How I think divisional rankings should be done

There are numerous methods and criteria for divisional rankings, with hordes of sanctioning bodies and fan sites/news outlets all offering often questionable lists which few seem to reflect any sort of consensus. For arguments sake though, I want to take a look at Boxingscenes ranking list, which whilst respectable, suffers from the same key flaw i’ve seen in many lists - and thats the assumption that a lineal title is the best (or at least, highest ranked). It’s such a flawed system that i’ve seen no reasonable justification for. If the lineal system was designed to differentiate between average titleholders and true champions, then the rules of lineage need to be a lot more dynamic than what we currently see. Lets take a look at the Boxingscene 175 rankings (http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=boxing-ratings): World Light Heavyweight Champion: Adonis Stevenson (26-1, 21 KO, Lineal/TBRB/Ring /WBC) 1. Sergey Kovalev (28-0-1, 24 KO, WBO, 6 Defenses, IBF/WBA Super, 2 Defenses) 2. Bernard Hopkins (55-7-2, 32 KO) 3. Jean Pascal (30-3-1, 16 KO) 4. Andrzej Fonfara (27-3, 16 KO) 5. Juergen Braehmer (46-2, 34 KO, WBA, 4 Defenses) 6. Yunieski Gonzalez (16-1, 12 KO) 7. Isaac Chilemba (24-2-2, 10 KO) 8. Eleider Alvarez (17-0, 10 KO) 9. Artur Beterbiev (9-0, 9 KO) 10. Thomas Oosthuizen (25-0-2, 14 KO) Here we can see that a lineal title is automatically assumed to be the top spot, a different criteria used for the contenders below, which uses their resume/recent wins instead. The lineal title in this sense does not follow consensus at all, yet still religiously glorifies it. There is NO reason why the lineal title should not be treated like the ABC titles above. I understand the theory of championship (which is inherently flawed itself, as it can’t always ensure the champion is the best in the division) requires one man to be crowned at all times, even when none may particularly stand out. Its with regret that the proliferation of belts has watered down the championship system to the extent that no list, that i’m aware of, really reflects consensus which ALL championships require for legitimacy. The sad reality is, at least 3 fighters there can be called 'world champions' and thus i've begun to doubt the need for them. Being the highest ranked fighter in the division is a far better achievement. Here would be my list: 1. Sergey Kovalev (28-0-1, 24 KO, WBO, 6 Defenses, IBF/WBA Super, 2 Defenses) 2. Adonis Stevenson (26-1, 21 KO, Lineal/TBRB/Ring /WBC) 3. Bernard Hopkins (55-7-2, 32 KO) 4. Jean Pascal (30-3-1, 16 KO) 5. Andrzej Fonfara (27-3, 16 KO) 6. Juergen Braehmer (46-2, 34 KO, WBA, 4 Defenses) 7. Yunieski Gonzalez (16-1, 12 KO) 8. Isaac Chilemba (24-2-2, 10 KO) 9. Eleider Alvarez (17-0, 10 KO) 10. Artur Beterbiev (9-0, 9 KO) Kovalev has the best resume in the division right now, and thus has earnt the right to be named the number 1 fighter in the division. How Stevenson can cling on to be the highest ranked fighter on one win alone is beyond logic. If Ward beat Stevenson, and didn't fight Kovalev, he could potientially be named as beating the highest ranked fighter, that we all know wouldn't be the case. The same for a potential Mayweather/Cotto 2 fight. I’m sure you get the point by now. What do you think?