The Transnational Boxing Rankings

You said... "If figher A beats #1, but #2 and #3 are deemed to be more deserving of "keeping" their spots, they will do so."
I accepted that but noted that still... "The TBRB ranks fighter A above the fighter he beat the vast majority of the time, and doing so underrates fighters who've had more consistent success."
You responded with... "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."
So I said..."You don't accept that the TBRB puts a fighter above the fighter he beat the vast majority of the time, so I'll have to find examples from your rankings."
Then now you said "yes I do."
I took what you initially said to mean that the TBRB does not rank a fighter above the fighter he beat. It looks to me like you quite categorically said no to what I said yesterday, then said yes to the same thing today. If you meant that you don't think crediting the most recent fight underrates more consistent fighters, do you want me to find examples in your rankings of underrated consistent fighters?

Speaking of reading comprehension...
I made the disclaimer yesterday that "I'm not asserting that our rankings are accurate or should be accepted right now. I'll only push the specific rankings when (or if) the system proves itself, which could take a full three years. It would've been preferrable to not start from scratch, but I wasn't able to find rankings of 20+ for all divisions from three years ago, nor would making initial rankings by a committe vote for that time be feasible."
Arreola and Mitchell have 1 fight scored, all other heavyweights have 0, of course Arreola's position is going to be artificially high. I gather it's because you don't care enough to try to understand my perspective, but it's you who have several times neglected to read what I've written. The early rankings are not yet reflective of the system's criteria, of course which are based on consistent success. Though ranked fighters were given initial 'handicapped points' to reduce the possibility, because there will be more movement in the initial stages there's a chance a less consistently successful fighter could gain a top-position that would allow him to fight for a vacant championship. I admit that's one of the difficulties of how we started out, maybe we just won't fill vacant championship for three years. Incidentally, with our rankings an inactive fighter will naturally move down the rankings, but not out till he's inactive for a full 24 months. Because championships of course aren't determined by points this fairly gives champions special status.

Though our posted rankings aren't reflective of the system, I'll defend the 154 test rankings I posted as at least very close to what the system would result in. Cory Spinks had a good win over Sechew Powell in January 2012, plus he's given credit for quality of opposition for losing to Bundrage and Molina. I see the initial TBRB rankings from October 2012 not long after Spinks lost to Bundrage have Bundrage number 8 but Spinks unranked. I wonder why Spinks wasn't given credit for the quality of his loss to Bundrage, as it was basically an even fight when he was stopped. Rosado was in the TBRB's initial rankings. That would've been based on beating the same Powell, yet Rosado hadn't otherwise fought the level of opposition Spinks had. You also might have moved Mares lower because he was knocked out in the first round. Crediting the quality of wins is problematic because determining how impressive a win is is impossibly abitrary, as it's affected by personal value and aesthetic, much more so than judging a fight.

Rankings also shouldn't decide if a fighter is shot, as there's similarly no definite point at which a fighter is no longer able to fight at his former level. That's like a sports league assigning a team that's getting worse to the bottom of the standings. Specifically, one loss or even a streak of losses doesn't necessarily indicate that a fighter is shot. Spinks doesn't seem to be able to fight at the level he could two years ago, but I'm not going to say he deserves to be dropped from rankings unless less proven fighters are able to prove themselves by beating someone at Spinks' ranking. With our system, I think a good thing about ranking not being indicative of a fighter's performance from just his last couple fights is you'd likely be able to predict if he'll move up or down. When a fighter's past his prime but still ranked you'd know he'd go down if he continues losing. Existing rankings like the TBRB's kick a fighter out of the rankings after one loss, but then put him back in if he later scores an upset win. With our system a fighter would be able to stay in the rankings till it's truly obvious he no longer deserves a spot. Spinks would move down several positions in the rankings every couple months if he continues to not fight a ranked opponent. Similarly, existing rankings often rank a prospect highly if he scores one decent win, then dump him if he loses and shows he in fact isn't as good as he seemed. Our system wouldn't allow a prospect to be ranked highly till he proves himself against ranked opposition. 154 is in transition the last couple years: older guys are going out, and while younger guys are moving up, they shouldn't get in around top-10 till they've beaten other fighters ranked close to that level. I'm sure you'll put Andrade in the top-10 if he beats Martirosyan, but I don't think that should yet get him there.

