The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Appealing to history isn't helpful for a sport as messed up as boxing. You yourself pointed out that the devaluing of championships has only occured because media and fans have accepted how things have been done for so long.

The TBRB's own 'rules of thumb' suggest that one win at a division indeed shouldn't be given greater credit...
"Name recognition or previous record in a different weight class is not necessarily an indication of performance in a new weight class."
"Differentiating between a fighter’s winning streak and current form will be a matter of debate by the Board."

But despite the disclaimer, the TBRB does not sufficiently differentiate between winning streak and fuller form. That's the main problem with all subjective media rankings: the most recent fight is overcredited, but it's a boxer's consistent impact on a division over the last few years that in fact needs to be reflected in rankings. The purpose of divisional rankings is to determine who's most earned the right to fight for the championship in that division, they can't be neo-pound for pound rankings.

You'll have to get used to me Matt If the TBRB continues to gain wider acceptance I and my cohorts will be conducting a counter media-blitz, not to push our 'own rankings', but to point out the inherent flaws in all opinion-poll rankings and to get the idea of sensible objective rankings for boxing out there.

 

My 'opinion' like anyone else's about how a result might impact rankings shouldn't matter. While warning you that at the moment this is a pilot project and it will take a couple years for the system to stabilise, at this point if anyone in the top 18 beats the number 1, he'll take number 1 himself. So I'd say Chisora as number 17 knocking out Klitschko would make him number 1. However if Wilder at number 20 beat Klitschko he'd be just number 2, and would require proving himself with another win over a ranked opponent to gain number 1.

My point isn't that one win should never get a ranking, but that one win shouldn't necessarily get a ranking. Allowing one win over a highly ranked opponent to always gain a high ranking wouldn't be reflective enough of current form. If it's not to make a distinction that one win shouldn't always earn a ranking, why does the TBRB bother mentioning 'form' at all? Why not just use a ladder system, where a fighter takes the position of each opponent he beats?

All existing media rankings are of course subjective. But using a quantifiable set criteria would be by definition objectively applied. If you think the choice of criteria is always subjective, well... I think the 'subjective' choice of a team sports league deciding all wins are worth a predetermined amount of points is better than the 'subjective' choice of journalists ranking which wins of teams in a league they think are better.

Even before the proliferation of titles and corrupt rankings around the 70s, existing rankings weren't perfect. There are many cases where asterisks were basically later added by decent boxing historians about conflicting rankings. If objective rankings are adopted it wouldn't deny the history of the sport, it would just acknowledge that some claims may be specious.

In many divisions the top-10 wouldn't fight each other often enough for this to work if ranking was restricted to 10. That's why we're ranking 30. I think ultimately every active boxer in the world should be objectively ranked. I admit this would be basically impossible in the fractured way the sport's run though.

 

To digress from the topic of how many defeats of the champion should be required to become champion, has the catchweight question featured in the discussion ? (begging pardon if it's somewhere in the previous 30 pages)


My own take is that a title should never be on the line if one of the combatants has forced a cw into the bout. The argument that if-both-agree-to-the-cw-it's-ok, holds no water as in nearly all cases, one party forced the issue on the reluctant other party, and hence (in the Floyd-Canelo bout) they were not really competing under usual 154 lb rules.

As in the Pac Cotto fight, I don't believe the result would have been significantly altered, but in both cases, the fight should have been contested at the limit if a belt (or ranking) were at stake.

Two lbs may seem little, but what if the cw had been 148 ?

Or how fair would it be, for example, if Stevenson were to fight Huck at 180 (or 176) for a cruiserwt belt ?

I see the 152 cw in exactly the same light. The difference is one of degree rather than kind.

Thoughts ?




ps

The most egregious example a few years back was SRL's victory over a weight-drained Donny Lalonde. Leonard ended up with the new 168 lb belt AND the 175lb belt, neither of which, IMO, he truly merited.

 

First, that an objective ranking system doesn't produce rankings that everyone agrees with is no argument against it. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that the TBRB's rankings aren't the same as the Ring's as reason that they're not as good.

