The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Nope, objective rankings based strictly on accomplishments don't assume bouts themselves shouldn't be subjectively scored. Amateur boxing was wrong and damaged itself when it scored bouts as mere bean counting. Boxing indeed doesn't have the narrow focus of fencing so can't be numerically scored. The subjective intangibles of technique, strategy, creativity of course matter. It's irrelevant and ridiculous to charge that I 'reduce boxing to numbers'.

I'm making the point that if boxing's to be appreciated as a competitive sport rather than only a series of disconnected spectacles rankings have to respect simply whose hand was raised. Not ability, potential, impressiveness, or who you think really won. Boxing isn't as inherently unique as you insist. Figure skating is more subjectively judged, but the verdicts of its judges are still respected in its rankings. Of course there are lesser wins and better losses in boxing: as there are lesser wins and better losses in every other sport, but winning is rewarded in rankings or standings, end of.

I'm intellectually honest enough to be under no illusion that unofficial rankings can 'reform boxing'. In fact it's become clearer to me that no rankings much less numeric rankings can 'work' in current pro boxing: boxing is run by competing promotional interests so basically based on mismatches, rather than on fair competition. The most accomplished fighters rarely fight each other. You'd be saying it doesn't work that a football team earns 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie if football teams picked their opposition game by game! I completely support AIBA's aspirations to govern pro boxing in its entirety, with a fair matchmaking structure based on accomplishments.

Given the state of boxing matchmaking, you accept that ability or potential should 'supplement' accomplishments in rankings. But that subjectivity prevents a consensus from being established. Rankings shouldn't be 'up for debate'. 'Better' fighters shouldn't get a bye in rankings till they prove their worth by beating more proven fighters. With the opinion-poll method holding sway, we merely have dozens of media and websites each shouting they're the best.

I think it's important to offer a guide of purely the most accomplished fighters in a division, even if skewed matchmaking means one or two fighters aren't as high as some people want them to be. The system I started is an attempt to do that. I gather you're implying the essentially only chosen value of the three-year period of our system is too long, but there are indeed fighters still in the TBRB rankings largely based on wins more than three years ago. I can elaborate more about three years vs two if you insist, but less than two is definitely not reflective of proven current level. But at least it's the same for every fighter. Rankings like yours sometimes arbitrarily assume a fighter's no longer relevant and remove him, only for him to prove you wrong and get a big win.

Oh I've read your charter and compared it with the method of other opinion-poll rankings, and yours isn't substantially different. You don't have clearly defined or applied rules! You have mere 'rules of thumb' which are made to and have been bent. It doesn't matter that your 'robbery clause' is rarely used. You don't get to decide who won! It's what you call your 'flexibility' to impose personal whims that leaves the TBRB open to promotional influence and corruption at worst, and at best suggests that boxing only needs another power broker. Subjective rankings permit and entrench the fractured promotional structure of boxing.

I'm not on a crusade to offer 'my rankings'. I only want to show that rankings should not be 'evaluative'. I would prefer people come away from looking at our rankings convinced that boxing's so messed up that rankings are pointless than convinced of their super-awesomeness. It's the TBRB that's on the 'crusade', with your refusal to question your method, and glowing press releases about how your rankings will save championships.

 

It's at the discretion of the two division champion if he wishes to put a second belt on the line. Henry Armstrong was the reigning WW champion when he defeated Lou Ambers for the LW title and retained control of the 147 championship after he dropped the decision in the rematch.

There's historical precedent for Dawson to keep the initial title; especially since he was the one coming down in weight to meet Ward for the second strap. And he was well within his rights to do so, just as Hank was back in the 30's.

 

Translation: David willingly counts an egregiously corrupt or inept decision that benefits the wrong fighter as an "accomplishment."

You call your system "a numerical ranking system." You are at war with the idea of opinion, despite the fact that your rankings totally rely on three opinions.

As a matter of fact, you're doing worse than reducing boxing to numbers -you're reducing boxing to "results." --As if boxing's results can be consistently counted on and are always on the level.

Explain what, under your result-focused system, the difference is between watching a fight and not watching a fight:

Your words:
"The only indisputably objective facts are: 1) the date, 2) the weights, and 3) whose hand was raised, and those are the simple, neutral criteria used for this system."