Indeed, the NFL and snooker like all sports except boxing both don't attempt to measure ability or who's 'best'. It happens quite often in team sports that one team outplays the other but still loses. That a team who lost is actually 'better' isn't attempted to be accounted for in the standings. The purpose of boxing rankings shouldn't be to tell the fans who's better, but to show who's proven themselves enough to get a chance to fight for the championship. It's actually insulting to think fans need to be told who's 'best'. That should be left for fans and media to debate, as it is for other sports. There shouldn't be a debate however about rankings or standings, and there never is in other sports. Fans and media can still recognise the talent or threat of an opponent who's not highly ranked. I think it says something that people who bet on sports often warn against using rankings or standings to decide who to bet on: because rankings in other sports measure consistent accomplishments, but don't reflect the most recent match or ability that's important when predicting a match. Rankings or standings aren't supposed to reflect ability unless it's proven. Similarly, the quality of wins as they are for other sports should be left for debate but not reflected in boxing rankings. If tennis accepted boxing's understanding of rankings Gilles Simon, who won the last tournament, and Grigor Dimitrov, who's one of the most talented players, would be in the top-10!

I'm very fair to use other sports as examples. What makes boxing so unique? It's interesting that you mentioned the NFL, because they compete in far fewer matches than other team sports and than most sports generally, yet they still don't credit the most recent game more. That boxers compete less doesn't make boxing unique and doesn't make it necessary for rankings to credit the last fight more. The rankings of all other sports value consistent success. That's one of the main aspects that make sport sport and not just performanc art!

I think fair, objective rankings reflective of consistent success in a division are fundamental to boxing reform. But rankings merely based on collective opinions will never be fair, and, again, nor will rankings that don't reflect consistent success. My concern isn't the TBRB but the persistence not just of subjective offical boxing rankings, but of the widely held assumption that fundamentally similar media rankings are a legitimate alternative. I'm making an effort to point this out not for you, but for other readers and supporters of the TBRB. Specifically because, as you pointed out today you're gaining greater acceptance, and that acceptance deserves to be countered. Your effort to establish and recognise single champions has been admirable, but I think the interest people have in that commendable aspect may allow them to accept that opinion-poll rankings that neglect consistent success should continue to dominate boxing. I'm criticising the TBRB because while you're typical of a flawed bunch, you're also the best of them. The alphabet groups and the Ring rankings are beneath criticism. It wouldn't help to point out that they're subjective and unfairly neglect consistency, because I'd only be told the alphabet groups are corrupt and the Ring championship is too lenient. I'd be commenting all over the Ring's site if they didn't compromise their championship policy, and I also make sure to point out the fundamental flaws of other opinion-poll rankings who think theirs should be respected.

I'll get back to you about decisions and a couple other points tomorrow, or even later. I'll warn you that my forthcoming essay will refer to figure skating as a positive model for boxing

 

[yt]?v=8SPIaDGTYgc[/yt]

 

I wouldn't say it's "tortured" so much as "fortuitous." None of us saw it coming, so it isn't like we contorted the charter to suit our own ends like the WBS organizations.

The inactivity clause of the charter calls for the removal of any fighter inactive for one year or more, with a consideration for medical issues. Vitali's hand injury effectively ruled him out for a fight this year and as of early September, his year was up. Injuries are not unusual in his career; he's had problems with his shoulder, both knees, and suffered a slipped disc or two as well. He's had surgery several times. We decided that applying the inactivity clause made perfect sense. Two weeks after we did, he announces that he will very possibly run for Ukraine's presidency.

Haye was #3 and moved up to #2. Of course, Wlad already handled him easily; and we all collectively cringed about that move. I never liked Haye that high to begin with and lamented the Board's original placement but what are you gonna do. Anyway, his move to the critical #2 spot spawned talk of pulling a RING magazine 2002 move to allow #1 vs. #3 (Povetkin!) --and it was nixed out of the gate. We are not in the business of 'crowning as many champions as we can', clarity be damned. We want to provide clarity and have washed our hands of anything stinking like those trick titles. We stand on 1 fighting 2 for vacant thrones with no exceptions.

