The Transnational Boxing Rankings

25/09/2013

This week's rankings sees David Haye, removed for inactivity as it is announced he will not reach the ring before next February. In conjunction with the removal of Vitali Klitschko for inactivity earlier this month, a new lineal King will be crowned as the long-time #1 heavy Wladimir Klitschko finally meets his #2 contender, Alexander Povetkin, in Russia, the first weekend in October.

Easily the greatest prize in boxing and once the greatest prize in all of sport, the heavyweight division has been bereft of genuine rule since the retirement of one-time King Lennox Lewis. Barring a draw or NC (please God no), one of the world's two-best heavyweights will hoist more than a belt come fight night.

Dereck Chisora also benefits, re-entering at #10 after lifting the European HW title against Edmund Gerber last Saturday. A slimmed down "Del Boy" looked to be in the form of his life and must once again be regarded as a force in the division.


In other news, Carlos Buitrago enters at #10 at Strawweight as Mario Rodriguez exits to tackle the junior flyweights.

 

Here Is The City acknowledges TBRB's hailing of a new Heavyweight King this October:

http://hereisthecity.com/2013/09/23/boxings-biggest-winners-and-losers-this-week/

 

We don't "apply the ladder system". This dry, computerised, supposedly objective language is the language of your non-existent rankings, not ours. What we try to do is decide exactly where a fighter should rank and then rank him there. You seem to think there is something old-fashioned, or inadequate about this, but that is really not a view that is held in the industry, at all. The view that is held in the industry is that the way rankings are comprised was compromised by bias and dishonesty. Few think that rankings should be computerised.

No, we don't. You keep saying this but it is absolutely untrue, I reject it utterly. For your part, you have completely failed to prove it. Furthermore, your relative rankings (in accordance with the only example you have produced) as far as "consistent success" goes is a very obvious failure as far as the only example you have produced.

Or might never happen at all?

At the moment, your absolute insistence that the way boxing rankings have been comprised, forever, are faulty, that ours our faulty, that yours are superior is based entirely upon theory that you yourself admits is years from even being tested to your own satisfaction, which will just be the starting point for the rest of us.

This is a rather astonishing display of arrogance, and dismissal of the hard work of others based upon very little indeed.

But none the less, it is a supposedly objective process that should be superior to a subjective process and yet this compromise results in a grotesque failure of the highest order.

To be clear, your 154 rankings sees 2-2 this decade Spinks above Miguel Cotto?

And you're posting these here as proof of some form of success, or even as a serious alternative to reasoned thought?

It's pitifully bad.

Tell you what. Why don't you start a poll in the main forum, and see how many people think it is reasonable to rate Floyd Mayweather at #3 at 154lbs right now? It may work as something of an eye-opener for you.

Rankings should, where at all possible reflect reality. Who is the best, who is the second best, who is the third best, and so on. Within this, there are duties of proof, which are crucial. On both counts, you seem to have produced failure here.

You now seem to have Mayweather ranked at #1 and #3 (allowing, I suppose, the possibility that he might fight himself and also come to be ranked at #2?).

I disagree with you, and the public reaction to our rules and ability to overturn blatant robberies has been almost universally positive.

No, you mean it is not the business of your rankings group, if it exists (i'm unclear) to overturn robberies. It IS the business of the TBRB to overturn robberies. Your opinion on this matter is of absolutely no consequence, and seems at odds with both public opinion and that of insiders.

This is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. You will not find many fans, I don't believe, who don't hold a fighter in higher regard after his administering a one-sided thrashing to an opponent rather than winning a questionable split decision against that same opponent. There are no rankings organisation and very few fans who do not take into account not only the manner of victory but also the quality of performance when ranking fighters.

You are entitled to your subjective opinion, but, again, it is of absolutely no consequence.

our job is to tell the fans of boxing who the best fighters in a given division are, not to educate judges. We rank according to the official decision, UNLESS the thirty strong board decides that a given decision is so bad that it should not be acknowledged. Then, we need a device that allows us to more correctly reflect the reality in the division, and that device is a refusal to acknowledge the criminal/indefensible decision.

By acknowledging criminal decisions you are not "rewarding consistent perofrmances" but rather rewarding losers :good

Consider it defended.

Yes, as with any system of algebra, it is possible to assign values and explain what happens with exchanges between values, but unfortunately for you, that doesn't make your rankings right. In fact, you've said some things that are flat-out alarming, and produced some rankings that most fans would consider flat-out ridiculous.

It looks to me like you have mis-understood the general depth of boxing currently, mis-understood what it means for a fighter to become shot, mis-understood the nature of boxing in terms of the messages fighters send us with individual performances and mis-understood what a system of rankings should actually deliver. I don't think three years will be quite enough...

You are producing a subjective opinion rather than an objective analysis and also produced very little in the way of actual rankings - clearly the way it should stay in a thread devoted to a different rankings system - and those that you have produced seem at least 2 parts in 5 ludicrous, regardless of your rather tortured explanations.

 

It is kind of exciting. A a new lineage at HW is beyond welcome.

 

yes I do.

Look, this is already an incredible waste of my time, but it will be less so if you try to read what i've actually written, so I don't have to correct you as much.

Why? Why are you so obsessive about our rankings, in particular? It's bizarre. I'd say you have your own problems.

These are your heavyweight rankings. Are you really coming back tomorrow to critique the TBRB when you have ****ing Chris Arreola ranked at #3?? You've also spelt his name wrong, by the way :good

Over on your -weirdly TBRB obsessed - website, you are criticising our decision to remove Vitali making October's fight for the heavyweight Kingship, but if you stripped Vitali, Wlad would need to fight "Chris Areola" to lift the title

WRITING IN CAPITALS DOES NOT MEAN YOU MAKE MORE SENSE.

Why do you keep talking about "other sports"? What do you mean? Like NFL and snooker?

...what exactly do you think fans want to know when they look at rankings?? Nobody is interested in your notion that Cory Spinks is the "real" #10 light-middle in the world or that "Chris Areola" is the "real" #3 heavyweight. Your rankings are bull****. I haven't decided if your idea is, or not, although this rambling about "other sports" does worry me. I'm scared that you're going to turn out to be one of these guys that tries to compare boxing to tennis, or something.

Your obsession with "consistent success" leads to bad rankings based upon what you have at the moment. Furthermore, you base your rankings partly upon the TBRB rankings. It is preposterous to use our rankings to help describe your own and then pretend you are somehow being mysteriously objective.

And the source of this objectivity? A system that seems almost totally arbitrary in assigning value to wins

A system where your no.3 contender is "worth" twenty-eight thirtieths of your #1 contender will no more work than Boxrec. Mark my words - it is a total waste of your time and it will not successfully describe the boxing divisions to the satisfaction of any neutral observer.

No, it's arrogant to say "This might work in three years, we're not sure, but your rankings aren't very good and what you're doing isn't worth it." That is astonishing arrogance.

OK.

Any chance you could make it somewhere else?

 

You'll get no argument from me on either count - but here it is, nonetheless.

They're not huge, but as you say, ESPN have taken an interest, and we've appeared in media as diverse as The Guardian, Las Vegas Magazine, The New Yorker, The Bleacher Report and others. It's nice, I didn't expect this kind of traction this early if i'm honest.

Teddy is very serious about our rankings; it's nice when people take notice.

 

Used to be the greatest prize in sports...

 

There's another dude posting in this thread who is absolutely sure you are wrong about that. I agree wholeheartedly.