The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Mcgrain it all looks and reads like it's members are all boxing experts and looks very impressive to be honest . imagine then my surprise when I clicked on home a read down the page and very quickly noticed that Ricky burns was described as a Englishman atsch

 

I'm criticising the TBRB for good reason: your rankings are better and more carefully researched than any unofficial rankings, you're a knowledgeable group, and you have good intentions. But they are still fundamentally flawed opinion-poll rankings so aren't qualitatively different and the base of the change boxing needs to be more sport than show business. It comes down to my original point: if who is number 2 rather than 3 is not based on numerical criteria, who can compete for a championship becomes a matter of unresolvable debate, which means championships just can't be authoritative. My other criticisms aren't too unrelated, in that your rules aren't definitive and accountable enough.

Giving more attention to lesser unofficial opinion-poll rankings than the TBRB would suggest I don't think the method's inherently flawed, and would be poor tactics. It's further pointless arguing with the Ring because of course they think even 2 and 5 should determine a championship. The alphabets are beneath criticism, and anyone can come up with rankings better than theirs. I would love it if boxrec's rankings could be supported. But they can't primarily because they're not divisional rankings: their system allows fighters to keep all but a negligible amount of points when they move in weight, which allows Donaire to absurdly be number 1 at 126 and Chavez number 3 at 168.

Despite my experimentation with a ranking system, I'll add that I don't think unofficial rankings can reform boxing or completely clarify championships. Boxing needs fair objective rankings, but a single international governing body needs to replace all promoters, regulating commissions, and rankings bodies so said rankings can actually determine matchups. Till there's true structural change unofficial rankings proclaiming their own greatness divert from and cover up the deeper problems of boxing.

 

I've provided several examples as evidence for how opinion-poll rankings can result in conflicting lineal championship claims. As one, the Cyberboxingzone considered the 2009 Margarito-Mosley fight to be for the vacant championship. They considered Mosley number 2, while the Ring kept Cotto above Mosley and at number 2 after losing to Margarito.

When I suggest that championships were flawed even in the glory days of the 30s to 50s, it's because the NYSAC just "decided" who should compete to fill a vacant championship. As far as I'm aware they didn't have a defined process, and if the best they did was defer to Ring magazine that would've been insufficient as Ring rankings were of course just opinion-poll rankings. Sorry, my criticism cuts that deep: there has NEVER been a fair way of determining championships, official or otherwise.

 

Historians who aren't willing to question the hegemonic assumptions of the past shouldn't be taken seriously...

 

Believe it or not, I've developed my criticism of how championships have been established partially based on what I've learned from a very small number of boxing historians with minority views on the "glory days" of the sport and Ring's rankings before they were even further compromised.

 

I'm afraid I'm not too keen to oblige if you're going to throw insults at me.

 

You were so close to a treasure trove of insight, but you blew your chance.

 

i see crawford is behind abril. in terms of upholding the legitimacy of abrils initial number 2 ranking, i agree but i think crawford beats abril and the odds would reflect that if they were to fight.