The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Qwerty - I have been producing boxing rankings since 1993. They are the Independent World Boxing Rankings. The ratings you have produced are exceptionally poor. Why do I say that? Because your rankings are too far away from the mass accepted top 10.
You can't have Luis Collazo at 11 when he just got beat by Amir Khan so widely, it will not be accepted by anyone in boxing. Carson Jones has made your ratings....just because he has fought a few in those rankings. Rick Gooding??? The mistake you are making is you do not understand boxing. YOU have subjectively decided the formula and it is simply wrong.

Sadly Qwerty the proof is in the pudding and your 147 ratings fail.

 

I think pistol and Judah should swap!

 

Your rankings make obvious that it's you who doesn't understand boxing. You have Nonito Donaire number 3 at featherweight, despite only beating another super bantamweight in his only fight at 126. You don't understand that weight divisions exist for a reason, and success at a lower division shouldn't garner a ranking in another. Carson Jones beat a ranked welterweight in Said Ouali. What the TBRB values (generally, though vaguely) is much fairer than what you do in your rankings. The TBRB at least somewhat makes divisional distinctions, but any amount you make isn't enough. The ranking system I started is the only truly DIVISIONAL ranking system around.

 

I'll repeat that the TBRB's rankings are much better than the rankings of the Ring, Boxrec, and this IWBR that no one could care less about. That they're the best of the worst is why it's important to bring flaws of theirs to light.

 

qwerty, what is your welter top 10?

 

Champion:
Manny Pacquiao

1. Floyd Mayweather
2. Timothy Bradley
3. Kell Brook
5. Juan Manuel Marquez
5. Keith Thurman
6. Robert Guerrero
7. Marcos Maidana
8. Jesus Soto Karass
9. Andre Berto
10. Josesito Lopez


Followed by Collazo, Alexander, Khan, and Porter.

 

Qwerty - You are not 100% in the head.

My Welterweight top 10 is pretty much the same as Transnational. We dont rate Marquez at welter or else the would be pretty much identical except the last couple in slightly different places.
Transnational are without doubt the best subjective rankings.
What subjective rankings can't do is go much past a top 15.

Fighters fight at different weights, if they have a value at one weight they have a value (lesser) at another weight. You have decided that is not right. If a fighter moves up or down the ABCs will slot him where they subjectively feel it is appropriate. If we do we do it by formula. I suspect Transnational do it subjectively.

Once again your insane head is a lone crusade.

Amir Khan massively outpointed Luis Collazo flooring him three times. You rate Collazo higher. If you can defend that you need sectioning.

 

Someone who doesn't rank Marquez at welterweight is in no position to tell anyone they're insane. Fighters indeed fight at different weights, so they should be ranked at different weights if they beat ranked fighters at different weights. They shouldn't be given a bye if they decide to campaign at another division, and the TBRB and most others are on my side in this.

If you'd like to continue to criticise my rankings out of respect to the TBRB you should do so on my thread or forum.

 

I stand corrected only to see a new problem with your rankings. You said "Every loss of a ranked fighter to a ranked opponent is rewarded." If the loss to a ranked fighter is a clean knockout in 22 seconds is that rewarded?

This leads me to a problem which further reveals the naivete of the system's design: Your statement above that a fighter with a win (or a "win" recognized by the rest of the boxing world as a robbery) proves he "deserves" top fights. So, if an unheralded Mexican fighter whose Mexican manager is in tight with the WBC gets an unearned fight with a top Puerto Rican contender in Mexico with three Mexican judges, is given a blatantly unjustifiable win, you not only accept the robbery, but hold that said fighter "has proven he deserves top fights."

It seems to me that your subjective determination that subjectivity must be eradicated from all things related to boxing rankings is posing real problems.

Let's say a ranked contender gets robbed and loses to some well-connected but undeserving fighter, that well-connected fighter enters your rankings?

Let's say that a less-connected up & comer gives your number-one contender hell on earth but loses a split decision, he does not enter your rankings?

-You're probably lucky I haven't taken more than a "glance" at how your system works.

PS/ two years is nutty.

Boxing is a dynamic sport and we wanted to be careful about backing ourselves into corners like you most definitely have and will.

In practice, though, our system has maintained a good balance between consistency and fairness. But it isn't perfect. No system will be. And just so you know, there is some second thought going on about the inactivity rule. That may be tightened up. We originally put in medical reasons and have indeed given some leeway when a fighter has an operation or something or has a fight scheduled in the near future, but it's hard to be consistent with it.

I don't want to get too personal here, but you rigid system reflects your rigid thinking. You don't seem to be capable of thinking flexibly or understanding why flexibility can at times be necessary.

