The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Yeah i was just using wlad as an example cos they're the first rankings on the first page.

I think as long as an interim champ is only considered as such up until a retirement or leaving a division it is a perfectly acceptable situation.

If say froch knocks out the number 2 and 3 this year and ward doesn't fight at all this year then next year he moves up without ever fighting again in the SMW division, it seems wrong not recognising that froch was the top and time fighter over the past year.

 

How much longer is Mayweather gonna be able to keep his Jr. Middleweight title?

The earliest he will possibly defend it again is Sept (and the chances if him doing so seem remote to me)- a full 2 years after his last fight there.

 

Why would ww be vacant?

 

Because since Mayweather returned from his retirement the no.1 has never actually fought the no.2 at the time they was 1 and 2. But don't worry, you may not have heard but the current no.1 and 2 are scheduled to fight in a couple of months.

 

Never by us, my man. And if we did, I'd have been the first to resign. Because it is unfair and it is unreasonable. A vacant throne requires, no -demands- that the two top-contenders fight for it. The idea that two of the top "three" contenders have the legitimacy to fight for it defies common sense. It was also the precedent that ruined The Ring for many legions of boxing fans because it provided the impetus for the #2 vs. #5 possible scenario they put in place.

Cotto was #2 when Shane beat Margarito; Pacquiao was #1 when Floyd beat Shane. Passing over #2 is a real problem in both cases. Look at them. Cotto beat Shane not 14 months before Shane beat Margarito, so how can Shane be champion when #2 is not only skipped, but when #2 happens to be the last guy that beat him? That's why the hell Shane was #3!

Floyd beat Shane. Pacquiao was #1! What sense would it make to crown Floyd not only where #1 was skipped, but for allowing such an honor when Floyd was ignoring the whole world in ducking Pacquiao? Those who allows such a smack in the face to the fans are enablers in my book.

But all that is just secondary details. Common sense has the last word. A new champion emerges when #1 fights #2. And what about #3, #4, #5, and #6? What about them?! They gotta climb higher! There is no affirmative action program in boxing.

As it is, it all worked out in our favor. There hasn't been a legit, unquestionable welterweight champion since 2008 when Floyd abdicated. May 2 pits the top-two welters on the planet who also happen to be the top-two P4P fighters on the planet against each other for a throne atop the toughest division in the sport.

It can't get much sweeter.

 

I also seem to remember The Ring had a discussion about making Pacquiao v Mosley for their version of the title. Pac was rated number 1 at the time, Ortiz 2, and Mosley 3- Mayweather had been dropped off the back of inactivity.

The debate was if Ortiz was clear number 2 ahead of Mosley, being that he only had a win over Berto. But they narrowly voted against making it for the title.

When The Ring actually crowned Mayweather it was against Guerrero- and if I remember rightfully, Marquez was no 2, Pacquiao 3, Guerrero 4- (Bradley didn't advance in the 147 ratings for them because they called his win over Pacquiao a robbery) so I think either situation you bring up is just as reasonable if not more so than that.

TBR however have a strict number 1 v number 2 policy

 

I think Mosley was number 1 ahead of pac during his tenure btw.

There were a series of 1 v 3 fights if I recall

Margo v Cotto
Margo v Mosley
Mosley v Floyd

This is the first clear 1 v 2 in years, since Forrest v Mosley in fact.

 

All good points, but is there really an issue with Cotto's rating at the time? He beat Mosley not 14 months before Mosley beat Margarito. He kind of had to be rated over Mosley and although he fell to Margarito, Margarito was the beast of the division at the time. And again, he was under the beast and over his conquest. What else would have made sense?

Shifting gears, take another look at your "clear consensus" comment. There will always be disagreement among fans and for that matter, Board members, as to who is best ranked where. That's unavoidable. The real question and I think you arrive at it, is whose rankings can stand up as the most 'authoritative' rankings? That is where the consensus figures in. Once that question is answered, we're kind of obligated to stick with them despite personal differences, right? Barring some crazy change in principle or corruption revelation, obviously.

For example, to most boxing historians, The Ring's ratings were the most authoritative since 1928 when it began publishing monthly ratings. Were they perfectly produced and did they always get it right? Oh, hell no. I recently found a pretty glaring mistake that saw them overlook unrated Aaron Wade after he defeated rated Archie Moore. Moore dropped one, I think, and Wade remained left out in the cold. Should I, as a historian, turn my back on The Ring and go shopping around for better ratings in Wade's case and use them instead? Not saying that you think I should, mind you, but you see the point.

Three of the founders were on their ratings panel but resigned because of a matter of serious principle (their change in championship policy). I remember thinking as a historian, that boxing needs rankings it can trust for posterity's sake -for future historians. The others thought the same and so this thing started.

Now, when we were designing the Transnational Rankings in the spring/summer of 2012, a lot of historical research when into how it should look --what worked in the past, what didn't and thus....

- No profit. To gain credibility, we couldn't have anything to do with making money.

- We rejected the idea of recruiting members to serve in a purely "advisory" capacity. Every member has equal influence in who is ranked where and Oversight (me) and the three chairs (Rold, Starks, Parisi) have no more of a say in who is ranked where.

- Instead of having a paragraph-long policy statements, we incorporated a charter that we are obligated to follow but can add to or change if necessary, though there is a check there.

- The Robbery Clause is in that charter. It's the first time that I know of that such a clause was included to address egregious cases of judging.

- Ours is a 43 member collaboration involving 16 countries and PR. Bert Sugar's design back in the early 80s was an influence for this part of the design --but his relied on the mail. Ours is immediate with the internet, so we have maximum efficiency.

- Sugar's design saw each member mailing in top-ten divisional ballots that were scored. We improved on that. We have debates and then count votes. Members routinely change their minds in the midst of the debate and are free too. And you know what influenced that part of the design? Years of participating in these ESB classic debates! Members meet in a private forum. See?

- We also intended and will always intend to actively recruit members from underrepresented countries. We have plenty from the USA (though less than half which is better than anyone else ever in history). 24 members are not American/Puerto Rican. 16 countries in all are represented.

- There's more, but I won't bore you further...

And thank you for the support, and the critique.

 

Links for Rumsfeld and anyone else:

Progress made in the first year:
http://www.thesweetscience.com/news...ppy-b-day-transnational-boxing-rankings-board

We didn't follow the general view regarding Wlad Klitschko. In brief, to boxing historians able to think in a linear fashion, he ain't even close to Joe Louis's record.
http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/15566-why-wlad-isnt-king
--The good news is that Wlad is now recognized as the heavyweight king. He finally defeated the next-best contender in October 2013

"Wonderland" doesn't speak for the Board, but it spotlights boxing's nonsense in a way that might surprise you: http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/18884-wonderland