Gee, I read this and wonder why Jimmy Cannon ever called boxing "the red-light district of sports."

I'm beginning to wonder what, if any, experience you have in boxing. In fact, why don't you come out from behind the curtain? Who are you?

You read the charter? Read more carefully. That part says "This enterprise was founded upon principles related to the reform of boxing." Get it straight -we want to -help- reform boxing.

And I think you are dishonest. We are not in the business of overturning official decisions whenever we feel like it. There is no "we" in that sense and the standard demanded by the clause in question is far higher than you are willing to admit because of your petty little crusade.

And if the AIBA ever do take over and reform the sport from top to bottom, I wouldn't be surprised if the Transnatl' Rankings Board throws its support in that direction and disbands.

We do not base rankings on hypotheticals. We base them what was done and how it was done. Which means we watch the fights, know what we're looking at, and aren't naïve enough to blindly accept robberies like you do -because the plain fact is, boxing is not near reform because it is not near being subsumed under authoritative oversight.

As to your last point, there will always be competing rankings, David. The question is which will be recognized as the authoritative one. This will be how it is until the general reform that Jack Dempsey was talking about way back when, comes into existence and reforms the sport from the top down.

You missed the point. The point was that your three-year mark is subjective. Again, someone more informed than you may argue that two years would be better and if it is, you got a problem, don't you.

We accept some subjectivity as reflective of the spirit and the reality of the sport.

We don't remove fighters for "irrelevance." Fighters can be bumped out, they can lose big and drop out, they can not fight for a year and get moved out for inactivity, they can change divisions and get moved out. If such a fighter comes roaring back and stops a top contender, he earns his way back in.

-Your dizzy system puts more emphasis on the previous three-years than it does on who he just beat. That means that Fighter B can KO fighter A and find himself still behind that fighter. That's kooky. You have Porter ranked at #13 underneath Devon Alexander! I hope you're a praying man, David, because no boxing fan in his/her right mind is gonna buy nonsense like that.

Nonsense. Not only that, but the nonsense is starting to sound familiar. The whole initiative is based on it being an effort by volunteers with no compromising connections to promoters. It isn't for sale.

Crying corruption at something that clearly proclaims otherwise is the mark of an irrational cynic who sees a bogeyman in every closet.

Ah. You just showed your hand; or more to the point, just showed Paul Magno's hand. Are you getting talking points from him? Now don't lie, because I'll know.

And who, pray tell, is the "we" you are talking about?

 

- I'm not reducing 'boxing' to results, I'm only reducing rankings to results. I've said the purpose of boxing rankings like any sports rankings isn't to evaluate the impressiveness of performances. It's unverifiable and becomes arbitrary to decide a win was more or less impressive. Mayweather beat Maidana, it's irrelevant to rankings how he did it or if you saw him do it.

- Allowing a fighter to crack the rankings without beating a proven fighter (Wilder being an obvious example) is allowing hypothetical potential to contribute to rankings.

- So only you get to use ironic quotation marks? I know you WANT to reform boxing with the TBRB, but I'm saying your desire to help is misguided and unoffical rankings can't reform boxing. And I'm not saying you have compromising connections or even assuming you will, just that the method is open to influence and corruption.

- Bumping a fighter out of the rankings is deeming him less relevant relative to other ranked fighters. It happens pretty often as fighters are less active against top opposition. The set period in our system makes when a fighter's bumped consistent for all fighters, rather than removing a fighter then 'changing our mind' if he gets another win. I'm not going to dig up examples from your rankings on demand.

- Sure, the three years of our system is subjective. So is that a sports league determines teams have to play x amount of games before they prove their level of accomplishment over a season. Or that the lightweight limit is 135 lbs. Broadly subjective decisions are made towards fairness. At least it's set as the same for every fighter.

- I support AIBA's APB because if it can manage to govern boxing in its entirety it's not merely a stop-gap measure. Boxing needs revolution, not reform.

- My point has always been that rankings can't gain the authority you desire if they're subjective and easily open to dispute.

- I had a handful of amateur bouts long ago but I'm not actively involved in boxing, and don't really know what you're getting at. I've been watching boxing for almost 20 years and I have a political consience. I don't think your status as credentialed media members makes you privileged experts.

