Opinion: Why boxing's world ranking system is not fit for purpose

Boxing writer Shaun Brown takes a closer look at the sport's complex world ranking system and explains why he feels the system is flawed.

Professional sport should be straightforward...

Score the most goals and win the game of football or complete a round of golf in the fewest shots and win the game.

Boxing, at its core, is equally simple - two fighters slug it out in a square ring until one is knocked out, can’t continue, or is declared the winner over the distance.

Pure, edge-of-your-seat drama.

Yet, boxing has a knack for complicating things, often delivering itself a black eye with its absurdities.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the chaotic world of boxing rankings, a system that confounds fans and punters alike!

Boxing Rankings: Not as simple as they seem

To the uninitiated, boxing rankings appear straightforward.

A top 10 or 15 fighters, neatly ordered by wins, losses, and achievements, but dive deeper, and you’ll find a rabbit hole of inconsistencies, politics, and business interests that make rankings anything but objective.

Take Manny Pacquiao’s recent comeback announcement as a prime example.

The 46-year-old, boxing’s only eight-division world champion, will return after a four-year absence to challenge WBC welterweight titleholder Mario Barrios on July 19, at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

Pacquiao, ranked #5 by the WBC in their May 2025 welterweight rankings, seems a legitimate contender on paper, but does a fighter inactive for four years deserve an immediate title shot?

The answer lies in boxing’s tangled ranking system, where legacy, marketability, and sanctioning body agendas often outweigh merit.

Pacquiao isn’t the first to enjoy such privilege though. Legends like Joe Louis (vs. Ezzard Charles), Sugar Ray Leonard (vs. Marvin Hagler), and Vitali Klitschko (vs. Samuel Peter) have returned from retirement to instant title shots, rewarded for their star power.

While Pacquiao’s #5 ranking seems reasonable, it raises questions about how he leapfrogged active fighters after such a long hiatus.

The WBC likely factored in his global draw and past dominance, a reminder that rankings aren’t just about recent performance.

The Sanctioning Bodies: Too many cooks

Boxing’s four major sanctioning bodies - WBA (founded 1921), WBC (1963), IBF (1983), and WBO (1988) - are the architects of this confusion.

Each operates independently, with its own rules, priorities, and rankings committees.

These committees evaluate fighters based on win/loss records, quality of opposition, and activity, but subjective factors like promoter influence or marketability often creep in.

The result? A fragmented system where a fighter like Pacquiao can be #5 in the WBC’s welterweight rankings but absent from the IBF’s top 10, while Jaron Ennis might top one body’s list but rank lower in another’s.

Consider the welterweight division in 2021, before Pacquiao’s last fight.

The WBO ranked him #1 due to his history with their title (won in 2009 and 2016), while the WBC placed him at #3 or #4, prioritising active fighters like Errol Spence Jr. or Terence Crawford.

The WBA and IBF similarly favoured recent performers, creating a patchwork of rankings that baffled fans.

Fast forward to 2025, and the WBC’s decision to rank Pacquiao at #5 despite his inactivity highlights how legacy and commercial appeal can trump logic.

This decentralised structure leads to a proliferation of belts - world titles, interim titles, “silver” belts, international belts - that dilute the sport’s prestige.

International belts, not true world titles, act as glorified ranking tools, offering fighters a top-15 spot and a path to bigger paydays.

Win one, and you’re aligned with a sanctioning body, but you’ll also owe sanctioning fees if you reach their world title fight.

It’s a business model that keeps the bodies flush but leaves fans and scratching their heads.

A broken system, or just boxing being boxing?

Boxing’s fragmented rankings reflect its lack of a single governing authority, unlike the UFC’s centralised model.

Each sanctioning body operates as a business, competing for relevance and revenue, which creates multiple paths to a world title but also fuels criticism.

Posts on X frequently highlight fan frustration, with debates over why a popular but less-deserving fighter ranks higher than a proven contender.

The system’s flexibility benefits fighters and promoters, but it risks alienating fans who crave clarity.

Could boxing fix this?

Calls for a unified governing body or transparent ranking criteria grow louder, especially on platforms like X, where fans dream of a UFC-style system.

Yet, the financial interests of sanctioning bodies make reform unlikely.

For now, boxing’s ranking chaos is both part of its charm and its curse.