A legitimate alternative to the Ring's rankings?

On this subject, I noticed Sky Sports have made an updated top 30 list for each division. I've only skimmed through but they're not the worst I've ever seen.

 

We already have a legitimate alternative in the boxrec rankings.

 

No chisora in the top 30 i noticed yet Bob Helenius is at 11...is it because he's "banned"? Haye is at 4

 

Probably. I assume they have some sort of rules around it given that Pascal isn't there eitger, for inactivity I'd guess. Cleverly in the top 5 is a joke.

 

Bobby Palmers rankings > the rest

 

quoted for wisdom

 

I always thought the ring mag rankings were bias towards american fighters anyway

 

As good of an idea as it is...does anyone really care? The Ring ratings will always carry weight behind them, even though they do sometimes make mistakes. All the respectable sources will still cite The Ring's opinion along with the official scores from the judges, so I'm not sure what this can actually do. I'd love to see a proper 'unofficial' title which was respected by everyone in boxing but that simply isn't going to happen unless this TBRB group can create some legitimacy.

There should also be a P4P list.

 

There will be a P4P list and the board already has some major support within the industry. It's early days yet but there is a plan.

 

Just had a look, agree with a lot of the rankings. Good stuff :good

 

People should get behind the Ring rankings and title more. Its the only half legit one.

 

Have seen the rankings. Mine our better.

 

"Hi, I am a huge fan of The Ring. I was just wondering what your feelings are on the newest endeavor called Transnational Boxing Rankings. I am not sure if you are aware of it or not but basically it is an organization that wants honest boxing rankings in an objective format. It has 25 boxing writers that will vote, etc.

Have any of your staff writers been contacted to be part of it? It seems this organization is a direct counter to your magazine as they state in their blog that The Ring is no longer objective. I wonder what makes these 25 writers more objective then other writers? Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you for your response. – Sean

I don’t have a lot of insight on the Transnational Boxing Rankings but I’m familiar with some of the American writers who are on the panel – including Cliff Rold, Michael Woods and Jake Donovan – and I think they are among the best in the business. I recognize some of the other names. I follow TBR founder Tim Starks, Adam Abramowitz and Kelsey McCarson on Twitter and they seem to know their stuff. I’m sure the others are knowledgeable and passionate about boxing as well.

I don’t know if any RING contributors or Ratings Panel members have been contacted by TBR. Personally, I would have no problem if they were part of TBR.

I don’t feel like we’re in competition with other ratings groups, be they sanctioning organizations or independent media.

I don’t care for anyone saying that THE RING’s ratings are not objective because I don’t think any rankings are “objective.” There’s always opinion involved in ranking boxers and hardcore boxing fans NEVER agree with those opinions 100 percent.

The fine folks at TBR will soon learn that once their ratings get out there a little more. I Google searched the name “Transnational Boxing Rankings” to find the website – here it is, please check it out – and I came across a thread of *********** message boarders already bickering about TBR’s ranking Marco Huck over Yoan Pablo Hernandez and Gennady Golovkin over Felix Sturm and Floyd Mayweather over Pacquiao (the usual bulls__t), as well as too many Americans being on their ratings panel.

I took a look at TBR’s rankings and I think they’re great. I agree with the placement of most of the fighters in most of the divisions. I don’t agree with all of the rankings, but I don’t have a problem with any of it.

Ya know why? It’s pretty much the same group and order in all 17 divisions that we have with THE RING’s ratings.

If you have a few hours to kill, go and check out ours and theirs.

You’ll see seven or eight of the same boxers in each division’s top 10 with only slight various among the top five of each weight class.

So I don’t see how TBR is a “direct counter” to RING magazine’s ratings. I know some fans and media will state that they just feel better about a ratings organization that isn’t owned by a promotional company (in our case, Golden Boy Promotions).

I get it. I don’t think we give any extra boost to GBP boxers in our rankings, but I understand the skepticism. Having said that, I’d like to end this mailbag by pointing out that TBR ranks the following GBP boxers higher than THE RING:

Peter Quillin, Floyd Mayweather, Erislandy Lara, James Kirkland, Victor Ortiz, Robert Guerrero, Daniel Ponce de Leon and Abner Mares. (Oh my God! They’re a bunch of GBP shills!)"



He's pretty much right. I agree more with the TBR rankings but it's hardly a monumental difference here. I'm not sure how they can form much of an alternative to The Ring without spoiling their credibility because I don't think The Ring's ratings are as biased as is being made out. If anyone has any specific glaring examples rather than the usual line about GBP owning the magazine, I'd be interested to read it.