View Single Post
Old 03-04-2013, 05:58 PM   #182
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 38,060
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Originally Posted by Jonsey View Post
Appreciate the rankings. My issue is there appears to be no consistancey. You rank some fighters based on a good loss, and others you don’t consider. You rank fighters that have lost and performed badly consistantley and others you drop after one loss.
This will be dependent upon what happens in the specific divisions. A weaker division (HW is a good example) might see a fighter slip into the top ten based upon a good showing against a ranked contender. In a stronger division, this might not be the case.

But it IS the case that an individual member who is particularly impressed might develop momentum that is not deserved. This could definitely happen. It will happen. Nobody is trying to say that these rankings are perfect.

What we are saying is that they are entirely without external influence.

That is to say, if there is a mistake, it will be an honest one, it will be corrected.

You guys need to be clearer about how important it is to have done things in the past year, and when wins stop counting towarda a resume. Example, Dirrell hasnt done anything for 3 years but before that he beat AA and Froch. But Adamek & Sturm have spent 3 years losing and getting gifts and stay ranked?
But I disagree with you that Adamek has "spent 3 years losing and getting gifts." Now where does that leave us?

Wlad should be champ at HW but thats another argument.
Not under our championship policy which is the most strict i'm aware of for a reason.

Adamek vs Cunningham and Chambers were robberies as bad as Pacquiao vs Bradley.
Personally, I find that ludicrous. Adamek and Cunnigham was a fight with a round between them on my card, Pac-Bradley was a hammering on my card.

Additionally, cards from within the stadium are far closer. The reason for this is to do with punches landed with power. Punches landed with power are notoriously difficult to pick out on television if they are not landed with "juddering" power. The best example of this is Valuev-Holyfield. Valuev-Holyfield was viewed as a blatant robbery on the television. 45/50 cards fileld in at ringside were filled in in favour of Valuev. That is to say, those watching on television saw it blatantly for Holyfield, those in the stadium saw it for Valuev. Controversy abounds.

This is why we must show restraint for overturning judges decisions. They have by far the better view.

Returning to Bradley-Pacquiao, Pacquiao outlanded Bradley for jabs AND power punches. Meanwhile Cunningham out-landed Adamek for jabs, but was heavily outlanded in terms of power-punches. THIS is why my Adamek-Cunningham card was close. That is why cards from the auditorium were generally closer than those scored via television.

Hernandez beat Cunningham who beat Huck!
That's hardly a lock though, is it? I see Huck as #1, that's something that can be hung upon me. It is a view shared by Fightnews, among others, and can hardly be considered a strange point of view.

You seem oddly determined to overturn anything with a whiff of "bad judging" around it. That is a relative term, however. Furthermore, rankings, viewed historically are designed to record what happens in the world of boxing rather than interpret it, in as much as that is possible.

TBR has asserted that in extreme circumstances - extreme - we can overturn a strange result. I'm happy with that balance. Overturning official results from an armchair concerns me deeply.

Tarver also has no place in the top 5!
He's outside the top five...

No doubt Bellew performed well against #5 Cleverly, but you can’t honestly rank him ahead of Jurgen Braehmer or Fonfora.
This will come as a staggering blow to Fightnews (who rank him ahead of Fonfora) and Boxing Monthly (who rank him ahead of both). We do too. Like them, we stand by it. As i've demonstrated it is in no way a strange point of view.

You seem to want to present what are normal, common rankings as bizarre or unusual. It is good that you hold faith with your own rankings, but just because we disagree doesn't make you right and us wrong.

Dawson is coming of a loss and will have gone a year without defending his title soon will be be stripped?

This is where the consistancy factor comes in. In other divisons Magee & Dirrell would still be ranked.
I think you are wrong, I think we have indeed been consistent, I think the idea that Magee and Dirrell would still rank based upon the evidence you've presented is flat out wrong.

Groves win over DeGale and Johnson are better than Oo’s.[/quote]

Here, you and I agree. I've been pushing for Groves to be moved up for some time. The majority of the board, disagree. We shall see.

Sturm needs be out of there. His last 5 fights he has 2 losses, 2 draws and a win at best.
No, he is 2-2-1. That is why he has dropped sharply. One more loss and he is out, if he wins his next fight he will stay/move up. The fights will out. If we are too conservative in a given movement for you, it gets tidied up next time out.

You can’t rank Martin Murray based on a draw vs Sturm who went on to do **** all after. His best win is Nick Blackwell!
Jesus Christ Rob, yes we can. Murray gets introduced based upon his draw with Sturm, then rated much higher. What should happen now according to you? According to us, he will either capitalise, or be eliminated naturally. There is no rankings body in history that moves fighters down based upon the performances of victims after the fact. Our ranking of this fighter is similar to Fightnews and Boxing Monthly (my favourite rankings on the net prior to getting involved with TBR which is why i reference them) This is a ludicrous assertion and is getting a bit silly now fella. You're obviously out to pick on whatever disagreements you can and try to make an issue out of it.

I think what you have to accept is that your rankings and our rankings are not going to be exactly the same and get on with things.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote