WBC rankings what an effin joke

Amir Khan is ranked at number 2 at 147 despite not fighting at that weight yet and even after his dissapointing performance Tony Bellew is ranked number 1 AT 175 two places above isaac chilemba. I think these rankings are a disgrace, especially in the 147 divisions case its a slap in the face to all the guys ranked below khan theyve had to fight to get those rankings, yet surpases all but one of them withouth even a single fight at that weight grrr.

Bellew isn't going to move down the rankings is he when he didn't lose, organisations tend to only take into account results not performances.

I tweeted them or what ever its called and they said basically a fighter can move up or down 1 weight division and keep there rankings

the only logic i can see with bellew/chmbela is that due to the draw bellew deserves the top stop on previous victorys.

all rating from all bodies are just as bad with stuff like this, ring magazines ratings are the best.

i'd say boxrec has a better ranking system than the WBC/WBA/IBF/IBO etc

Surely its a little soon for Bellews & Chimbelas to alter due to their fight, don't they update every few months?

Not the first time its happened and won't be the last. Khan has even said he's not moving up to 147 yet.

eddy boxrec still has some crazy positioning as well at times.

Terrible WBC ranking, nothing new then.

Remember there was that dead guy that moved up the world rankings?

Trevor Berbick after losing to Tyson was ranked no 1 by the IBF........

Boxtthis wrote:Remember there was that dead guy that moved up the world rankings?

I think that was the WBO.

spencerclarke wrote:eddy boxrec still has some crazy positioning as well at times.

yeah it does, i think the problem with boxrec is it doesn't take into account the age of opposition, for for example beating tyson in 89' and 99' would earn the same ranking. but overall it works out better than most other ranking systems.

eddyfightfan wrote:

spencerclarke wrote:eddy boxrec still has some crazy positioning as well at times.

yeah it does, i think the problem with boxrec is it doesn't take into account the age of opposition, for for example beating tyson in 89' and 99' would earn the same ranking. but overall it works out better than most other ranking systems.

It doesn't directly take into account age but using the Tyson example, his ranking in 99' would have been much lower than it was in 89' so you receive less points for the win.

do inactive fighters keep their rankings?

After a year of inactivity they lose their ranking, the only rankings I pay attention to are the ring magazines one but even they are far from fool proof but that's more down to personal preference.