Re: Today's Monday Rant: http://theboxingtribune.com/2013/10/the-tbrb-a-year-in-the-strife-magnos-monday-rant/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
As predicted, once anything less than absolute glowing praise for Tim Starks' Transnational Boxing Rankings Board (TBRB)was posted, I knew a shit storm would be in our immediate future. I was sincerely hoping that someone else would answer the questions I sent because Starks has shown himself to be arrogant and combative about any criticism I may level at HIS group.
And, again predictably, Starks has taken to his beloved Twitter to round up a posse to cyber-bully me. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rppnv9 Well, it won't be hard to find a group of his peers to do so. He's mastered the art of deflection and hiding behind absolute phoniness.
Except for the error I made (and noted on the article) regarding the order of the questions, I stand by everything I wrote.
It seems that this man's head has become so bloated with self-importance that he lacks the ability to understand that my disagreements with his board and the way it was handled have nothing to do with me not "understanding" his charter or being out to get him.
I did not alter a single word that he wrote, I merely stated my own belief and opinion.
However, I will answer some of the angry grenades he tossed my way in his effort to punish me for having the gall to question the Blogger Supreme:
-- The three TBRB members were not on the record and one specifically asked not to be quoted. They confirmed what I believed to be the rankings process I mentioned in the article. Three men make the rankings, the rankings are posted on the private message board where members are allowed to comment and make suggestions and then the three-man group finalizes the rankings. So, yeah, what I thought was confirmed. If Starks feels that this is insulting or hurtful to his cause, then maybe he's just reacting negatively to his own process, written up and posted out in the daylight.
-- Members being OUT IN THE OPEN with their disagreements doesn't mean posting Tweets. This is either an intentional effort to mislead or, perhaps, proof of just how far up his own back side he has crawled. I'm referring to real criticism leveled at the group within the sites that have forced their rankings down the public's throat.
-- Cotto's no. 1 ranking was Starks' personal opinion as stated in the article he referenced in his own response to my question.
-- As for 16 months, I was under the impression that a contender would be stripped after 12 months...but if this crazy-convenient charter says otherwise, I stand corrected...
-- Starks' denial of my "Kings for Life" assertion is followed by him repeating the same line in their charter: "lose(s) that designation in the ring, when he retires or when he makes clear his decision to abandon a division." So, again, no real answer about what happens to a champion who is inactive and/or refuses to fight top challengers-- Starks just chooses to insult me, instead.
Again, I stand by every word I said and corrected the one thing I needed to. Let the cyber-bullying begin. Starks will prove himself to be no better than the guys he always mocks, like Kim and Montoya, who also choose the cyber-bullying route when backed into a corner.
I'm really not much of a Twitter guy, but I'd be more than happy to respond to anyone who wishes to send me an email.