The Transnational Boxing Rankings

I suppose it comes down to what's written in the contract as to what titles were on line

 

Remember when I asked what if a fighter ranked in the top #6-10 beat the top 5 fighters? Well, I'd like to ask a similar question. What if, say, Terence Crawford, who is currently ranked #3, beat the #2 fighter, Abril, and then the #1 fighter, Vazquez? Would Crawford then be the lineal lightweight champion?

 

Yes because number 1 vs number 2 would be fighting

I doubt we ever see any of them fight each other. Not fan-friendly enough.

 

To get to why the robbery clause of the TBRB's is a complete joke...

First, deciding some decisions shouldn't count is a horrible slippery slope. Apparently you consider Pacquiao-Bradley 1 and Burns-Beltran robberies, but you didn't recognise that Marquez was robbed just as clearly in the third Pac fight, as was Cunningham against Adamek. A line can't be fairly drawn and some decisions considered robberies. You might as well ignore all decisions and use your own scorecards for every fight. Especially if you want to establish consensus you have to accept official decisions.

More essentially, it's not the business of rankings to try to police the sport by ignoring decisions. Better judging needs to be addressed through better governance and regulation, not through unofficial rankings. In fact disregarding decisions is counterproductive: it suggests that rankings 'fixing' bad decisions is good enough, and judges can get away with it.

 

What 3 judges decide should NOT be taken at face value.

TBR is not sheep that follow !

Credit must be given to TBR :thumbsup

 

You should be intellectually honest. You appear on at least three venues pretending to offer a critique but the fact is, you are on a crusade. Your weird obsession with tearing us down is rooted in your ambition to build up your own system. It's a shame that you can't have a respectful discussion and exchange ideas.

Your system is more flawed than most. It's rooted in the assumption that boxing rankings can be quantitatively and thereby "objectively" presented. That's naïve. To begin with, your random three-year window is random. It's your best judgment, sure, but someone who knows boxing better than you might argue that two years would have made more sense. Or one year, for that matter.

In addition, you are forced to accept judges' decision 100% of the time, despite the fact that judges' decision are unavoidably subjective -and at times, a clear injustice.

Tell me, would you propose boxing adopt a more objective scoring system such as that found in Fencing? You insistence that any vestige of subjective rankings are wrong presupposes that subjective judging must also be wrong. And that leaves your system internally inconsistent.

Your system is rooted in your assumption that boxing rankings should remove all vestiges of subjectivity -which reveals a basic misunderstanding of the sport's practice and reality.

Boxing is not static, it's dynamic. You may not accept that, but it's a fact. There is such a thing as a bad win and a good loss and if you don't know that, you don't know boxing.

What the Transnat'l Rankings are trying to do is to offer a measure of consistency without cancelling out all things subjective. If you read the charter and understood similar efforts in the past you would not only see the flaws (news flash: every system has them) but the obvious improvements.

Your attack on the Robbery Clause is easily countered. You say that we may as well "ignore all decisions" (which is a silly argument) but let's a shine a light on you: You accept all judges decisions 100% of the time. You therefore accept clear injustices without blinking.

Let's look at this plainly. We have a Robbery Clause that has been activated exactly once since our inception -to address the clear injustice that was Pac-Bradley (Burns-Beltran was a draw, and a very bad one at that). It is a modest remedy modestly applied. Over 75% of the Board has to agree that what transpired was egregious enough to justify ranking the official loser over the official winner. Egregious is a high standard -it is beyond "the wrong guy won" and there is plenty of room for disagreement. The Board is not a clique or a club. It is not of "one mind" -the chairs are not of "one mind." That's a myth perpetuated by cement-heads. Hell, I as an individual am not of "one mind" because 40 other guys are capable of changing it.

 

What happens if a reigning lineal champion receives a blatant gift decision?

 

Heads up StoneHands, thought I'd say hello and thank you for your continued work batting away criticism with sound logic and little bravado.

Just for your interest, Ward is receiving metaphorical battering over in the General and British, ha ha, seems like I'm not the only one who thinks a man must remain respectably active to retain sustained credibility.

A good card at Wembley Stadium (a stone's throw from me) coming up, should be fun.

Hope TBRB have one/many eye/eyes on it and the alleged shady British reffing/judging!

 

I suppose a win is a win

 

I wish every critic was like you -reasonable!

Regarding Ward -who knows? You may convince me tomorrow that he is a poorer champion than I think he is today. You have good points.

 

Well, first off, we don't call them "lineal champions." Some members call them True Champions or (The) World Champions.

The Robbery Clause does not apply to the thrones. There's a reason for that. The first reason is practical: We don't pretend to have enough clout to strip a champion -that may change some day but we're not fooling ourselves into thinking that today is that day. It is demonstrably difficult for us to ignore official decisions under the thrones, and we're modest enough not to overstep our perceived authority.

It's also outta respect. The practice of stripping champions has a long and messed up history (how many know that the WBA and the WBC stripped Ali for giving LISTON a rematch?! They were fools outta the gate!). Nigel Collins recognized the problem and the history and said that The Ring would not strip champions back in '01 I think. The new editors aren't so restrained, but we are.

Again, we'd love to see the day when a champion who sits idle for 12 months is handed a warning notice, and we recognize that circumstances may develop that would render us obsolete, but we look forward anyway to an era when boxing makes some damn sense.

If we are instrumental to usher in that era and become a part of real reform, great. If the goals are achieved without us, that's great.

--It ain't like we'd lose money.

We're trying to do what we can with what we have to help that era along. There are only a few characters with acute personality disorders that don't see that.

 

--Two girls! But over here, "guys" now means "guys and gals."