The Transnational Boxing Rankings

No worries about the organization becoming overloaded with Scotsmen ?

 

So, what will happen with the rankings now that Floyd has "officially" announced his retirement?

 

Quick questions:

1) Now that Floyd has ostensibly retired, does this necessitate an update on the p4p rankings ?

2 ) Given that Floyd has retired and a new champion is needed for 154, and given that such new lineage would normally be established by having the #1 and # 2 fight for the honour, and given that Alvarez and Lara have already fought and that Saul prevailed, and nothing has happened with either fighter since that would alter their pre-Floyd-retirement rankings, would Saul now be considered champion ?

3) Given that Floyd has retired and a new champion is needed for 147, and given that such new lineage would normally be established by having the #1 and # 2 fight for the honour, and given that Pac and Timmy have already fought and that Pac prevailed, and nothing has happened with either fighter since that would alter their pre-Floyd-retirement rankings, would Pac now be considered champion ?

 

1.) We removed Mayweather from two divisional thrones and the P4P list Tuesday. We could have the week before but given Mayweather's disposition and history, we thought it wise to give it a week. Roman Gonzalez is now, according to us, the best P4P fighter in the world.

2. and 3.) The Ring did things like that. We won't. The idea that a new champion is needed does not preclude that fact that boxing championships cannot be bequeathed, but only seized via combat. In addition to that, what happened in one bout does not necessarily predict what would happen in the next bout. So, if we have an open throne/championship and #1 and #2 already fought before it was open, they'd have to fight again to take it. Otherwise, we'd be effectively appointing champions.

 

While I can see the thinking behind only no.1 v no.2 creates a champion, and I agree you should have to win them, not be awarded them, if they have already fought, sometimes a rematch would be a hard sell if it was one sided and seems pointless.

A case in point right now would be 140, where Matthysse is no 1 and Peterson no 2. Matthysse already destroyed Peterson. It's happened in the past too. Mayweather and Marquez have been 1 and 2 at 147, and while I know Ward was champion, if he decided to move to 175 it would've left Froch and Abraham as 1 and 2. Both those fights were mismatches.

My solution would be for the number 1 guy in the division to have to beat the top guy he hasn't already beaten.

So for example at Jr Middleweight, Canelo vs Lara, Trout or Jermall Charlo should be championship bouts

At welterweight Pacquiao v either Bradley or Brook would be title fights,

At Jr Welterweight Matthysse v either Peterson or Benadivez

At 130 Uchiyama v Miura or Fortuna

 

Thanks for the response, Stonehands.

I understand the rationale.

It's just that we're unlikely to ever see a second Canelo/Lara bout or a third Pac/Tim bout, which will make it difficult to establish new champions at 147 and 154 in the near future.

:good

 

Yes, but thankfully and as you know, its a shifting landscape.

 

Your argument in favor of the "1 vs. 3 exception" is better than what I've heard before, but the board won't go there. Making exceptions for world championships is a practice that has ruined the lives of honest record-keepers everywhere and we won't add to their misery. (Who among them, in their right mind, would lend credence to the idea that Vinnie Paz is a "5x world champion"?) In sum, anything less than the top-two requirement is a contortion with an ugly heritage and a dubious future.

Our requirement for what makes a divisional king is simple and firm. The two best must duke it out; anything less ain't the best. There will be times when shifting rankings will see examples like those we have now and will have again, but that's to be expected sometimes. --I'm wincing right along with you, but a little patience will change the scene.

And who knows what the future holds. If the boxing world eventually turns to us with full hearts, the top-two would indeed fight despite having fought before -because the true divisional throne is more than a roomful of belts., right?

 

I understand this take, but in modern boxing the #1 fighting the #2 at the moment they are 1 and 2 happens very rarely.
Be ready to have a whole lot of vacancies.

HW = Wlad
Cruiser = vacant.
LHW = Stevenson
SMW = Ward > soon to be vacant (should have been already).
MW = Cotto > good chance holder vacates after Nov 21.
LMW = vacant, 1 and 2 already fought.
WW = vacant, 1 and 2 already fought.
JWW = vacant, 1 and 2 already fought.
LW = vacant.
SFW = vacant, 1 and 2 already fought.
FW = vacant.
JFW = Rigo
BW = vacant.
SFlyW = vacant.
FlyW = Gonzalez
LFW = vacant.
SW = vacant.

so, there's only 6 champions in 17 classes and 2 of them will probably end up vacant pretty soon, wich makes it only 4.
In a lot of those weightclasses a rematch or even 3rd match is pretty unlikely too.

 

Except it isn't always the best and the bravest holding the belt as we have seen lately.
At Cruiser the holder hadn't fought any top opponent after winning 2 pretty lucky fights against the former holder and most saw him as a top but not the best out there.
LHW gives the same result, as he was the one lucky enough to get to fight the shell of the lineal holder while now another has all the other belts and according to polls about 80% see him as "the man" at 175.
MW is about the same situation and the holder (Cotto) has mentioned time and time again that he won't defend his belt against the #1 because he feels he himself is "not a middleweight" and that is underlined by the fact that he never even fought at the full 160 weightlimit. His opponents have to agree with a catchweight to get a shot at the 160 title...
154 had a guy who didn't defend the belt AT ALL! He did once, but at 147 wich makes it completely void.

So, it's not the best and the bravest. It's the guys that get the shot and win, and then most of them just decide themselves if, when and against who they choose to defend it. Sorry, but that's just not something that should be celebrated.

 

This is what I meant.
It's an exception when they are the best and the bravest.

1

This content is protected

This content is protected

2

3

So, that makes 3 in total, that actually are the best and the bravest in their respective divisions.

Of course boxing isn't perfect and it never will be. But don't act like the way the TBRB handles it's champions is always the fairest way.
There probably is no fair way, but at the moment I actually think the Ring is doing a better job (NO NOT ON THE ENTIRE RANKINGS, ONLY HANDLING CHAMPIONS!), and that's pretty flawed as well.