A new truly 'divisional' ranking system

[yaltamaltadavid]

I never ranked Khan above Marquez, I was just listing names, my own welterweight rankings have Marquez higher. But do you agree May/Pac/Bradley are the best? And that Berto is no longer relevant, having lost to Ortiz and Guerrero who are fringe top 15 guys at best.

Sorry to insist on semantics, but rankings aren't a list of the 'best', but the most accomplished (I personally think Bradley's not that skilled, and has only had the success he has from speed and athleticism and, but that sort of evaluation of ability shouldn't be relevant).

But as far as recent accomplishments: Pac's significantly dipped since 2011, losing to Bradley and Marquez, and taking on Rios in a tuneup, which him losing points from the Mosley fight in the rankings indicates; Bradley lost; and Mayweather's fought a bit lower opposition than them, and ventured to 154 twice the last two years. Meaning their holds as top three aren't as strong as they could be, which should allow the next most accomplished of the other welterweights a chance to sneak close. Because most of the rest have just one win over a ranked welterweight, Kell Brook's pretty much the next most accomplished. When the division becomes more wide open 'common sense' can't discriminate the differences too well, and it's much more helpful to quantify level of wins.

The system has Berto 9th, really mid-level amongst guys with solid points. And his hold on that is thin as he'll fall out if he doesn't fight a ranked fighter by September. But he's there because more established fighters should be favoured, till guys like Porter and Khan prove they belong at the top. The period should be the same for all fighters, rather than deciding case by case by the whims of 'common sense' when a fighter's no longer relevant.