- Sure I've read Paul Magno's criticism of rankings and the TBRB specifically, and respect him as one of the few independent journalists in boxing. I chatted with him briefly a while ago, but don't plot strategies or anything with him. So what if the last clause I threw in was picked up from his writing.

- Two other people are involved in the ranking system, it's not just mine.

 

As ALL rankings contain some degree of subjectivity, both in terms of their operational criteria and in terms of the the application of those criteria, your point is equivalent to saying that no ranking system can garner significant authority or widely accepted credibility.

Yet, you have belied your point by proposing an alternative ranking system of your own.

So we are left with the 'subjective' judgment as to which system, yours or TNBR's, appears more suitable to its task and purpose, and appeals more to our sense of fairness.



Hmm...

That's a difficult choice.

 

We should be able to verify and point to how every move in rankings occurs if rankings are to gain wide credibility. We can't with pure opinion-poll rankings like the TBRB's.

The subjective operational criteria we value in our system is a three-year period, and that fighters should be credited on a sliding-scale for the level of ranked contender they beat at the weight. Disagree with this if you like, but the application of it is completely objective. The rankings themselves aren't subjective. Unlike the TBRB, who are neither objective in criteria or application.

Rankings that can't show that Malignaggi's 'great form' was a mirage considering his recent level of opposition aren't credible. Or that rank Wilder or Shumenov in the top 10 despite not beating close to a top 10 opponent. With our system, every ranked fighter beat (or drew with) a fighter who beat (or drew with) a ranked fighter, all the way to 1997.

 

Jeez! Talk about a bee-in-the-bonnet! You really are in for some criticism here.......this thread is people having mad pot-shots for little to no reason! I suppose it's an unfortunate by-product of being on an internet forum where anyone can input/whinge.

Anyway, thanks for your reply post, I just wanted to say that I don't consider Ward to be anywhere close to a 'poor' champion (I realise you say he may just be "poorer" than you think currently) just an embarrassingly inactive one (perhaps not his choice). I liked the analogy between boxing and soccer/NFL etc etc: You must compete every season to be considered the current champion. I feel Andre is coasting on previous 'season's' achievements a bit, only in terms of his widely perceived p4p glory.

He's a worthy champ with a bag load of skill, just needs to get out there and rep boxing! It's not just the winning, it's the taking part ha ha ha.......

 

In your opinion......

Let's not get carried away here qwerty, life's not perfect but there are possibly 1001 things in boxing in general that should be under scrutiny before TBRB and their oh-so-unfair views/efforts.

 

It's not just my opinion that their rankings aren't objective. They readily accept their rankings aren't objective, and only claim theirs should be the most authoritative because they're based on 'strict reasoning and common sense'.

 

Ring magazine does not even have Mauricio Herrera in the top 10 at 140 after the Garcia fight:-(

 

Adamek still in the top 10 ?

 

Many have questioned why Armstrong's title was not on the line. Amber's won the lineal welterweight championship that night. Armstrong would gain the linear title back when he defeated Jenkins.

A world championship is on the line if both fighters are at or under the recognized weight limit.

Rules matter, especially this one.

 

So. Fu¢king. What.

Picking holes in their charter (which is a positive forward movement supposed to catalyse and galvanise boxing supporters/enthusiasts) is just........well.........get the fu¢k over yourself basically. Turn your whining into something constructive ffs.

You're being destructive, not constructive, please turn it in already.:thumbsup

 

That tears it. You are saying that those three mystery-men behind the best ratings system have no obligation to watch fights. Watching fights is "irrelevant" when it comes to ranking fighters--!

The value of "how" a fighter wins being worth something or worth nothing is arguable. Hell, calling boxing "a sport" is arguable. It's a fight, man, damn. It isn't bocce or tennis or anything else that has to do with putting a ball in a designated area. There's more at stake in the ring and you're damn right performances -even losing ones- can and sometimes should matter.

