The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Dec 13, 2012.


Page 45 of 123
  1. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    If you are interested in rankings I publish the Independent World Boxing Rankings, we started in 1992 and first published in July 1993. In early 1999 we agreed to licence our ratings to the IBO but in February became independent again. just type the name independentworldboxingrankings then dot com to view them.
     
    FrancescoD, Mar 30, 2014
    FrancescoD, Mar 30, 2014
    #661
  2. Laikaka

    Laikaka Active Member Full Member

    768
    0
    Nov 4, 2008
    From the excellent fightscorecollector :

    This content is protected


    This content is protected



    As Jim Lampley said when Big George Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer to win the Heavyweight Title at 45....IT HAPPENED. Well it did happen as thousands of paying fans and millions of viewers across the world watched as the judges delivered the ROBBERY of 2012 so far when for some reason they scored this fight for Timothy Bradley. The challenger Bradley didn't fight a bad fight , he was just like many before totally in awe of the Pacman's speed and power. It took him a good 8-9 rounds to finally get into the fight and to his credit i think he clearly won the last 3 rounds , all this with a bad ankle injury from earlier in the fight.

    I hope the fight fans don't turn on the Desert Storm as he gave his all and it looked as it would be classed a good effort again the future hall of Famer. Bradley was hurt 3-4 times in the first half of the fight as Pacquiao was able to land that straight left ,mostly at will. Bradley was competitive in these rounds but the champion was landing the harder shots and it looked as if it was just a matter of time before Bradley folded.

    There was many fans and press members who picked Bradley to win because of Pacquiao's last 2 Dull performances vs Mosely and Marquez. Bradley talked the talk before the fight and during the fight he certainly walked the walk especially through those last rounds. After 6 Rounds i had him 60-54 down but as i said he wasn't fighting that bad , its just Pacquiao was BETTER. I gave Bradley the 7th as i felt he matched the champions work rate but this time he landed the better harder punches inside. It was a start. Although many felt he was still miles behind Bradley started slowly to come into the fight.

    The next 2 rounds were quite hard to score a Bradley was probably doing the better work early in the round , Pacquiao though would hit back hard in the last minute landing the telling shots as Bradley would duck for cover , do anything basically to avoid the tornado of punches. I gave these 2 rounds to Pacquiao as i felt he did land the better shots in comparison the jabs and light right hands from Bradley.

    The 10th , 11th and 12th were different though , Bradley boxed nicely on the back foot , Pacquiao seemed to drop his pace a la De La Hoya vs Trinidad.. this would cost him the fight as the judges amazingly had this one close at this stage. When the final bell sounded i was sure that Manny Pacquiao had done more than enough even with taking those last 3 rounds off... BUT the drama was just about to start. The scores were in and Michael Buffer read ....115-113 Pacquiao HMMM that's to close i though , THEN 115-113 Bradley , that's when i thought the ROBBERY was on. There is no way Bradley won 7 rounds in this fight especially by the way he started it. THEN IT HAPPENED.....115-113 to the winner AND NEW.

    Bradley won the fight but i think you will see below that the vast majority of boxing press and fans scored this fight very convincingly for Pacquiao. NOW CHECK THESE STATS OUT along with my scorecard and all the press and fans scores below...

    TOTAL SCORES COLLECTED.....265
    TOTAL SCORES FOR PACMAN...248
    TOTAL SCORES FRO BRADLEY..10
    TOTAL SCORES FOR DRAW.........7

    TOTAL PRESS SCORES....47-1 In favour or Manny Pacquiao

    Fightscorecollectors Scorecard

    Round 1.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 2.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 3.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 4.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 5.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 6.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 7.... 9-10 Bradley
    Round 8.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 9.... 10-9 Pacquiao
    Round 10.. 9-10 Bradley
    Round 11.. 9-10 Bradley
    Round 12.. 9-10 Bradley

    TOTAL: 116-112 MANNY PACQUIAO

    Judges Scores: Jerry Roth : 115-113 Pacquiao
    Duane Ford: 113-115 Bradley
    C.J Ross : 113-115 Bradley

    TIMOTHY BRADLEY WINS BY SPLIT DECISION


    Boxing Press , Fan Forum and Boxing Sites Scores

    Wayne McCulloch (Primetime) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Dougie Fischer (Ring Mag) - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Fighters Rated.com - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Herold Lederman (HBO) - 119-109 Pacquiao

