Could someone explain Beltran being ahead of Abril in the first place? Abril's robbery loss came against a better opponent, and he has the better overall resume too with a less recent legit loss. He should have at least jumped to 2 after his most recent win IMO, and I'm pretty uncomfortable with Crawford-Beltran establishing a new lineage.
Inactivity. He's only fought once in 18 months, and Beltran has done good work in the meantime. There was no support at all for Abril going to #2 as I remember it, it was a question of whether he should be three or four.
I dunno, Beltran's fought 3 times since 2013, Abril twice. Beltran's wins in that time span are less impressive than Abril's IMO, and the "draw" with Burns shouldn't outweigh Abril's prior good work in the division. Like I guess with the Vazquez robbery someone was going to move up by default, but this really doesn't feel like a lineal fight to me.
A better way to say it is that Abril has fought once in eighteen months. Or that Beltran fought three times between Abril's fighting twice. For going more than a year inactive, he was stripped of his ranking on the 366th day. He had to be re-introduced, and the feeling was he couldn't be re-introduced higher than Beltran given his low-level activity.
I can see arguments Beltran being ranked anywhere from 2 to 6- on the one hand I don't think he should be above Vazquez, on the other hand I think he should be above Bey. Lightweight is one of the shittest divisions in the Sport right now.
Lightweight has been trash for 4 years now. I can't possibly justify ranking Bey above Vazquez. Or ranking Abril or Beltran above Vazquez either... Vazquez doesn't hold any insanely great victory, but to ignore his consistent dominance in the division on grounds of a robbery to Bey? Sorry, official verdict can swing a little bit but I don't recognize outright robberies or fights where clearly well over 50% of viewers and myself disagreed with the outcome. That just doesn't vibe.
It was seen as a robbery by you, but not by me, and not by the board. I scored it 7-5 Vazquez. Dull, shitty fight that nobody deserved to win by my estimation.
Cancelling a fight on a rival will never result in a demotion. Every other list I can see on the internet has Fury above Ustinov.
I'd agree that Fury is probably higher than deserved, but why on earth would Ustinov be even on a tier with him - let alone higher? The last creditable Ustinov victory - creditable enough to affect ranking - was Bakhtov, three years ago. Quick stoppage of Manswell? Worthless. Of the six men he fought since, Manswell got stopped just as early or earlier by four of them. Kayo of Gavern? Eh, he was coming off a KO loss to Wach and like Manswell has been stopped four times since. Don't be fooled, making the finals in that abysmal Prizefighter lineup doesn't speak to Gavern being a decent heavyweight anymore in this decade (and he was only a C+ tester in the previous one). Schooled and then jabbed the **** out by Pulev, not a good look. Shutout of Perk? Meh, the guy has 24 losses comprising more than half of his career and of those roughly a dozen were shutouts or near enough (and most of the rest were stoppages). Tua? Come on. Tua was done being a serious contender even before his rivalry with Barrett. A forty-something, rusty, broke and desperate Tua coming off more than a two year retirement should add nothing to anyone's resume or ranking. ALL four of the men Ustinov has beaten since Bakhtov (and, in fact, even including Bakhtov himself) were coming off losses. None of them - Manswell, Gavern, Perkovic, or Tua - were top 15 heavyweights when he fought them and except for perhaps Gavern likely weren't top 40.
I shouldn't have used the word "robbery." I am usually all about trying to not overuse that. It was a close fight, but c'mon man! (I'm sure you know how I feel about the whole thing without having to explain it)