Mayweather-Maidana is yet another example of why your rigid system can serve to harm deserving boxers. Maidana's loss was a good loss and that isn't me pulling something out of thin air. And guess what- statistics point squarely toward that: Maidana's total punches and total connected on Floyd beat Castillo's record. So about 22 members wanted Maidana to rise one spot in the rankings on the basis of a "good loss" and so he did. That is perfectly defensible and you know it -Maidana was extremely competitive against the top WW in the world and the consensus-top P4P in the world -and what does he get for it in your system? Nothing! Worse yet, if the fighter above him got a gift decision, Maidana can't move up over him. You don't see a problem with that?

Listen -I'm a systems guy. My ATG, P4P Top 30 list has numerical criteria. But your system is rigid here and senseless there. It would be the font of far more injustices than ours.

And we are more objective than any other system this side of computer-generated ratings -we believe in a good amount of objectivity- but not at the expense of sound judgment and fairness. We're balanced between the WBS and their whimsical fantasies and you and your oddball attempt to digitalize a blood sport.

What's a "proven" fighter? "Proven" is a subjective term unless you conceptualize it. Does it mean "contender"? So what do you do if there are only 8 or 9 guys who beat or drew with a contender -have a "top ten minus two" --?

"Misguided"? "Can't reform boxing"? Says who? You? You have zero credibility to make that statement because you have a clear motive to down us -a motive you have made very plain already.

--I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand how rankings work in the real world.

You have no inactivity clause? A fighter can fight and beat the top contender and then sit around idle for three years and conceivably remain in the top ten?

Castles in the sky. I agree that it needs a revolution but you won't catch me standing alone on a hill like a dope waiting for a cavalry that ain't coming.

Revolutions happen over time. Without credible rankings to offer guidance as to what's what and who's who, boxing is, in my opinion, almost meaningless. Offering what we are offering is a good first step to help foster or at least spark some change.

You and a few other critics think the Transnatl' Rankings are utterly corrupt or totally counter-productive, which is ridiculous on its face and makes you look petty and jealous. Don't dispute that -you are on record as saying that you will try to tear us down to build up your thing. And guess what -that's petty jealousy.

By all means, lob your criticisms. You've been met and raised every step of the way on at least two or three forums, I'd only ask that you be civil. Coming out and calling something we're trying to do "a joke" invites badness right back at you.

You betray your ignorance of boxing history here. The Ring had very strong credibility for decades and they were far more subjective than ours. They were often done via the whims of one man. And even today the WBC's ratings are quoted on all the major networks all over the world. If you don't see our thing as a significant improvement on those, then I don't know what to tell you.

And come on -"open to dispute"-? You have Porter ranked under Alexander. That looks like a meth-head broke into your computer.

My point was simply this: you come on these forums with your weird name and your long redundant essays and your handful of rocks that feel like pillows, but who are you? What chops do you have?

Think for yourself. Whoever said or emailed or whispered to your "political conscience" that we don't question our method -lied. We have taken feedback from others and have made some changes based on criticisms and will continue to.

Finally, the names and brief bios of every member is posted at TBRB.org. You know who I am, as does probably most everyone on this site. Now it's your turn. You have chosen to spark a crusade on our coattails and you have admitted your intention to usurp whatever momentum you think we have. But you cannot do it from behind a curtain.

I asked you who the "we" is behind your system. That means your name and the names of the other people involved. See, if you wanted to stay private, you shouldn't have gone public; and if you are going to troll the internet universe throwing rocks at us, you shouldn't be a coward about it.

So come on out, the water isn't fine but it's too late to go back to the beach house now.

 

Maidana was in fact rewarded in our system and moved up to number 7 after losing to Mayweather in a currently pretty wide open division. Every loss of a ranked fighter to a ranked opponent is rewarded: after a fighter gets in the rankings with a win the 'subjective value' is he's proven he deserves top fights and, for the next three years, should be credited somewhat for a loss to a ranked opponent. We only don't acknowledge a 'degree' of losses beyond opponent rank, as determining that is unverifiable and so subject to personal perspective that it's impossible and dangerous. The degree of a win or loss should be left for media and fans to debate, not rankings.

By proven I meant a ranked contender. A fighter should have to beat a ranked opponent to earn a ranking. Indeed the number of ranked fighters can reduce in our system if less than the number of ranked fighters beat ranked opponents over three years. That's why the top-30 has gone as low as below 20 and is currently at 22. It's the TBRB that doesn't adequately reward deserving boxers, and when you think you do you have no way to show it. Shumenov didn't beat anyone to deserve a ranking.