    Michael Woods (Thesweetscience) - 119-109 Pacquiao

    Leave It In The Ring Boxing Radio - 117-111 Pacquiao

    ProBoxing-Fans Jake - 117-111 Pacquiao

    *****.net - 118-110 Pacquiao

    BoxingSocialist - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Steve Kim (Maxboxing) - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Dan Rafael (ESPN) - 119-109 Pacquiao

    Scott Christ (BadLeftHook) - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Kevin Iole (Yahoo) - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Michael Rosenthal (Ring Mag) - 118-111 Pacquiao

    Jake Donovan (***********) - 115-113 Pacquiao

    Skip Bayliss (ESPN) - 119-109 Pacquiao

    Joel Sebastionelli (LIITR Box Radio) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Danny Flexen ( Boxing News) - 115-113 BRADLEY

    Michael Nelson (Cruelest Sport) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Tom Gray (secondsout.com) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Denzil Stome (Onthebeak.com) - 118-110 Pacquiao

    Terry Dooley (***********) - 115-113 Pacquiao

    Paddy Cronan (Onthegrindboxingradio ) - 118-110 Pacquiao

    Suge Green (Onthegrindboxingradio) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Steve Zemach (QueensburyRules.com) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Gabriel Montoya (Maxboxing) - 118-110 Pacquiao

    Ryan Burton (Theboxinglab Radio) - 117-112 Pacquiao

    Ricky Hatton (Primetime) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Associated Press - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Orlando Sentinel - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Ben Thompson (Fighthype) 116-112 Pacquiao

    NY Daily News - 116-112 Pacquiao

    LA Times - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Daily Buletin (Robert Morales) - 116-112 Pacquiao

    Ron Borges - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Michael Marley - 119-109 Pacquiao

    Kieran Mulvaney (ESPN) - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Steve Lillis (Boxnation) - 118-111 Pacquiao

    Nigel Collins (ESPN) - 118-110 Pacquiao

    No Holds Barred.com - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Tommy Gunn (Boxing Asylum) - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Steve Bunce (Boxnation/primetime) 116-112 Pacquiao

    P4P.com (Brett Newton) - 118-110 Pacquiao

    Ron Lewis - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Gareth A Davies - 117-111 Pacquiao

    Mike Coppinger - 118-110 Pacquiao

    Rob Day (Ringnews24) - 117-112 Pacquiao

    Saddo Boxing Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 117-111 x6 , 119-109 x3 , 116-112 x2 , 118-110 x2
    115-113
    (all for Bradley) *115-113 x4* , *115-114*

    BoxingAsylum Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 118-110 x4 , 115-113 x3 , 117-111 x2 , 116-112 ,
    120-108 **114-114**

    Livefight Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 116-112 x5 , 115-113 x5 , 118-110 x2 , 117-111 , **114-114**

    Fighthype Forum - (all fo Pacquiao) 117-111 x3 , 116-112 x2 , 115-113 , 118-110
    ( for Bradley)* 115-113 x2 *

    Fightjudge Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 115-113 x6 , 118-110 x2 , 116-112 x2 , 117-111 x4

    Ringnews24 Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 116-112 x4 ,117-111 x3 ,117-112 x2 , 115-113, **115-115**

    Doghouseboxing Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 116-112 x4 , 118-110 , 115-113 , **114-114**
    ( for Bradley) *117-111*

    Thesweetscience Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 118-110 x2 , 116-112

    Boxrec Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 116-112 x9 , 115-113 x7 , 118-110 x6 , 119-109 x5 , 118-112
    117-112 , 115-114 , 117-111

    Eastsideboxing Forum (all for Pacquiao) 116-112 x15 , 117-111 x12 , 115-113 x15 , 119-109 x2 ,
    116-113 , 118-110 x2 , 120-108 , 115-114 , **114-114**x4
    (all for Bradley) *116-113* , *115-113*

    *********** Forum - (all for Pacquiao) 116-112 x11 , 117-111 x9 , 118-110 x7 , 119-109 x3
    115-113 x3 , 117-112 , **114-114** x3


    People....glass houses....stones
     
    Laikaka, Mar 31, 2014
    Laikaka, Mar 31, 2014
    #662
  3. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    Is it really?

