Ive thought that for years;the Ring is held up by many as a sacred cow for some reason.Its ridiculous. In the dark old days of Nat Fleischer it was THE(only?)boxing voice in the crowd upholding and promoting the Sport almost by itself....the only real source of info and opinion; Thats long gone now,and it shouldnt have so much credibility and influence. These are the modern days of multi media and mass communication;hundreds of web sites and numerous magazines now exist.Anybody can offer a 'public' opinion Its NOT sacred text anymore.Its just one of hundreds of Boxing Journals.
IBO's ratings are actually generally pretty solid. Much better than the other ABCs. They're not perfect (no ranking system based on a formula can be), but they don't constantly bend the rules to move people around the way the other ABCs do. Their rankings tend to be better than Boxrec's, for instance.
The Ring's p4p list is the single most widely acknowledged, recognized and referenced. When people say "he is #3" or "he's dropped from #8 to #10", without asking them you know they are speaking about The Ring's rankings. No-one is saying they are infallible, no-one is saying they are the only one, but they are the definitive one in common use. Sorry Guy, but Joe is number 3.
Boxrec isn't even in the discussion but I hear what you are saying. People need to not look at boxrec as it's a computer garbage ranking.
I consider noone elses rankings or criteria. My P4P list is always based purely on a hypothetical head to head matchup, resume and other such nonsense is not considered, probably why mine always differs quite drastically from the "norm"