We do have an inactivity rule: it's a full two years, but it applies to every division and for champions. And unlike what can be a vague criteria of having a fight 'announced', we go by the exact dates between bouts. Additionally, inactivity is naturally punished relative to the activity of other ranked fighters. Obviously you didn't take more than a glance at how the system works.

There is zero objectivity at the TBRB. Every point of your rules is predicated with an 'if', 'maybe', or 'not necessarily', nothing's categorical. You aren't objective if you're only somewhat or sometimes objective. How a fighter moves up, down, or out of the rankings is accounted for by nothing more than a vote. There's no reason a voting member couldn't rank boxers according to trunk colour.

Your robbery clause is actually beside the point. You've said it was invoked for Pac-Bradley, but the TBRB didn't exist yet then. It's further misleading to claim it's a unique selling point when the principle of it is embedded in your acceptance that impressiveness of performances should impact ranking: Beltran was rewarded for drawing with Burns, likely as much as he would have been had you voted it a robbery. Further, you don't have a set procedure for what occurs when a fight is deemed a robbery. Only in rankings in which the winner is always rewarded in a set way could ignoring a decision make a significant difference.

The assumptive credibility that's been given to Ring's rankings by those clouded by the norms of boxing tradition is a major reason better alternatives haven't been proposed much less gained traction. Despite that boxing skill, depth of talent, and cultural significance was so much greater in the 30s to 60s, especially in the States, there's never been a 'golden era' in terms of championships or rankings. When single championships were generally recognised the NYSAC just 'decided' what bout should fill a vacant championship. They didn't have a defined process, they didn't go by rankings. Single championships only held credibility because their status generally wasn't challenged, not because of the fairness of how they were decided. If fair, objective rankings were established and used to determine championships challenges to single championships likely wouldn't have arisen when they did. The Ring merely continued this process. As you mentioned, their rankings were largely simply the list of a single editor. Not just the alphabets but unofficial rankings like the Ring's have upheld the tradition of barely qualified subjective appointments as rankings, but haven't understood how rankings work in proper sport and should and could work in boxing. The past isn't a model for change in boxing. The problem with the TBRB is you accept how rankings have always worked in the messed up 'real world' of boxing. You're aspiring to be better than the WBC and as good as the Ring was last year, woopdy-doo. Maybe that can gain a measure of 'authority' through making friends and influencing people, but the lack of transparency, consistency, and objectivity won't produce rankings whose credibility speaks for themselves.

My original critical point was that if it's left to opinion-based rankings to establish vacant championships it can't be clear who's number 1 and 2 are and deserve to compete for a vacant championship. That's not something Paul Magno mentioned in his criticisms about rankings I was already familiar with. It was that additional aspect I wanted to stress, to show that lineal championship claims can by highly suspect if not meaningless, and shouldn't be proclaimed as definitive. That there are several conflicting claims makes this apparent. That who you think is number 2 others could consider number 3 or 4 makes you not much different than the Ring allowing a fighter ranked lower than 2 to compete for a vacant championship.

It wasn't Paul describing your media statements as self-congratulatory that led me to think you aren't sufficiently self-critical. It's readily apparent as you've continued to state you think rankings need your reasoning and judgement. That you don't use and advocate for completely clear rules and objectively applied set values. That you think it's fine that a small group can decide what 'the rankings' are. That you should tell boxing fans who the best fighters are case by case.

Unofficial rankings won't have practical impact as long as competing promoters make the fights and run the show. Unofficial rankings have never made a dent towards change and never will. Change needs to come elsewhere. But a fair guide to the most accomplished competitors is still worthwhile if boxing is to be perceived as close to a competitive sport. That's what I'm presenting the case for. Leaving rankings to the dictates of opinion accepts the same values of the extreme predatory capitalism and lawlessness that rule in boxing. That you add that boxing is just a spectacle of blood suggests to me you don't think boxing can or should be a proper sport.

It doesn't require an approved cv to criticise boxing governance or how unoffical rankings are inadequate. I'm an outsider, not a functionary of the status quo.