View Single Post
Old 02-27-2013, 01:52 PM   #173
Longcount
boxing
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 1034
Default Re: The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Again, from Tim Starks

Quote:
I think we’ve been very consistent — it’s a priority of ours, and a common point of debate on the Board. On the issue of a “robbery,” the Board didn’t feel strongly enough to initiate a vote on Adamek-Chambers or Adamek-Cunningham whereas it did about Bradley-Pacquiao; I think that’s well in keeping with the broader view that Bradley-Pacquiao was a worse decision, no matter your view on how equal they were. Both Chambers and Cunningham were ranked after those losses, so we very clearly considered them “good losses.” I’m confused by what you’re advocating since you seemed to be arguing before that Cunningham didn’t belong in the heavyweight rankings.

I also think it’s fully consistent with our “good loss” rule of thumb to say Bellew deserves a ranking for competing well against Cleverly compared to Magee getting blown out by Bute and Kessler. Perhaps your standard of a “good loss” is different than how the majority of our Board has been applying it.

We could debate this endlessly, I’m sure, on the specific ratings that you disagree with. It’s unlikely that any one person will agree with every one of our rankings decisions. The issue should be, “Are the rankings credible, overall?” And I maintain they are the most credible out there, because they reflect the well-reasoned consensus of some sharp-eyed boxing ****ysts who have no affiliation with any fighters or promoters.
Longcount is offline  Top
Reply With Quote