    Ok, lets recap the conversation up until this point.
    So where would you like to begin?

    You claim that the TBRB was necessary due to "infirmity in the Ring's rankings". The TBRB was formed in 2012, correct? Yet you admit that the "Ring's rankings are the best available between the years of 1924 and 2013". If that's true then why was the TBRB created in 2012?

    I'd love to hear your explanation...
     
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    #663
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,902
    45,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    Explanation for what?? I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Sorry. You are making literally no sense to me. You seem very upset and your posts are days apart: i'm beginning to think you come in here to rant when you are drinking.

    What exactly is it you are upset about. Try to explain, SIMPLY, what your problem is, and I will try to address it. If it is the "1924 to 2013" remark, I will redress it to "1924 to 2012". Is that it?
     
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    #664
  5. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    The inconsistencies in your story.


    I find your Red Herrings and Strawman arguments to be mildly amusing but they are also EPIC FAIL...


    Please see my comment above.



    My "problem" is the inconsistencies in your logic.


    Your story is about as "straight" as an S curve.

    Now, shall we deal with the issue of Pacquiao's alleged #1 ranking @ 147?
     
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    #665
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,902
    45,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    There IS no inconsistency in my "story", apart from I said "2013" instead of "2012" about a page back.

    What do you mean?


    The only EPIC FAIL (are you nine?) is that you consistently refuse to explain yourself. I ask: what's wrong? You go on a mad rant that makes no sense to me. Even if i'm the idiot, talk down to me. Make yourself understood.

    WHAT inconsistencies? Please point them out. So far all you've "pointed out" is that I said 2013 and should have said 2012.

    What, the detailed explanation I offered pages back that you have since ignored in favour of total madness? But there is nothing "alleged" about it. What a strange choice of words you make, really.

    Yes, sure. But might I suggest you just state clearly and simply what it is you want to say instead of quoting 15 different isolated sections and saying "INCONSISTENT. EPIC FAIL."
     
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    #666
  7. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    You have just answered your own question.



    And I answer the same way whenever you ask this question. The problem here is the inconsistencies in your story and in your logic.



    Red Herring. Lets not use logical fallacies in our debate, ok?


    I see. So the fact that I've pointed out so far only one inconsistency in your story means that I should disregard the one inconsistency in your story that I've pointed out so far?

    Is that what you're trying sell?



    Pardon me but I don't recall ANY "detailed explanation" on your part for Pacquiao's #1 ranking @ 147. Please refresh my memory.


    We'll see...
     
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    #667
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,902
    45,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    Right. So that was it? So ALL this whining and shouting is about my writing "2013" instead of "2012"? And now i've said, "I should have written 2013 not 2012", do you feel better? I presume, from your answers, that you feel this was the only "inconsistency in my story"? Because it's not a big one, is it?


    Yes, but you've so far "revealed" just one inconsistency in my logic - the writing of 2012 instead of 2013 :lol: And we've since cleared it up. So, again: what's wrong?

    What debate!? There IS no debate! The debate is you having a kiniption fit about a typo/error. Which has since been acknoweldged and corrected. What debate??

    Furthermore, how can "i don't understand you" be a "red herring"? Like a lie? I don't understand you. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SO UPSET ABOUT. And post after post, you just aren't explaining. Unless it really is just the 12/13 thing in which case, sorted.

    I'm inviting you to explain your problem. I've done so several times now, and i'm saying the 12/13 thing doesn't matter. Or wouldn't to a normal person :lol:



    Sure:

    IN the February 2009 issue of Ring magazine, Floyd Mayweather was unrated. This is because he had not had a fight since the end of 2007. This is reasonable.

    In September of 2009, he beat Juan Manuel Marquez. Marquez was unranked at 147lbs.

    Ring responded by moving Mayweather to #3 at welterweight. That is, Mayweather beat a completely unranked welterweight and was immediately rewarded with a top three ranking.

    What is wrong with any of that??


    You are going completely insane - accusing us of corruption, complicity, accepting bribes and incompetence because - not us - but Ring Magazine, very, very, very reasonably installed Floyd Mayweather at #3 at welterweight after his beating an opponent who fought exclusively at 135lbs. He went from

    #1
    Unranked Because he doesn't fight.
    #3 because he beat a blown up lightweight

    This makes sense. I don't say it's perfect - I think it depends how you feel about X and Y - I think it's debatable. But you are behaving like it's a hammer lock.




