The Transnational Boxing Rankings

Ok, again we agree to disagree.

What I meant with the latest point is the rules they have in place for someones championship, and where a lineage starts and ends.
I know the Ring often doesn't follow its own rules and probably has an agenda due why. But if one fighter picks up the lineal championship, and then goes on extended holiday or moves up or down halfway, refuses to defend against any opposition that can beat him, then I believe there has to be a clear line to where that lineage is no longer valid.
Lineage as it used to be is impossible to maintain in todays boxing because of the shattering of the championship.
But we even have had weird situations in the past where the undisputed champion wasn't the lineal champion.

My idea is that nonsense like that has to be prevented at all cost, or the lineal title means hardly anything anymore

 

Will Ovill make the top10 at cruiser after drawing with #5 Ramirez?

Haven't checked the rankings for a while but how did Bellew get in the top10?

 

I find myself saying the same thing year after year. Lineage should be important but atm it isn't.

A prestigious pure lineal championship is the ideal. Doesn't change that right now most rank kovalev and Golovkin as the best in their divisions but thats no different to when Liston was outstanding contender to Patterson. It's just that today those outstanding contenders are celebrated as champions.

 

The Ring has 7 world champions. We recognize 6 true champions or "divisional kings." We agree on five but only because those successions go back to #1 vs. #2. None of this less best nonsense.

Their argument for recognizing #1/#2 vs #3/#4/#5 has nothing going for it except convenience and appearances.

Included among the Ring champs is Donnie Nietes, who beat Moises Fuentes back in May 2014 for their "lineal" title. They had Nietes at #1 and Fuentes at #3 before the fight. We had them at #3 and #9 respectively. They skipped Kazuto Ioka, who was #2 according to them and us.

By that standard, their Jr. Flyweight champion did not earn their championship by fighting the next best. He fought the THIRD best and that was good enough for them.

It isn't good enough for us. What say you?

 

McGrain's basically admitted that boxing politics and matchmaking make the tbrb championship concept badly flawed if not pointless. If you're the champion you should have to have prove it by beating the other most proven fighters in your division. He's flatly stated that Stevenson's the number 2 lh until he beats Kovalev; that Cotto's not the best middle; and passes off Rignodeaux's p4p talent as somehow an excuse for him not defending his 122 championship against a worthy contender since he beat Donaire. How should that be acceptable and make for a respected championship? As Robney's shown, in boxing there's really no fair way to reconise lineal championships. But fairer than the tbrb's policy of recognising several unworthy champions is stripping them when they don't defend against the best at their class--even if that reveals the fallibility and even ultimate hollowness of the lineal championship concept.

 

A good third of comments about the tbrb go something like... 'Cotto champion?! Your championship is ****!' There's not a defence against the charge that Cotto's championship isn't credible. And yet you take such wide rejection as support.

 

I've never said a champion should also be the 'best' fighter. I have been consistent in avoiding the word 'best' in regards to the viability of championships. A champion should be the most accomplished fighter in his division. This can't happen in boxing because matchups aren't organised to allow it.

The tbrb on the other hand has made vague statements like your champions are 'the best and bravest fighters in their division', etc. If the champion is the most accomplished he should have to defend against the other proven top contenders to legitimise his championship. The 'best' in terms of ability shouldn't enter the discussion. It's beside the point if you or the consensus opinion of the tbrb regard Rignodeaux as one of the 'best fighters in the world'. If he doesn't defend against the most proven super bantams his championship is tarnished.

Stevenson and Cotto aren't just accomplished champions who some think would lose to Kovalev and Golovkin. Because they've avoided challenges against fighters who have in fact proven more at the division they've shown they're not the most accomplished fighters in the division. All Cotto's proven since beating Martinez is that he's not a middleweight. It's more than just unfortunate that Cotto hasn't fought Golovkin. That he's able to avoid him shows the fundamental flaw of lineal championship claims. Stripping Cotto like Robney suggested would at least show that divisional supremacy is what the purpose of a championship is. That you don't acknowledge this is a legitimate concern but call me a raving lunatic living in a fantasy world just reflects badly on you.

 

Cotto would defend against featherweights and you would say his middleweight championship claim is fine and dandy and can be traced to Hopkins.

 

No one doubts Cotto is the true champion. Everyone knows it and in fact that's the reason why Golovkin fans despise Cotto so much; they want their man to get a shot at the championship.

Is Cotto the best? I would doubt it and I'm sure the bookies would to. But did he beat the man who was the beat the man who beat the man? Undoubtedly so.

Maybe with different judges Murray would have took the title home and the lost it to Golovkin but as it was Martinez kept his belt and Cotto destroyed him. People don't have to like, I don't like it myself, but he is the champion.