I think if there are vacant positions we should vote to fill the positions, instead of waiting for someone in the pool to fight.

I feel both options are appropriate ways to establish rankings and neither needs to be mutually exclusive.

I agree with CFH, these should be decided on a case by case basis.

I think it would be good that the manager of a division can move a fighter one rank per division per month.

For example I as manager of the heavyweight division could move David Haye down one rank if I chose to do so.

The caveat would be it could be reverse by four opposing votes from the committee. It would also have to be clearly announced in it's own thread with at least three days for people to read it.

Originally Posted by killersheep

I agree with CFH, these should be decided on a case by case basis.

I just think that waiting for fighters in the pool to fight can sometimes be misleading to the ratings. For example if one fighter in the pool fights against a nobody he could qualify for a ranking just because the others don't have fights scheduled but are more deserving. If we vote on who fills the vacancy we won't have the problem of vacant spots for long periods, plus we'll have a fighter ranked who the majority agree on...

I think we should vote on the top 10 but if there is a vacant division champ then it should remain that way until filled by the fighters themselves

I agree as long as we limit it to one per month

In the case of Kevin Mitchell.We dont even know who he is fighting.....should he be defeated,does that merit ranking for the as of now TBA ?It might end up a mess.I believe that if a voted on fight is to fill a vacant spot,the winner should take spot,not just the favorite?

I lean towards filling spots through a fight between pool members.Maybe a vote if a vacancy has remained for a certain amount of time.Some of these pools are becoming there own top ten...stacked.

Honestly,not keen on this unless the move is put to a vote prior to movement.The manager already has an additional vote and should have to make a valid case.Just alot of room for massaging.But I can see the case....take Ngoudjo at 140.I bump him out with 1 slot move and then put up a member of pools next fight vs. a so-so guy to fill. Hmm

I voted yes, but I think it should come down to a vote, majority rules. I think all votes should be equal in this circumstance (i.e. the managers vote counts the same as everyone else) as to avoid possible manipulations or biases...

I initially voted for "it needs more discussion", but the more I think about it the less I like the idea.

I went for 'It needs further discussion'. I think it's a good idea, but it needs some refining, which will stop the inevitable biased change in ranks occuring.

Maybe have it so the manager can only vote to drop someone once every couple of months, so we don't get someone opting to drop some lucky bastard down a rank every week.

I think one thing we could do is discuss it together where we place people. For example in the welterweight division, how many of us would really currently rank Pacquiao or Mayweather (should he beat JMM) below Zab Judah who will have kept his ranking beating guys not much better than club fighters, or Matthew Hatton above those 2 should he beat him. Should the winner of Hlatswayo/Rodriguez be above those guys?

I do think the idea of beating the guy to take his ranking is a good one, but it is also imperfect in the sense that modern boxing means that the guys without significant clout aren't going to get those fights. I don't think we should abandon it, but maybe we should be able to adjust the rankings on a committee vote of some kind.

Originally Posted by JoeyUK

I went for 'It needs further discussion'. I think it's a good idea, but it needs some refining, which will stop the inevitable biased change in ranks occuring.

Maybe have it so the manager can only vote to drop someone once every couple of months, so we don't get someone opting to drop some lucky bastard down a rank every week.

Good points Joey, I think something like once a month for the same fighter would be fair as it could be over ruled by the vote anyway.

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I think one thing we could do is discuss it together where we place people. For example in the welterweight division, how many of us would really currently rank Pacquiao or Mayweather (should he beat JMM) below Zab Judah who will have kept his ranking beating guys not much better than club fighters, or Matthew Hatton above those 2 should he beat him. Should the winner of Hlatswayo/Rodriguez be above those guys?

I do think the idea of beating the guy to take his ranking is a good one, but it is also imperfect in the sense that modern boxing means that the guys without significant clout aren't going to get those fights. I don't think we should abandon it, but maybe we should be able to adjust the rankings on a committee vote of some kind.

I like the idea of people earning their rankings by winning those positions. Pacquiao has only fought there once & against DLH who hadn't been their been at that weight for donkeys. Mayweather has been retired & is set to fight a lightweight so imo they have not really done much in the division at this time, but should they face & beat the likes of Mosley or Cotto they would earn their rankings! That way our rankings are based on what fighters have done at that weight...

I think killers idea is good but we all seem to agree it needs a little refining.

Points to come out so far:

A fighter can only be dropped one position, once per month

Everyone's vote is equal in these votes

Can we drop a fighter ranked 10th into the pool to create a vacancy?

The vote decides the outcome

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I like the idea of people earning their rankings by winning those positions. Pacquiao has only fought there once & against DLH who hadn't been their been at that weight for donkeys. Mayweather has been retired & is set to fight a lightweight so imo they have not really done much in the division at this time, but should they face & beat the likes of Mosley or Cotto they would earn their rankings! That way our rankings are based on what fighters have done at that weight...

I think killers idea is good but we all seem to agree it needs a little refining.

Points to come out so far:

A fighter can only be dropped one position, once per month

Everyone's vote is equal in these votes

Can we drop a fighter ranked 10th into the pool to create a vacancy?

The vote decides the outcome

I see your point, but I feel maybe we need to factor opposition in. Is Judah worthy of keeping his spot worthy of being ahead of Mayweather beating the 2nd best fighter in the world. I consider Marquez a sterner challenge than Matthew Hatton or Erwin Johnson. The problem is the current craze of cross-division superfights means the rankings need to at least address that issue or we might never get champs in some of these divisions