As you might expect, the decision not to crown Wlad despite his wide recognition as World Champion wasn't easy and we caught some hell about it. We had to defend it early on--
(see: http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/15566-why-wlad-isnt-king).

Haye's injury happened two weeks after we removed Vitali for inactivity. Haye hasn't fought since July 2012 but we kept him in the rankings after the year-mark passed because he had a bout scheduled in September. The latest postponement means that Haye will have at least 19 months of inactivity. That's too much to eat. And recall that Haye just had a postponement in May for an injury before the Charr fight. We decided to apply the inactivity clause there too.

It just so happened that Povetkin was ranked at #4 before Vitali and Haye went inactive. He's now #2.

Again, it's good that it worked like this, but we didn't foresee it or arrange it or push it. It's clean.

 

I wasn't suggesting that TBR had done that, Stonehands. I should probably have used the word TORTUOUS instead of TORTURED (meaning full of twists and turns).

I understand exactly how the face-off between #1 and #2 came about. But this just confirms the arbitrariness of the lineal title in the absence of a true lineal title-holder. (By true lineal, I simply mean the man-who-beat-the-man).

True lineality (linearity) ended with Marciano (for one) and more recently, with Lennox. So then it becomes a question of what methodology we agree to employ to RESTART the line.

If we agree that having #1 and # 2 meet (two somewhat arbitrary items in themselves), then we are on the thresh-hold of restarting the line.

Had it not been for injuries to Haye and Vitali, the Wlad-Pov fight would go ahead without the added significance.

And had Vitali been removed and Haye never cut but instead, defeated Fury to retain #2 spot, while Wlad defeated Povetkin, things would have looked even stranger

You would have Wlad at #1 with victories over both 2 and 3, but not recognized as the champion on account of the timing of his victories.

Again, that element of arbitrariness.



I think that round about now, you can appreciate the difficulties endemic to the enterprise of ranking boxers.:yep


But keep it up. all of you. The TBRs are the closest thing out there at the moment to an unbiased and considered ranking in the sport.

 

In the future, will you actually, if it becomes ever feasible, to create a belt which you will actually award to your champions? Wouldn't it be cool to see the transnational boxing champion belt held by an actual lineal champion?

 

For the record if you did ever make a belt it should be Ketchel's, you know the one im talking about. Listening to your TBRB system i assume you only count Holmes as lineal after his Ali win and credit 12 defenses?

 

Not at all, McGrain.

Aside from half the forum not understanding the "bit of a fanny" bit, I think the flowery language is fully justified in this kind of enterprise, so long as the process and outcomes remain pure and untainted, and to the maximum degree possible, unbiased.

You could have 'virtual' belts and some kind of cyber recognition on the TBR website, complete with life-like avatars and such.

That would be a lot more practical, if less exciting, than the need to be physically present when a belt changed hands.

Let's hope this concept continues to gain momentum and, more importantly, recognition and acclaim.

 

Don't forget that Patterson and Moore were ranked at #1 and #2 when they fought for Marciano's vacant throne in '56. But, yes, it's been stopping and starting at HW since Jeffries retired in 1905.

The only methodology that makes any sense, by my (our) reckoning is #1 vs. #2 by an uncompromised and international group of boxing "experts" (I hate that term, but it's better than "insiders" which sounds like we're part of the problem) applying fair and consistent standards to determine who should be ranked where. I say "consistent" not to bankroll the idea of a single statistician with a computer program applying rankings. That idea ignores the fact that much of a boxing match is determined by the eyes; not to mention that fact that it necessarily validates robberies. "Fair," in other words, requires some subjectivity.

It would have been an embarrassing mess. Let's hope the fight today isn't a robbery or a draw.

I've been reading your posts for a long time and your stamp of approval is no small thing. Thank you.

 

Is it true that a lot of important people in boxing are seeing the TBRB as the best way to determining who the champ in each division is?

 

A group of establishment boxing journalists have managed to convince 'important people' in boxing media that more of the same is a valid 'alternative' to other boxing rankings, surprise surprise.

 

Well, we have a champion... Wlad surely clinched it :yep

 

http://www.wdtprs.com/images/SourGrapesAward.jpg

:good


W have a Lineal HW Champion !