    No we won't "SEE" you ****ing looney, something is not "alleged" if it is absolutely true. It is in print, it is a part of history, it is an incontrovertible undeniable absolutely true inarguable fact that Ring ranked Pacquiao #1.

    It can't be "alleged" if it's a fact. YOU are the person trying to allege something, namely that the ranking is indefensible (I think).
     
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    #668
  9. gary j. stout

    gary j. stout New Member Full Member

    80
    0
    Mar 29, 2014
    well guys, what do think does upcoming fight change the ranking, or Mayweather will retain it?
     
    gary j. stout, Mar 31, 2014
    gary j. stout, Mar 31, 2014
    #669
  10. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    Not even close.




    Do you know what a "Red Herring" is?



    I ask you to refresh my memory on your "detailed explanation" of Pacquiao's alleged #1 ranking @ 147 and you go on about Floyd Mayweather? Lol. WTF does Floyd Mayweather have to do with Manny Pacquaio?

    So, for the second time, I ask that you refresh my memory about your "detailed explanation" on Manny Pacquiao's alleged #1 ranking @ 147.




    If the Ring's rankings are the absolute gospel then why was the TBRB formed in the first place? Oh yeah, I remember why;
    Does it hurt when you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot?

    Lol...
     
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    #670
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,902
    45,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    WHAT. ARE. THEY?

    Good with chips?


    Your OBJECTION to Mayweather-Mosley NOT being for the linear championship is that he should have been ranked either at #1 or at #2. Here i've explained to you why he could REASONABLY be ranked below Pacquiao. I have no problem at all with your not wanting Pacquiao at #1 - i could care less. What I am explaining to you is why Mayweather is NOT a lock for the #1 or #2 spot. That is the pertinent point.

    I will give a very short explanation for why he should be ranked above Mayweather at the weight - he had done more than Mayweather in that division recent to that time.

    In other words - there is no reason why Mosley-Mayweather HAS to be for the linear title. It is reasonable for Pacquiao to be ranked above him. Whether that's at one, two, or five, I don't care.


    Who said Ring's ranking "were gospel"? I said that they are the best rankings that exist between the 1920s and 2013 (later amended to 2012 :lol:). This is absolutely true, inarguably so, and despite your desperate attempt to create controversy surrounding this statement you have failed utterly and miserably to do so. You are coming across, literally, as a crazy person.

    You have so little grasp of what is happening in this thread that explaining it to you may be beyond me.
     
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    #671
  12. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    Again, what does Floyd Mayweather have to do with Manny Pacquiao's alleged #1 ranking @ 147? You were supposed to provide a "detailed explanation" of Pacquiao's #1 ranking @ the weight. So far, you've done nothing other than shuck, jive, duck and dodge the question.

    So, for the THIRD time, I ask that you refresh my memory about your "detailed explanation" on Manny Pacquiao's alleged #1 ranking @ 147.
     
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    #672
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,902
    45,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    Liston to me carefully: I don't care if he ranks at 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. My "detailed explanation, for the second time, is of why it is reasonable to rank Mayweather below Pacquiao:

    Pacquiao had done more than Mayweather in the division recent to that ranking.

    If you are asking me to explain HOW Pacquiao came to be ranked #1 at the time of Mosley-Mayweather, he beat: Oscar De La Hoya, Miguel Cotto and Joshua Clottey (though he was ranked #1 going into Clottey).

    During the same period, Mayweather beat: The unranked Juan Manuel Marquez.

    So, it was reasonable to rank Mosley and Pacquiao ahead of Mayweather, precluding Mayweather from establishing new lineage.

    I am explaining Mayweather's status, because Mayweather's status and how it relates to Pacquiao is the defining factor as to whether or not Mayweather-Mosley should have been for the title real, which is your point (i think).
     
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    #673
  14. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    Now you're shifting the goal posts.

    I ask point blank for you to explain the reasoning behind Pacquiao's #1 ranking @ 147. You then proceed to answer the question by explaining the reasoning behind Mayweather's lower ranking. The two have *nothing* to do with each other. This is another gaping hole in your "logic". Maywheather's ranking and Pacquiao's ranking are *mutually exclusive*. IOW, they have *nothing* to do with each other.

