The Transnational Boxing Rankings:Merlito Sabillo cracks the minimumeweight top 10

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by orriray59

And I'm so ****ing happy you now have the archives.

You, me, and posterity.

I'm such a nut about it, I'm keeping hard copies of the monthly rankings in case of some cyber-terrorist yahoo.

[lufcrazy]

The archives are an amazing inclusion. Quality stuff stoney

[lufcrazy]

eugh stoney got a little suggestion that isn't really a game changer but it just keeps things easier for transfer (I have a huge database of ranked fighters that I keep and maintain for compariosns etc)

The divisions with no champion could you perhaps insert the "champion: vacant" bit

for example you have in the january rankings

Heavyweight
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Vitali Klitschko
3. David Haye
4. Alexander Povetkin
5. Tomasz Adamek
6. Kubrat Pulev
7. Eddie Chambers
8. Tyson Fury
9. Robert Helenius
10. Steve Cunningham

and I think it would be better if you had

Heavyweight
Champion: vacant
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Vitali Klitschko
3. David Haye
4. Alexander Povetkin
5. Tomasz Adamek
6. Kubrat Pulev
7. Eddie Chambers
8. Tyson Fury
9. Robert Helenius
10. Steve Cunningham

it's not a massive thing it just allows things to stay in the same format (11 ranking slots per division rather than some having 10 and some having 11)

you know what I mean?

[Stonehands89]

Yes. Look again.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Yes. Look again.

Absolute legend.

[Jonsey]

Your rules state that

Although close losses and poor wins may be reflected in the rankings, the Board will refrain from nullifying the official results, with one exception: If over 75% of the Board agrees that the judges’ decision in a non-championship bout is egregious enough to constitute a “robbery,” then the official winner may be ranked lower than the official loser.

But Adamek is ranked ahead of Cunninghem and Chambers. Did you guys put a vote together?

Hernandez beat Steve Cunningham who beat Marco Huck. But Huck is No. after draws and dodgy wins of Firat Arslan and Ola Afolabi. Krzysztof Wlodarczyk is also to high.

Tony Bellew should not be top 10 at light heavy.

Who has Thomas Oosthuizen beat to be ranked so high, above Bika, Dirrell, Groves, Magee? Why is Adonis Stevenson top 10?

Sam Solmion, Felix Sturm and Martin Murray should not be top 10.

How can Lara be ahead of Alvarez?

Ortiz shouldn't be top 10.

Peterson shouldn't be ranked ahead of khan.

Burns shouldn't be No.2 at Lightweight.

How can Vitali Tajbert be ranked No.5 when he lost to your No.10 ranked fighter who has since lost to your No.9 ranked fighter, and since then has fought only 6 rounders?

Who has Frampton beaten to be ranked No.5?

Raul Garcia has moved up and fought at the Light Fly limit.

[Longcount]

courtesy of Tim Starks -

Hi Rob. Thanks for your questions. Happy to answer.

–We did not put a vote together on Adamek-Cunningham, nor did we nullify any results. To get a sense of where that rule applies, we did put together a vote on Pacquiao-Bradley, and therefore ranked Pacquiao ahead of Bradley despite Bradley’s official win. The board decided that Cunningham’s “close loss” was sufficiently impressive to warrant a top 10 ranking, but only barely. He was removed from the rankings to make way for Tony Thompson as of this week.

–Huck’s ranking was a matter of considerable debate by the board. He narrowly retained the position he holds because of his overall resume. Hernandez also owns some “dodgy” wins. I respectfully disagree with you on Wlodarczyk. He’s beaten some top cruiserweights.

–Bellew performed well against #5 Cleverly.

–Oos’ resume isn’t exceptional, but all the men you mention aren’t more distinguished. There was some board debate about whether Bika should be ranked higher, but Groves’ best win is over a prospect, Dirrell hasn’t beaten a quality smw in years, Magee has been crushed twice in his meetings against quality smws over the past three years. Stevenson hasn’t beaten any major, major opponents either, which is why he is barely in the top 10.

–Disagree with you on the middleweights. Sturm was considered for removal entirely following his loss to Soliman, but we deferred to his long record as one of the best couple middleweights in the world for him to retain top 10 status. Since Soliman just beat him, he had to be ranked higher than Sturm. And Murray fought Sturm to a draw during that aforementioned period as one of the best couple middleweights in the world.

–Lara above Alvarez was one of the most heated debates when we began our rankings. There’s a case for either man there; Lara has contended on even or slightly better terms with a number of top jmws, while Alvarez has definitively beaten some lesser jmws. Alvarez can definitively prove he should be above Lara with one more quality win, perhaps this summer.