I didn't contradict myself. My use of the qualifier 'shouldn't necessarily' made that apparent. With our system, a boxer would only earn a ranking higher than the fighter he beat if he was close enough in ranking points before they fought.

I suggested a ladder system for the TBRB because that's what you often in effect already apply, as do all other existing rankings. You have to either credit consistent accomplishments or credit the most recent fight; you can't do both because those criteria can contradict each other.

The boxrec rankings are applied objectively. The reason their rankings are universally rejected isn't because they're objective, but because their criteria isn't based on simple wins and doesn't adequately reflect accomplishments so isn't fair. Two of the problems with the boxrec rankings are that they don't acknowledge a championship, and that they don't allow a fighter to be ranked in more than one division, both of which you sensibly do.

Look at any other sport, and you'll notice CONSISTENT ACCOMPLSHMENTS are what are rewarded in rankings. The exact method of determining this would be different for boxing than other sports, but it has to be done if rankings and championships are to be legitimate. Playoffs and championships in other sports are of course different, as championships in boxing are unique.

I'm not saying my rankings would be 'perfect', whatever than means. I do think they will be more reflective of actual accomplishments than ANY widely accepted rankings ever used in the history of boxing. Indeed even less compromised 'golden era' rankings couldn't have been sufficiently reflective of accomplishments.

This is not about my 'website'. It's just a free forum I started, I don't get anything out of people looking at it. I linked it so anyone interested in the specifics could find out. Objective rankings are what I think are essential to counter the corruption that dominates boxing. This is not a personal project, but a political project. While I respect the TBRB for clarifying that the Ring's championship became garbage when they changed their rules, beyond that you aren't doing anything to help, and if you have success it will be counter-productive and won't essentially reform the sport.

Specifically, you can't decide you're a governing authority and police the sport and arbitrarily determine some wins aren't wins. You might as well judge each fight yourself. Horrible slippery slope, which ultimately makes your rankings more about your own glory and indeed makes the TBRB seem more like the alphabet groups you're offering an alternative to. Decisions have to be accepted as official. There are other areas of the sport that need to be changed if bad decisions are to reduced. Rankings committees acting as judges only reinforces the existing structural problems that allow bad decisions to frequently occur.

Similarly, a dominant win can't be credited differently than a close win. A win by a sports team by more goals doesn't give them a higher ranking, and it would be ridiculous if it did. The quality of a win or loss should be left for journalists and fans to discusss and debate.

Despite my criticisms of the TBRB, I'm trying to bring the shortcomings of your rankings to light because I think your rankings are the best of the existing universally flawed rankings. I've already briefly debated with the IBO about their rankings. Their objective ranking system is in fact not bad and better than boxrec's but they're compromised because the IBO's just a title sanctioning body and charges fees for their titles.

 

Usually it's pretty simple and weighing any amount below the limit qualifies it for that division. But cases like Leonard-Lalonde and not Pacquiao-Cotto but Pacquio-Margarito are more difficult. Pacquiao weighed 144.5 and Margarito weighed 150. It could just as well be a contracted welterweight fight in which Margarito didn't make weight, but an alphabet group called it a light middle championship. It's when one fighter weighs under a weight limit and the other weighs over that it can be tricky.

I'll add that forcing a fighter to weigh less even if it gives the other fighter an advantage, I don't think should disqualify the fight from being a championship fight.

 

True, but if one fighter is compelled to weigh in below a weight that would normally be allowed, that imposes an undue handicap which, IMO, should preclude a title being at stake.

This is more obvious if we take the hypothetical 148 lb cw for a Junior Middlewt belt, or a 176 lb cw for a cruiserwt title.

So obvious in fact that few would defend it.

 

Your're right, one fighter would have an advantage if the other's forced to meet a lower weight. I agree it would be fairer if catchweights we're restricted to non-title fights. But I don't think there's a way to enforce that championships should never involve a lower weight limit being stipulated.

 

What did I make up?

 

So according to TBR Wladimir Klitschko vs. Alexander Povetkin will now be for the vacant Lineal heavyweight title?