    1 + 1 = 2



    Maywheather's ranking and Pacquiao's ranking are *mutually exclusive* and the inference that Pacquiao had done more than Mayweather does not come anywhere close to answering the original question. Again, your logic is on EPIC FAIL status.


    LMMFAO.

    And thank you for finally answering the question I've been asking from the very beginning.

    Oscar was unranked @ 147 [same as the Marquez whom Floyd fought]
    Cotto had just been beaten into submission by Antonio Margarito

    So, using your twisted logic, beating a guy who is unranked @ the weight and beating another guy who had just been brutally KO'ed is enough to earn a #1 ranking @ 147? Is that what you're trying to sell?

    If so then might I suggest you leave the heroin alone.

    Infirmity with the Ring's rankings is an understatement - and yet you defend this foolishness tooth and nail. This is why I have a hard time taking you and your rankings seriously. Ranking Pacquaio #1 @ 147 based on the accomplishments above is a J O K E.



    More Red Herrings. What does Mosley or Mayweather have to do with ranking Pacquiao #1 @ 147?


    Maywheather's ranking and Pacquiao's ranking are *mutually exclusive* and the inference that Pacquiao had done more than Mayweather does not come anywhere close to answering the original question. Again, your logic is on EPIC FAIL status.
     
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    Nay_Sayer, Mar 31, 2014
    #674
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    111,902
    45,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    No, I am explaining why Mayweather-Mosley wasn't considered for the linear title.

    Then I provided you with this explanation:

    "If you are asking me to explain HOW Pacquiao came to be ranked #1 at the time of Mosley-Mayweather, he beat: Oscar De La Hoya, Miguel Cotto and Joshua Clottey (though he was ranked #1 going into Clottey)."

    Incorrect. It is explained above, you've just ignored it.

    They are bound together by concrete in understanding why Mosley-Mayweather wasn't for the title.

    I can only point out to you that the explanation as to how Pacquiao came to be ranked at #1 by Ring has been provided and that you are, inexplicably, pretending that this did not happen:

    "If you are asking me to explain HOW Pacquiao came to be ranked #1 at the time of Mosley-Mayweather, he beat: Oscar De La Hoya, Miguel Cotto and Joshua Clottey (though he was ranked #1 going into Clottey)."

    No, totally incorrect. This is not MY logic.

    I am not defending the Ring's ranking of Manny Pacquiao. You asked me to explain how he came to be ranked by Ring, and that is exactly what I have done. You are so desperate, each of your posts reeks of desperation.

    No, I don't. You are completely wrong. You are either an idiot, or pretending not to understand this.

    Listen carefully.

    IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER RING RANKING PACQUIAO #1 WAS REASONABLE. ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER RING RANKING MAYWEATHER OUTSIDE THE TOP TWO IS REASONABLE.

    It is, that is where my part of "defending" their ranking ends. It is YOU that continues to move the goalposts. I don't care, AGAIN, where Pacquiao is ranked, if it is reasonable - i only care if he can REASONABLY be ranked above Mayweather. He can.

    I don't give a **** what you take seriously. You're an idiot. You're a drunk, or have a learning difficulty. I 'm not attacking you for having a learning difficulty, i'm just saying - I can't care about what drunks or mentally disturbed people think about these rankings.

    Fine. Yawn. Of no relevance to the discussion at hand, hasn't been at any time.

    Nothing.

    What does Pacquiao ranking at #1 have to do with a new lineage being begun?

    PACQUIAO'S RANKING IS OF NO RELEVANCE TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT LINEAGE. TBRB HAVE NO INTEREST IN HIS RANKING AT THIS TIME. WE DO NOT ENDORSE IT. WE DO NOT DISMISS IT. IT IS OF NO INTEREST TO US, WHATSOEVER. WE HAVE NO POSITION ON IT. IT IS OF NO RELEVANCE. Please, please try to absorb this before one of us dies.


    You are completely wrong, obviously. It is obvious to a child that who is
    #2, #3, or #1 affects who is #1, #2 or #3. More evidence of your stupidity or drunkeness, or learning difficulty.
     
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    McGrain, Mar 31, 2014
    #675
Page 45 of 123