To answer your charge, of course we invoked the robbery clause for Pac-Bradley -because we had to create our inaugural rankings, which we did from scratch.

And no, "current form" does not automatically impact ranking. And every member looks first and foremost at the decision and the quality of opposition. We're just not rigid about it when fairness is at stake, unlike you.

You seem to conveniently overlook the fact that 42 members from 15 countries are called to weigh-in on every change. One members' "impressive performance" may be another's pedestrian performance. We have many heads examining it. Now, when it comes to the robbery clause, over 75% of the Board must consider the decision egregious enough to justify ranking the official loser over the official winner.

-That is arrogance speaking. You have the "better alternative" -but when we claim the same, you grit your teeth.

"Assumptive credibility" could just as easily be "informed approval." Not every boxing fan is a blind sheep. Your views of human nature seem quite cynical.

So, do you reject the championship reigns of Greb, Walker, Robinson, Armstrong, Moore, et al.? Will you become boxing history's Messiah and revise history by attaching your clunking system to determine the objective truth? (cue: angelic choir)

First of all, the NYSAC oversaw boxing in one state -a powerful state (NY), yes, but one state. The NBA was comprised of upwards of 15 or 20 depending on the year. Furthermore, they most often agreed on who the champion was and guess what, The Ring did too. It was nowhere near the mess it is today. Nowhere near it! So relatively speaking, yes, it was the golden era in terms of skill and clarity.

Go count how many recognized world champions boxing has right now in 17 decisions, then go count how many were recognized in 1946.

This is your opinion. My opinion is that your system fails miserably and cannot distinguish the difference between boxing and bocce.

Any rankings system that holds that watching fights isn't even necessary (-like yours does, and like you admitted it does-) and that only the "official result" matters, is a wreck. Your system is therefore a wreck.

You sound like both a mimic and a dunce when you cry "transparency" -we are more transparent than any other rankings body in history. The fact that I'm out here spending hours discussing this with you should be proof-positive.

 

It seems that you have a problem with every deliberative body in every democracy that ever existed.

-But you're inconsistent even on that. Your rankings arise out of 100% acceptance (sheepish acceptance) of three judges making subjective decisions that three other judges may not have. You shrug your shoulders when your "three-year" window is also called out as totally subjective and that better boxing minds than yours could argue that two-year or one-year windows would be more accurate. Meanwhile, our modest, once-applied robbery clause is a high-crime in your now-dubious estimation.

You concede next-to nothing, have demonstrated nothing but defensiveness when your system is criticized, and are hopelessly redundant despite the fact that your own criticisms of us have been answered again and again. That makes you intellectually dishonest.

You need to start factoring in the answers you are getting and the criticisms that are being presented. Don't come out here in another two months or sneak on some other website pretending that this and several other debates with McGrain never happened.

--You're like that malfunctioning B9 Robot in "Lost in Space" ("I cannot accept that course of action. I cannot accept that course of action. I cannot accept that course of action. I cann.....")

Who cares about your cv or whether or not you are a heroic outsider?

Stop pretending that you are just another critic out here on a forum. You're not. You have spent many hours over a course of months trying to tear down what others have built up. Your crusade has brought you to unveil an alternative rankings system that you claim is the real thing; you are doing your utmost to build support, including through a website you built to that end, and what? You think you can avoid the spotlight? You invited it!

You've been hurling accusations about "transparency" and yet you want to hide behind your "qwertyblahblah," "YaltaMaltaDave," and who knows what other aliases.

You speak boldly for a shrinking violet.

 

why is kell brook 3rd?

 

donaire is a huge favourite vs vetyeka

 

Juan Manuel Marquez fought at 141.75, that is a weight that suggests he is a junior-welterweight. He requested the WBO that they rank him at 140, so we have complied. I don't believe that questions my calling you insane. JMM is the sort of fighter that would fight anyone at 140 or 147, if the fight was right. You argued that Donaire was not a featherweight because his fight was against another super-bantam weighing heavier. JMM fought Alvarado who is also a junior-welter that fought overweight, he may fight next at 140 or 147, who knows it will depend on the offer. In respect of Donaire all the sanctioning bodies and Ring rank him at 126, but it is no big deal that TNBR rank him at 122. The difference between some of these weight divisions is a meal and a drink, the whole flyweight categories flit around. Ranking fighters in a division you think is wrong is not insanity. What must happen in a set of rankings however they are done is they must look credible. Your's dont. You chose not to defend Luis Collazo's elevated position over Amir Khan. Deep down you must know that is wrong. Unfortunately you won't accept your rules are cack.

 

They have a good idea, no ratings system will be perfect.

 

If Stevenson knocks Fonfara out tomorrow, does he enter the P4P list?