So Paul Magno is bad at facts and reading. He wrote this (http://theboxingtribune.com/2013/10/the-tbrb-a-year-in-the-strife-magnos-monday-rant/) and quoted me and filled up the whole thing with falsehoods.

I'll keep my responses to the falsehoods and leave out the stuff that falls under viable difference of opinion.

"To this day, there seems to be no room for dissent or a critical eye in their campaign. There is almost no transparency as to the actual methodology of the rankings process."

--I answered his questions (more like accusations) at length, and as detailed, we have always answered dissent in a variety of forums. I don't know what dissent or criticism he saying there is "no room for." I answered every single question he had about the actual methodology and rankings process, leaving no allegation unanswered.

"From personal experience with at least one of the founders, any attempts at criticizing or satirizing any aspect of the group has been met with angry words and social media blocking."

--I think he's talking about me here. There's been no blocking. I'm not Facebook friends with him anymore; is that "blocking" him? Nobody has been "blocked" from anything. To get all worked up about whether someone is Facebook friends with you or not after years of calling that person "gutless" while simultaneously finding "angry words" to be so galling is the height of ridiculousness.

"Let it be known that founder, Tim Starks, answered and on several occasions, changed the flow and order of my questions, I assume to attack each point individually."

--I didn't remotely change the order of his questions. Not remotely. I took the exact text of what he sent me and inserted my responses without changing the order at all. Paul is just plain making things up here. If anyone doubts that I changed the order of his questions, with his permission, I'll happily publish his e-mail and my response.

"Independent questioning of three board members confirmed my original understanding of the rankings process."

--Were these members on the record? I'd be really interested in what they "confirmed." Paul's "understanding" was and remains completely wrong. More likely, those members answered him correctly and Paul twisted the answers to suit his own perverse grasp on reality.

"There seems to be lots of stuff 'available upon request.' 99% of fans won't (and shouldn't have to) take that extra step when trying to inform themselves. Ideally, everything should be already out in the open."

--This was me offering a reporting shortcut to Paul. By definition, it is "already out in the open" if, as I asserted, I could provide examples of "expressing their disagreement publicly." But because he couldn't be bothered to take me up on my offer, or do his homework, here are two examples IN THE PAST MONTH of members expressing their disagreement publicly with the decisions of the Board. Not hard to find: https://twitter.com/JakeNDaBox/status/385129459537293312 https://twitter.com/Matthew_Paras/status/382566961965973505

"Cotto's no. 1 ranking was only Starks' singular opinion."

--Nope. Ring's, too. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Junior_Middleweight--2010s

"Please note that Mayweather remained a ranked contender despite more than 16 months between junior middleweight fights. This goes against the TBRB charter (quoted by Starks a few questions down), which forces a contender to be removed from rankings if he's inactive in the division for more than a year. By their own charter, Mayweather should not have been even no. 2 and in a position to fight for their 'championship.'"

--Where did he get this 16 month figure? It's like he just sits around and dreams up things that aren't true. Here's the charter: "Contenders active in two or more divisions may be removed from a division’s rankings - after two consecutive bouts in another division; or - after eighteen months of inactivity in a division with no scheduled bout on the horizon." Floyd Mayweather, active at both 147 and 154, fought at 154 in May 2012 and scheduled a bout for September 2013 (less than 18 months) and agreed to in May 2013 (one year, also less than 18 months). The inactivity provision Magno refers to is only for overall inactivity. There is a separate provision, quoted above, for inactivity within a division. Paul has this one wrong, period.

"Kings for life?"

--And I had JUST answered that! No, not kings for life, Paul, and nobody ever said that. Thin air. A champion is no longer a champion when he "lose(s) that designation in the ring, when he retires or when he makes clear his decision to abandon a division."

"Their actual rankings decisions are made behind a wall of 'members only' secrecy, and if I hadn’t pushed the issue, not a single critical word about their group would have been published by any website. "

--Since everyone who has any criticism of the Board (like Steve Kim, whose criticism he acknowledged) always has taken their cues from Paul Freaking Magno.

Reply · Report Post