The ranking dilemma in boxing
Official rankings in the boxing world are a huge problem - mainly because there aren't any.
Between the four major sanctioning bodies (WBO, WBA, WBC, IBF), fight rankings are generally a help-yourself buffet that varies from day to day with no explanation or justification whatsoever. Because each body ranks differently, based on their own criteria,
and because there are four bodies, along with the unofficial but admired Ring Magazine rankings, it’s nearly impossible to establish a be-all-end-all system.
Earlier this month, boxing analyst Dan Rafael commented on the sad state of boxing rankings after glancing at updated WBC charts. His comment came mostly in a systematic dismantling of their decisions, which after a bit of analysis often proved completely
arbitrary and absurdly unjustified.
For example, according to the WBC September rankings, a heavyweight fighter named Ray Austin is the world’s No.1 heavyweight below champion Vitali Klitschko. Austin, though he doesn’t have one big win under his name, is still their guy to beat. Likewise,
in the light heavyweight division, boxing legend Bernard Hopkins, who has a fight coming up with the WBC champ Jean Pascal, didn’t even make the cut. But a slew of no-namers did. As Rafael notes, Hopkins didn’t make it, but Joe Spina (No.17) did. Rafael
jokes: “I bet even Spina thinks Hopkins should rank ahead of him.”
Other examples include bizarre nonsensical aberrations, such as Erik Morales’s ranking at No.2 junior welterweight, a division he has never even fought at (Morales has fought twice in three years in the welterweight division). But perhaps the worst decision
on the part of the WBC is to name Rafael Marquez the 122-pound silver champion, a title he apparently won against Israel Vazquez in a 126-pound bout. Rafael chides, “We already knew the rules didn't matter to the WBC. Now, apparently, neither do weight classes.”
The problem with ratings in boxing is due to the unnecessarily high number of sanctioning bodies, but it is more specific than that. It is also due to individual bodies establishing their own ruling systems and policies that, on the face of things, make
absolutely no sense.
For example: one current rule employed by all major bodies is that if a fighter holds a belt with any, he is not included on other ranking lists. That’s why, for instance, if you look at the IBF junior welterweight rankings currently you will see WBO champ
Timothy Bradley doesn’t even make the cut. Or does he? He is a champion, but not an IBF acknowledged champion. Not their champion. So this apparently means he isn’t even worthy of their top 15. Given his obvious stature in the division, as a titleist,
does it really make sense not to include him as a contender just because he isn’t your champion?
Another fact that skews rankings is that commissions these days find all kinds of way to routinely strip fighters of their titles, and they put them in place too. Right now, for instance, Devon Alexander is well on his way to being stripped of his junior
welter IBF title, merely because of semantic miscommunication between the IBF and Timothy Bradley promoter Gary Shaw (the IBF claims Shaw didn’t confirm a Bradley-Alexander bout, so went through with an IBF purse bid). But stripping only leads to vacancies
and ambiguities.
To solve the rankings problem, what the boxing world needs to do is unify all of the sanctioning bodies. This would be the equivalent of a French Revolution in boxing, but it’s surely needed to determine ‘the real thing.’ Oscar De la Hoya recently said
that he’d like to do as much with Golden Boy, but it still doesn’t look imminent.
Tags: