Boxing News taking a big stance

Well without the basic requirement which I mentioned we are back to one division (weight class), with a guy at the top, who is the man who beat the man, everything else falls away. So in this case, historic precedent has set that for us, in what was an effort to create weight divisions. We build upon what came before. I think we'd both agree you need a basic frame work to define what is and what is not. Though things do change across the sport, such as the move away from the same day weigh-in.

Optional would be anything which is a variation from one ranking body to the next. Whilst @McGrain seems to be making a claim that the way TBRB does things is based on what everyone else is doing in terms of how to deal with inactive fighters, that is not actually the case. Also the impression I got from this thread, is they think their way of doing things is a better way than what the ABCs have done. And perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon, and I guess this is what this discussion is about. It also sounds like this is an effort to replace the current ABCs with a new boxing org 'the TBRB'

This is what I don't quite understand, The Boxing News is aligning itself with a different flavour of boxing org. Though perhaps that is what people want: an overriding boxing org that will combine the belts, and establish their own champion. The TBRB champion (a new lineage created when the fighters they choose as #1 and #2 compete).

And again perhaps that is not a bad idea. Though I still have some misgivings about the balance of power within this idea of Transnationalism and whether is it not just Tokenism.

Until there is an answer to that, for now I still lean toward a ranking system that seems more aligned with achievements of resume. i.e. IWBR (PBO rankings) - but then I am an empiricist at heart.

 

Now if I wanted to be really cynical, I would say this is a power grab by the journalists who are not satisfied with merely reporting and analysing the sport, but consider themselves best placed to be the guiding hand shaping the future of the sport...

It will be interesting to see if The Boxing News remains fully independent of the TBRB or will be given voting rights as members.

 

They should try fighting more often then

 

Well clearly this is not the case, as they rank Pacquaio at #3, and you don't have him in your top ten.

You made a blanket statement, I gave you two contradicting examples off the top of my head.

um...I agree.

That's all well and good, but within your own voting system surely criticisms (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) are non problems. i.e. every member who is voting has their own subjective set of voting criteria for how they rank the fighters. Therefore issues (1) to (5) do not exist if your members share your views on demoting inactive fighters. And if they don't share your views, then those are the rankings.

And again, not to conflate the issues, but I don't understand why you are particularly strict on the above, but lenient toward allowing a fighter to maintain a ranking in your system by continuously fighting unworthy opposition. The same issues of inertia that you wrote about above surely apply...Said fight is active in the loosest sense of the word.

Sorry but I am finding it difficult to parse that last sentence, what do you mean by "People are used to not seeing contenders who boxed ranked." ?

But to the point, whilst I recognize the historical desire to maintain a lineage. I would see it just as damaging if not more so to have different rules for the champ. Modern-day Champions can make money by riding the prestige of being the champ. Once they achieve that goal, they may never have much intention of fighting again. At what point would you say enough is enough?

What if they lose? And isn't reflecting reality the pursuit of what you are doing?

With all due respect, why is it absurd? You already have a member who has voting rights? But it's not really something you need to defend.

Though I would still be interested to know how your voting process addresses the issue of America being far the strongest voting block (I say block, though I realise they are not intentionally voting as one). Is the imbalance something you guys are trying to address by inviting more journalists from around the world? Or do you have a mechanism that addresses it?

 

And you are saying all things are equal. So we are at an impasse

 

" We consider a fighter to be inactive if he has not fought in 12 months, though will retain a boxer in the ratings if he has an upcoming fight.

When he is delisted his points are retained and if he fights again his points are recalculated based on his compliance with the same factors of one who was active."

"Last ratings update: 04-05-21 Some compliance rules are in continued suspension"

I stand corrected, it appears their rule is to delist, but maintain their ranking should they fight again. But it seems that is indeed slightly different to your approach. Though you are correct they do delist fighters. From my understanding a key difference being the losing fighter who was "inactive" could still be ranked in the top 10, but as you said below they must win to regain a ranking in the TBRB.

