i really like the way they show their top 100 for each weight,seems to have more sense than boxing politics like other orginizations ... i cant post links let but if you havent seen it before check it out its very good for info reference
Don't agree with your p4p rankings at all, firstly JMM is no longer number 4 nor sergio 5, Froch is ranked higher then both Klitschko and Rigondeaux, very strange IMO, i like your idea but honestly your rankings are way off
http://www.worldboxingrankings.proboards.com/ See my comments as David on this site and the TBRB feedback section for my criticisms of both the TBRB and the IBO. But I'll be back here to chat soon too!
I'll just repeat what I posted earlier today about the IBO elsewhere... I'm an advocate of objective rankings and think the IBO’s effort is generally commendable, and their rankings better than the other alphabets, and in many cases better than media rankings like The Ring's and the TBRB's. Two major problems though: 1) It’s wrong and problematic that a fighter's strictly ranked in one division. Mikey Garcia is a perfect example. Though he’s moving to 130, his last fight was not a super featherweight fight, but a featherweight fight that he missed weight for. Rewarding him for not making weight isn’t fair. Sure give him credit for maybe a 20-ish ranking at 130 for his few previous fights there if you insist on ranking him only at 130, but that the IBO hands him a number 1 ranking at 130 is a joke. Success in a particular division isn’t credited in their rankings. The TBRB and other rankings are exactly right to rank fighters in as many divisions as they successfully compete in. Further, that the IBO makes judgement calls about what weight division fighters are ranked in if they compete in over the weight non-title bouts shows that the IBO rankings are not truly objective. 2) They don't list all boxers by earned points, but remove other alphabet titlists from their rankings. The top of their rankings are horrible because many top fighters aren’t included. 3) A benefit of objective rankings should be that they’re more transparent and accountable. But the IBO refuses to list boxers points and the criteria used to determine how points are earned on their site. Boxrec indicates their criteria, but the IBO system is a mystery to anyone who wants to understand it. For the system to be respected the criteria should be explained on the site clearly and fully. I came across an article that I’m trying to find again, that said they don’t publically indicate the points because they think they’ll be used by others. But if the system is fair theyshould encourage the points to be accepted by others. 3) The IBO is just a sanctioning body. Despite their fairer rankings, they sell championships to undeserving fighters. An organisation that considers Chris van Heerden welterweight champion isn’t doing anything to restore integrity to championships. Number 1 Pacquiao’s not going to fight to fight van Heerden, and that he should have to makes a joke of the IBO’s rankings. Their rankings are irrelevant to their championships so are pointless, which this article makes clear. http://www.supersport.com/boxing/south-africa/news/130707/Boxers_ranked_35_can_win_IBO_titles Also, that 5 of their 13 ‘champions’ are from South Africa seems to suggest a bias towards South African promoters. Or at least to promoters who aren’t able to get their fighters chances for the other alphabet titles. If the IBO vacated their championships and required number 1 and 2 to fight to subsequently fill them, only ranked fighters based on their success at particular divisions, and indicated boxers points on their site they would instantly become credible and legitimate.
