Please use this section of the website to share your thoughts on the rankings and the project as a whole.

21 replies on “Feedback”

It’s been a few months since Callum Smith lost to Canelo Alvarez. When are y’all gonna update his record to 27-1?

Like any true, knowledgeable boxing fan I hate the Aphabelt club — IBF, WBC, WBA, NABF, etc. But when are we going to start hearing your rankings announced before one, or two, of your top-ranked guys step into a ring? Seems there needs to be a ‘PR’ push to get you guys established, and start removing the “legitimacy” from these fraudulent entities.

We rely on you and your friends for that, Patrick. We are strictly volunteer and have no budget, which means we’ll never sell out and never become compromised but also means we can’t afford an ad in a high school newspaper, never mind the New York Times.

I refer to tbrb for the rankings. But the only area where i fear it lacks influencential data, ducking. When a fighter is being avoided by those above him, which is increasingly a bigger and bigger problem, i feel the rankings should reflect that. Win and losses against which opponents should dominate, then ducking should then factor in.

Eugene, I understand the sentiment and proposed early on that members factor that in when considering the P4P List. We cannot, however, factor it into the divisional rankings. We can only rank fighters based on what they do, not on what they should do or would do if they could. Divisional rankings must be merit-based but they shouldn’t be speculative. Speculating is fun for all-time hypothetical match-ups but it would be ruinous here.

Thank you DJ. Not bad for an operation with no purse! Stewart Howe is a stand-up guy. As for Rigondeaux, he still claims the so-called lineal championship at jr. feather. However, that only means he was the last legitimate champ there, and does not necessarily mean he is the rightful champ indefinitely. We will be reaching out to him soon, as in very soon, to see what his intentions are. If he is staying at bantam, we’ll consider his throne abdicated.

Nice upgrade! No complaints from me.

I think that the current Rankings page should also show the last match of each boxer.

And of course I’d love you to make women’s boxing rankings.

Greetings from Uruguay!

Greetings to you and Uruguay. The record-keepers will consider your idea about including the last match of each contender. We’ve had requests over the years to include women’s boxing rankings and MMA rankings as well but as volunteers with many other things going on (like making a living!), we’re pretty much extended as much as we can be already. In addition, I don’t believe that most of our board members monitor women’s boxing nearly as closely. (And for that matter, even less follow MMA).

We appreciate your kind words about our upgrade!

I’m liking the new layout as well. maybe you can add a small flagicons for the fighters. just for the color. also I’m always been interested in prospects. maybe there can be like an additional 2-3 names per weight class like Notable Prospects looking to get in top10. just an idea. they dont have to be in order like ranked 11, 12, 13 or anything. just a few names in a list.

Hello! The new design/layout is pretty cool! Way better than the previous one.

Just some stuffs I noticed:

The rankings of Jr. Welterweight has a weird “10” in it.

It looks like:
1
0

instead of:
10

Also, the ranking tables have no uniform alignments (column width and whatnot).

Suggestions: Not sure if it’s feasible but I think it would be nice to have a feature which will show who, when, result and which weight did a boxer last fought when the mouse cursor is hovered to a boxer’s name in the rankings. And if the championship is vacant (open), when hovered, it will show the one currently enclosed in a parenthesis, just to make the rankings look more neat and uniform.

Yeah, it’s mostly UI suggestions instead of boxing stuffs this time.

The Tech is looking at it now. Thanks for the heads-up. I think we’re about maxed out in terms of what we can do as volunteers with a free Tech who is too generous with his time as it is. It would never end if we started adding too many bells and whistles!

As yet there is no archived ranking for April. I really hope that this is an oversight rather than a change in policy. Other than that, I like the new website. Good work!

Thank you Chris. There are still a few glitches on the editing end that we’re working out. The official monthly rankings have not been scrapped. We instituted that to continue a tradition that goes back almost a 100 years now. Note also that the names of the divisions are as they were originally named in The Walker Law. The only “Super” is super middleweight.

Dear board,
a few questions from me:

1.) I really like your strict rules to become a champion. However, how do you justify that the P4P list is headed by two non-champions? I mean, I totally agree with Canelo and Innoue, but still it feels weird and one could make an argument, that a true P4P king should be a true division champion as well.

2.) Was the GGG-Canleo 1 bout officially declared a robbery by the board?

3.) Do you manufacture (any kind of) physical belts which the true champs receive?

Best regards,
Eugene

Hello Eugene/Evgeny,

1. A divisional champion is not necessarily the best fighter in his division. He is not necessarily among the best fighters in the sport either. Usually they are the best in their division, because heat rises if you will, but not always. Was champion Floyd Patterson the best heavyweight in 1961? Most would say Liston was. Was champion Hugo Corro the best middleweight in early 1979? Most would say Hagler was. Leon Spinks? Hasim Rahman? Sometimes, a guy has the style to whip the sitting champion and thus takes the throne, but everyone knows he isn’t the best. Consider it a rule of thumb: the divisional champion is not necessarily the best fighter in the division.

2. No. That was a #1 vs. #2/championship bout and the robbery clause only applies to non-championship bouts where the decision against the rightful winner is so egregious it warrants ranking the official loser over the official winner. The clause also does not apply to draws. We may consider a non-championship bout a “bad draw,” however, and rank accordingly.

3. No, we do not. This is an all volunteer initiative that has zero sources of income. We point to the rightful divisional champs. We’re looking at the truth, not the glitter.

TBRB is ace, it’s my go to every time.

Springs Toledo is the man also, his stuff on here is fine, his books even better. The rest of the team are spot on too.

Thanks for the rankings, the hard work and all the rest.

Quick question… Fury and Klitschko were removed from 1 and 2 in the rankings around November 2016 as they hadn’t fought in a year and didn’t have a fight scheduled…

… but Klitschko almost constantly had fights scheduled. He was fighting Fury for most of that time. Then Browne, then the Joshua fight was announced in December 2016. Should Klitschko have been back at Ranking 1 when he fought Joshua?

Joshua was ranked 1 by TBRB ahead of the Klitschko fight. Should he therefore have been 2?

And if both of those are true… Should the lineage have commenced there, moved to Ruiz and then come back to Joshua?

Hello Ted,

I recall us wrestling with that decision after it was made and AJ-Klitschko was announced. But we had to stand firm, even if it meant going against the grain. (When it comes to legit championships, the “grain” is usually going off into outer space anyway.) The information we had at the end of November 2016 was that Klitschko was turning down fights around that time and in our judgment, based on what we knew and could find out from insiders on the board, the right call was to remove him due to inactivity.

Thanks for the response. I’ve always been of the view that the linear title is something that is often clear in hindsight but less so in the present. For example, people make a case that Fury never lost the title while others believe he won it v Wilder. Others can make a case that there’s no way you can rank him top 2 after coming back from retirements (and drugs bans) and not having a single notable win in his ‘second career’ prior to Wilder. That would leave the title vacant.

Personally I’d say Klitschko v Joshua was closer to a concensus 1 and 2.

Whichever path you prefer, there’s doubt. And there’s only one way to erase that doubt and that’s for Joshua and Fury to fight while they’re still at the top of the division.

Let’s hope, hey.

Leave a Reply to Eugene Olton Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © TBRB 2012-2021