The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Pacquiao was ranked #1 by Ring.


Hopefully this covers your question also jas, but if not, I want to stress - i'm not an expert on the history of the lineage of all of these titles, at all. I just know that the #1 and #2 Ring ranked contenders never met prior to the inception of the TBRB and that the #1 and #2 contenders as ranked by TBRB haven't met since then.

Ergo, no champion.

 

Just as you said.

 

You have misunderstood.

There was no TBRB in 2010.

We don't rank anybody anywhere at that time. It's impossible.

Infirmity in the Ring rankings is why TBRB became necessary. You can dismiss us because of what is a shorthand local issue if it pleases you, but I think that is shortsighted.

TBRB do not affect rankings prior to it's own inception. That would not be reasonable.

Also, Pac wasn't #1 after Clottey. He was #1 going in.

 

Ring's rankings are the best available between the years of 1924 and 2013. IN fact, although you have a pathological hatred for them, there is literally no other comparable set of rankings.

Lineage, by it's very nature, is something that follows on. History is important, and indeed the longest surviving lineage goes back to the seventies.

Consistency is paramount.

Let me be frank; I don't care.

You seem like an issue poster. It makes me sad that you've no further interest in our rankings, but there is only one way to please an issue poster: do exactly what he tells you. You fiercely believe that Mayweather and Mosley were the "true" #1 and #2. That's fine. It's even possible for me to agree with you personally and remain indifferent.

That is because there might be someone tomorrow who firmly believes that Dawson and Pascal weren't a reasonable #1 and #2 at LHW or that Canto and Oguma weren't the #1 and #2 at fly. And they all might believe so just as passionately as you and they all might be able to conjure just as convincing a case.

Lineage. We wanted to - no, absolutely had to - recognise existing claims that were legitimate by our criteria. That is impossible without a rankings system and Ring is the only one that exists.

This is a ludicrous remark, and I'm sure when you have a chance to calm down you will see that, or more likely you didn't believe it when you said it, but it gives me a chance to explain the differences to any newcomer, so that's fine.


1 - The TBRB is a for-non-profit organisation. Alphabets are businesses who make their money robbing fighters.
2 - Nobody personally involved in the TBRB draws a salary. This work is done out of love. Every Alphabet employee is paid.
3 - Our lists are based upon accomplishments in the ring. Alphabet bodies rank according to their buddy systems and who pays them.
4 - Alphabet organisations don't ever list other organisation's champions in their rankings. We list the one true champion but every qualified fighter is listed



The TBRB and the WBC have absolutely nothing in common, at all. And if you are right about the Ring ranking in question here it's a shame that a) we didn't get our **** together sooner and b) in fifty years order will be entirely restored and our rankings will come correct - but you won't care, because Ring once got something wrong 54 years ago and that spelled game over for you.

 

I did start typing up a response, but basically your accusations are so bizarre and paranoid I ran out of steam. Here is an easy way for you to think of it.

IN the February 2009 issue of Ring magazine, Floyd Mayweather was unrated. This is because he had not had a fight since the end of 2007. This is reasonable.

In September of 2009, he beat Juan Manuel Marquez. Marquez was unranked at 147lbs.

Ring responded by moving Mayweather to #3 at welterweight. That is, Mayweather beat a completely unranked welterweight and was immediately rewarded with a top three ranking.

What is wrong with any of that??


You are going completely insane - accusing us of corruption, complicity, accepting bribes and incompetence because - not us - but Ring Magazine, very, very, very reasonably installed Floyd Mayweather at #3 at welterweight after his beating an opponent who fought exclusively at 135lbs. He went from

#1
Unranked Because he doesn't fight.
#3 because he beat a blown up lightweight

This makes sense. I don't say it's perfect - I think it depends how you feel about X and Y - I think it's debatable. But you are behaving like it's a hammer lock.

Re-read your post. It is like the ramblings of a madman. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Ring shout on this occasion.

 

Yes, there is "an argument".

How this very reasonable post leads to the bizarre diatribe of false accusations and bile you spit later on the same page is absolutely beyond me.


I will just answer this from the later post:

Because although it's disgusting, libellous and confused, the mis-understanding seems to be genuine (and I didn't actually get that far reading it the first time).

I am not saying that Ring is the only ranking system around in the "last twenty years" I'm saying it was the only one that was around in 1925, and 2005 and EVERYWHERE in between.

Although why even the opposite would convince you that we were being bought by somebody is outstanding guesswork of the lowest order.

 

:conf

 

My "story" is straight. There is absolutely no part of it that is not straight. You have completely lost the plot. The part you have highlighted makes literally no sense.

That is all.