently prove their worth. Boxing stats rankings can't be taken seriously.
As always you talk absolute **** and the opposite of fact. It was worse in the past. Promoters even made up records, boxers were kept from fights if they did not sign with firm, many fighters never got a chance and many did not a fair deal because of their colour. Fighters get a chance today. As for rankings with the PBO fighters don't leap up by fighting hype-jobs, because you have to be proven to be ranked in the first place. The rankings are by results so if a fighter has not beat a top rated fighter he wont be top rated. Your rated largely at the level you have beat. With these ratings you do have to consistently prove your worth by fighting in compliance with the rules set out by the Association of Boxing Commissions. If you avoid rated fighters in a set period of time you drop points. If you read how the ratings are created they are near what you were trying to achieve three years ago though you wanted to introduce half a dozen wacky rules. You did not last very long when you realised what a mess you made.