Boxing News taking a big stance

I mean all of them.

Those they rail about, those they don't.

Every one you have ever consulted. Every one that anyone has every consulted.

You persistnetly refuse to engage with the point, which allows you to repeat yourself endlessly for about 50 posts of nonsense, but nobody wants, or has ever provided what you wish.

Everyone strips for inactivity.

 

No, nobody "has to" do anything.

But the reason we do is it makes total sense, to everyone who has ever been involved in boxing, ever.

What you are saying isn't anything that anyone wants.

TBRB is absolutely unique in that it doesn't strip champions. It's thinking is more in line with your own than any ranking organisation in history. But as someone who has worked in detail with rankings for a decade, rankings that didn't strip for inactivity would be atrocious. They would in no way reflect the reality of the division.

They don't work.

That's why nobody produces them.

If you wanted to be treated seriously (very, very difficult now for anyone that has read this ****), and have your questions answered, you should try to answer those that are asked of you. There are 15-25 questions I've asked of you that have been completely ignored, including some that I've asked of you twice.

But I will answer your question.

Everyone would rank Pacquiao in front of James. If i'm guessing, this will be the only part of this post you will quote, while doing a weird little verbal dance of triumph.

But you are confused about what rankings are. That is why you ask for something that has never been produced.

Listing the best fighters in the division isn't the job of a ratings/rankings organisation. Our job is to identify those most deserving of a title shot/starting a new lineage and order them accordingly.

My position, and that of the board, is that a fighter who hasn't fought in two yers needs to prove himself again before he can be ranked among those most entitled to a shot at the lineal, true title.

That's normal. That is a thing acknowledged by almost every poster who has engaged with the issue in this thread. That is understood by the boxing public as reasonable.

If you don't fight - you should be behind people who do.

 

Allowing for the fact that you will have loads of disagreements about the details, if you ask a bunch of guys you'll get a bunch of different opinions, and that almost nobody would agree with you that Pacquiao is better than Crawford (for example), it's very easy.

Anyone can do it.

Not just anyone can produce an authoritative list for every single division taking into account the right to challenge for the lineal title.

What you want the TBRB to do is not what it was set out to do. Everything it was set out to do was done publicly and transparently.

You want something pretty different, something that doesn't exist and has never existed.

I've told you why; you can't absorb it for some reason, or don't want to admit that you have.

 

Across the divisions there will be thirty of these, and everyone will disagree about them.