The Transnational Boxing Rankings

This Rob guy's personal champions make a mockery of the concept of a legitimate championship. To decide Ward isn't super middle champion but then consider his fight with Rodriguez for the vacant championship is a joke, as is not considering Stevenson the light heavy champion. And he thinks a fighter weighing 152 means a fight isn't a light middleweight fight, haha

While CHAMPIONS should indeed be given special status, I do think the TBRB's inconsistency regarding inactivity is a problem: I don't think it's fair that Vitali's removed from their rankings after 12 months inactivity, yet Haye stays in after 14 months inactivity, and Mayweather stays in at light middle despite being inactive in the division for 16 months. Having a fight 'scheduled' is too lenient, as announcements in boxing can be far from official, especially in this era where rumours are frequently announced as definite, and this leniency could even allow an undeserving fighter to fight for a vacant championship.

 

I'm still feeling like an ass today... he will get his from me too if I see him when I'm out getting my groceries. :bart

 

The result of Mayweather-Alvarez shouldn't matter when it's Mayweather's position before they fought that's open to dispute. I think a flat period of 18 months and ignoring when a fight is 'announced' would be better than allowing an inactive fighter to keep his ranking, especially a number 1 or 2 ranking. I also think Mayweather not fighting at 154 for so long could've caused him to at least slip in the rankings. Considering Trout and Lara have greater bodies of work at the weight, it would be reasonable to allow them to surpass Floyd when they beat Cotto and Angulo respectively. I think Mayweather's championship status at 154 is the one championship of yours that's less than completely credible.

Vitali did state not long ago that he wouldn't fight this year but will fight next year. What if Wlad beats Povetkin, a week later Vitali announces a February return vs Stiverne, then if Haye's not able to set a fight with Fury he manages to goad Wlad into a March rematch, which would be for your vacant championship. Haye would keep his high ranking while fighting just twice in three years and not fighting at all for 19 months. While Vitali with four better wins than Haye's single win over the same period and inactivity of just 16 months wouldn't be ranked at all. Further, Haye's CV is so thin that you could easily make the case that Povetkin, Pulev, and Adamek should be ranked above him right now. The more accomplished and indeed more active Vitali would be deprived of the right to maintain his number 2 ranking and potentially fight for the vacant championship. Of course with a set exact inactivity rule, there would be cases where someone would lose his ranking if he fights even a few days after the period, but that wouldn't deprive a deserving fighter of the chance to fight for a vacant championship any more than your lenient policy based on whether a fight is scheduled would, and it would be consistent and clearer.

 

how is Vlad not HW champion!

Bias much?

 

Your answer about Haye is confusing. I checked your site, and Haye's indeed ranked above Povektin, Pulev, and Adamek. I'm not saying Haye should lose his ranking. My point is that if Haye still has his ranking Vitali should too because Haye's inactivity is longer. And that dropping Vitali after one year inactivity but not dropping Floyd after the same one year isn't fair. What's interesting is this: you posted your latest update in which Vitali was removed on 17 September, which was exactly 1 year and 9 days since Vitali's last fight. And your rankings update posted on 14 May 2013 was exactly 1 year and 9 days since Mayweather fought Cotto at 154. The first mention of an offical announcement I can find for Mayweather-Alvarez was from the 30th of May. If you made an exception for Mayweather's fight with Alvarez it was based on what was only a rumour at the time.

I forgot it was 16 months since Mayweather fought Cotto, not 18. That still doesn't invalidate my point: One win in five years followed by a lengthy period of inactivity even if not quite reaching the point where ranking would be completely lost, should still result in a tenuous enough ranking that it can be easily surpassed. Alvarez surpassed Floyd in your rankings, so Lara could also. My point about Cotto and Lara at least possibly deserving to be ranked above Floyd isn't strictly related to activity though, but sustained success at the division. Divisional rankings are not pound for pound rankings. That should make Floyd's position at number 2 far from the lock it would be to fight for a vacant championship.

There's simply too many cases where it's not a 'lock' who the number 2 fighter is. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the only way there can truly be clarity with rankings and single championships is if objective (quantifiable) rankings based strictly on record and quality of opposition at a particular weight are established and accepted. As you pointed out about stripping champions being normalised, rankings like the TBRB's are only regarded as a valid alternative because that boxing rankings should be based on personal decisions or opinions has been normalised. There's no reason objective rankings can't work. I've heard the retort too often that the criteria used is necessarily subjective, but then assigning a sport's team 2 points for wins is subjective. If objective rankings can't work for boxing, I think we might as well stop announcing winners and just consider boxing performance art, and stop trying to fool ourselves. But I admit it would be much easier to make objective rankings viable if there was a single organisation that ran boxing and the sport wasn't so fractured and corrupt, but even as it is I think objective rankings if widely presented would bring a lot more clarity to rankings and championships.

With the objective rankings project I've begun, incidentally, inactivity will be naturally punished in the rankings, so an inactivity rule isn't really even necessary: if a fighter was inactive he would drop in the rankings as fighters ranked below him beat other ranked opponents, and he could only keep his position if the wins that earned him his ranking were significant enough that he had gained enough ranking points that he couldn't be surpassed.

http://theboxingtribune.com/2013/08/friendly-fire-opinion-poll-boxing-rankings-must-go/
http://worldboxingrankings.proboards.com/

 

Of course the only reason I'm nit-picking is because these decisions can potentially affect who can fight for a vacant championship. You only mentioned yesterday that the TBRB would be 'looking at' the option of removing Haye, so my criticism was based on him staying in. I still don't think Vitali's case to be in a position to fill a championship is any more convoluted than Floyd's before he fought Canelo. Our objective rankings project is only in its infancy so won't be be accurate to start, but the division I backscored past fights since 2011 to test was 154... and Canelo came out with a number 1 ranking and Mayweather number 10, so that's my answer. Consistency at a division should take precedence over a single win. To compare, Garcia and Matthysse were by any criteria and every opinion the two most accomplished fighters at 140 before they fought. That's what it should take to fill a vacant championship. When who's number 2, 3, or 4 is tighter, not using a quantifiable criteria becomes the downfall of rankings.

 

Only Ward can win the title in the fight as the former Champion as he is facing a ranked opponent within 18 months period. Hernandez can do the same.

In the fan rankings Wlad has been stripped due to not defending against a ranked fighter for over a year.

 

All the way to Crazytown.

 

Giving a high ranking from just one fight underrates consistent success in a division (for example of Cotto, Lara, Molina), and ultimately degrades divisional rankings.