The Transnational Boxing Rankings

That does seem generous

 

just an opinion if you are going to post rankings everybody is not going to agree. please don't take it personally

 

that's good , I have recently spent more time on on-line than I usually do and have noticed on this site people really take things to seriously:yep

 

your rankings and kirk and rummy's leagues I can see why you/them would take them seriously's after all there is a level of work involved

 

mcg, what are the odds on the rankings being linked to the fighters records?

Just makes the thing a bit more fluid, say for instance we have a new entry at number 10, people wanna find out about him you just click his name and it takes you straight to his record?

I'm not sure if its something you'd even be allowed to do but it's just a thought I had.

 

I'll pretend I'm McGrain's spokesman right quick...

Yours isn't a bad idea, though we don't want viewers to be bounced off the site to BoxRec, which has its own ratings. We have to be careful referring viewers to any other site anyway, since it would look like an endorsement. We have to remain independent and unconnected.

As it is now, we have two record-keepers in the membership (see the "members" tab on the site to find out who they are -and everyone else) who are monitoring fights world-wide, so the records are well-kept and up-to-date.

Expanding the site to keep exhaustive records of our own would be a redundant effort and a hard-sell.

 

yeah I see the quandry. I do like the idea of checking out records at the click of a button but you're right with the problems with endorsement and the redundancy of mimicking what they've already done.

twas just a suggestion is all.

 

--A good one that is appreciated!

 

Well, I wouldn't say it's a flaw so much as something of a necessary evil.

We could load the dice to make sure that the second-ranked guy is someone we'd like to see fight the top contender. But that sets us on the path to game-playing like the WBS organizations.

We could also allow the third-ranked contender in, but then we'd have to scrap the idea that a throne must be filled by the two best in the division. And that's the whole point. The charter is immovable on that point.

In short, the cures look more like curses.

Wlad rules a meadow right now, so a retread in Haye wouldn't be the worst of things -he fought Tony the Friggin Tiger twice for instance.

Marquez won't be around much longer and who knows what will happen when he fights Pac a fifth time. Hell, if he knocks him out again, I might like to see him fight a declining Floyd.

Rankings shift over time. We see no need to manipulate the rules to hurry things along; that's part of the problem. It's partly why we have 90 belts out there when there should be 17. Everyone is making the rules up as they go along to line their pockets. Meanwhile, boxing fans are being lied to every damn day.

 

The Archives tab has been added to the TBRB.org website:

http://www.tbrb.org/archives/

For me, as a boxing historian/researcher, this points toward a critical motivation to move on this whole initiative back in May.

Boxing needs continuity with it's past. Boxing needs rankings that are globally-represented, solid, independent, and clean. To rely on the ratings of WBS organizations (or any organization that is similarly compromised), is just plain stupid.

Case-in-point (and one of thousands): Nikola Sjekloca got dominated by Sakio Bika Saturday night in a WBS "title eliminator." Sjekloca came in ranked #1 by that WBS. He is not in the top ten of the Transnational Boxing Rankings. Who's the donkey -them or us? Or boxing itself?

The problem isn't even the WBS. It's the big networks and the boxing press that insist -despite volumes upon volumes of corruption and lunacy over 50 years- on paying them tribute on the air and in print.