Though it's safe to assume they have put such rules of inactivity on hold due to Covid-19. This would explain why Pacquaio is still at #3. So I don't think we need to email them. So just as with the WBA, the PBO have a flexibility within the rule structure. And I also recognize it may be within this flexibility that corruption can nestle.

As an aside, as a fellow Brit, but one who now lives in Japan, I can tell you living in a culture of rules with no flexibility no matter the circumstances is not always a comfortable experience. Though there are undoubtedly benefits as well.

Just to clarify, this is slightly different to what you said earlier. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that fighters don't drop down the rankings based on facing bad fighter. The just don't move up. It is dependent on the fighters below them to unseat them. Is that correct?

got it, thanks.

Well actually I followed that saga with Fury, and I did understand their reasoning for stripping him. But, yes, I did appreciate their consistency. But as you point out they are run by a promoter, so I don't personally care too much for their rankings, but I still have respect for the Ring magazine title. Probably due to the place in the history of the sport, but I lost respect for it when they shoe horned it into the Fury/Wilder fight. As it seemed like merely a way to resolve what was an unpopular move to original strip him (with some sections of the community).

What? Even if it was a very close MD loss?

Why not use undisputed to start a new lineage? Isn't that what the community generally recognizes? Why do you need an independent champion?
I am going to assume the answer is because you wish to delegitimise the ABCs, and at the same time legitimize your own organisation?
Whilst I can accept Fury is the #1 (I am a Fury fan after all), I find it hard to accept him beating Deontay Wilder started a new lineage as Champion, when you had Anthony Joshua a unified champion with three belts chasing the undisputed fight for years not involved in the conversation.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with you stripping for inactivity, per se. But I am just trying to understand why some of your rules seem a little at cross purposes.

Though I do think there is something rather arbitrary about what is inactive. But maybe that is a different discussion.

I agree, you don't have to explain to me that TBRB is not corrupt. And I am happy to take you at your word.

But again I would have preferred to understand more about how your voting system works, and addresses imbalances.

 

Fury now is not stripped anywhere.
After win vs old and looks that also lazy over the hill rich Wlad in Germany, I think it was close fight not some schooling etc claims, I think most likely Fury then had been tested and supervised in Germany and still he get close decision win. If I remember, on all judges cards.

Fury then after this had The Ring, IBF, WBA, WBO and IBO belts.
After this fight he was inactive for too long time to keep him in active rankings for boxing orgs etc.
No offense here, if someone does not fight 24 months and more, no one is able to predict: will boxer A or boxer B fight anymore or no etc alike, maybe gentleman had launched career in other field etc.

 

Then, I look forward to this taking it's course in the Heavyweight division over the coming months. Because I was under the impression that Usyk had not only defeated Hunter, but also had a better win than hunter when he overcame Chisora. And Ortiz certainly is riding that many years passed win over Jennings for all it's worth.

You don't see the possibility of Spence/Pacquaio resulting in a close run decision?
And I didn't think you needed the reactions of the 55 members. You already stated that they will not be ranked based on TBRB rules. I'm just surprised, as I assumed you were ranking based on subjective views of the quality of fighters, not trying to replicate an algorithm of who beat who until computers can do a better job than people.

Which ones?
The guy at the top of the respective rankings for WBC, WBA, IBF, and the one you don't like to mention.
Well this year we have already had Taylor, and we are getting an undisputed fight at Junior Middle shortly. So they seem somewhat frequent. Last year, I think it's also fair to say most recognize Lopez as the man at lightweight except for the promoter and fans of Haney.

I was referring to the chosen length of time. Sorry I should have been clearer. I was using arbitrary in the sense that one choice is as good as another, arbitrary does not strictly mean random.

Okay. Will do. Generally I don't send emails to transnational governing bodies, but this might be exciting.