–Ortiz has been another close call for potential removal. His status in the rankings is, indeed, shaky. But he beat a then-highly rated Andre Berto, lost to the best fighter in the world then fought on even terms with a boxer (Lopez) who proved he was a top welterweight in that fight, too.

–Peterson beat Khan. Some will dispute that, but Khan has subsequently lost his next fight, too, so any close call on there previous fight should go to Peterson rankings-wise.

–Junior lightweight is a weak division. Ao’s loss to Diaz was a “bad loss” and he was deducted suitably for it.

–Burns and Broner are a coin flip. The Board went with Broner because of the definitive way in which he beat then-#1 DeMarco. If Burns beats Vazquez definitively next month, it would be hard to argue that he doesn’t deserve the #1.

–Carl Frampton beat Kiko Martinez and Steve Molitor, in particular. No one beneath him has done anything more exceptional of late.

–Garcia’s bout with Gutierrez was, by my understanding, originally meant to be for a regional 108 pound belt. At such point it becomes clear that Garcia intends to fight at 112 pounds, he will be removed from the 108-pound rankings.

Originally Posted by Jonsey

Your rules state that

Although close losses and poor wins may be reflected in the rankings, the Board will refrain from nullifying the official results, with one exception: If over 75% of the Board agrees that the judges’ decision in a non-championship bout is egregious enough to constitute a “robbery,” then the official winner may be ranked lower than the official loser.

But Adamek is ranked ahead of Cunninghem and Chambers. Did you guys put a vote together?

Hernandez beat Steve Cunningham who beat Marco Huck. But Huck is No. after draws and dodgy wins of Firat Arslan and Ola Afolabi. Krzysztof Wlodarczyk is also to high.

Tony Bellew should not be top 10 at light heavy.

Who has Thomas Oosthuizen beat to be ranked so high, above Bika, Dirrell, Groves, Magee? Why is Adonis Stevenson top 10?

Sam Solmion, Felix Sturm and Martin Murray should not be top 10.

How can Lara be ahead of Alvarez?

Ortiz shouldn't be top 10.

Peterson shouldn't be ranked ahead of khan.

Burns shouldn't be No.2 at Lightweight.

How can Vitali Tajbert be ranked No.5 when he lost to your No.10 ranked fighter who has since lost to your No.9 ranked fighter, and since then has fought only 6 rounders?

Who has Frampton beaten to be ranked No.5?

Raul Garcia has moved up and fought at the Light Fly limit.

[Jonsey]

Seriously do these guys even watch boxing!

[Longcount]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

Seriously do these guys even watch boxing!

That's not very gracious after Tim took time to address your comments.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by Longcount

That's not very gracious after Tim took time to address your comments.

agreed. sorry for that.

[Jonsey]

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.

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?

Wlad should be champ at HW but thats another argument. Adamek vs Cunningham and Chambers were robberies as bad as Pacquiao vs Bradley.

Hernandez beat Cunningham who beat Huck! Tarver also has no place in the top 5!

No doubt Bellew performed well against #5 Cleverly, but you can’t honestly rank him ahead of Jurgen Braehmer or Fonfora. 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. Groves win over DeGale and Johnson are better than Oo’s.

Sturm needs be out of there. His last 5 fights he has 2 losses, 2 draws and a win at best. 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!

–Lara above Alvarez was one of the most heated debates when we began our rankings. There’s a case for either man there; Lara has contended on even or slightly better terms with a number of top jmws,

I think if a fighter tests posative for PED’s and faced any kind of ban they should be removed until they return and prior wins should be forgotten.

Ao’s loss to Diaz was a “bad loss” and he was deducted suitably for it……but you still have Tajbert ranked ahead of them both? Come on mate you guys messed up here and Tajbert needs to be out.

Broner, Burns, Vasquez & Abril are coin flips I agree. Abril needs to be ahead of DeMarco. Did you not count Abrils win over Rios?

Carl Frampton beat Kiko Martinez and Steve Molitor, who had lost to Takliani Ndlovou, who lost to Ajlejandro Lopez, who lost to Jonathan Romero. Those 3 should be ahead of Frampton. Quiggs win over Munroe also trumps Framptons. I am a HUGE Frampton fan but he isnt top 5 thats crazy.

[Longcount]

Again, from Tim Starks

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 analysts who have no affiliation with any fighters or promoters.

[Jonsey]

have replied. in general the rankings are solid.

but Tajbert at No.5 is unbelievable.

[lufcrazy]

These rankings are easily the most credible out there and I can think of none that are better.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

These rankings are easily the most credible out there and I can think of none that are better.

Tajbert has to go from No.5!