Thread: New rule idea - Option to remove a rated fighter

I think we should introduce a rule where we can put a vote up for a fighter to be removed from the rankings.

Similar to killer's rule a manager would be able to put in a motion between the 1st & 3rd of the month for a fighter they feel should be removed.

The most recent example where this could come in handy is Julio Diaz' lose tonight to Victor Cayo. The fight was at 140 so Diaz' #6 ranking at lightweight will not be affected. Diaz has now lost 2 in a row, but meets our requirements to remain ranked as he has fought once within a year (4th April '09) at the weight & has also recorded a win in 2 years (31st October '0. But I'm sure not many of us would have him rated!

The vote would decide the outcome & should the fighter be voted to remain ranked then they would be immune from being voted against again until they are removed by our other structures (inactivity, demotion).

So should this rule be approved?

Yes, no or needs more discussion?

Well Galaxy, I like the overall thinking with this one, but maybe we should simply increase the amount of spots available to drop with more losses.
First loss is 1-3, Second loss 2-6, Third loss to pool or out entirely.
This is just an example and I'm not attached to the numbers. Losses to Cayo and Reyes are losses to very capable guys.

I think more discussion is in order.

Originally Posted by killersheep

Well Galaxy, I like the overall thinking with this one, but maybe we should simply increase the amount of spots available to drop with more losses.
First loss is 1-3, Second loss 2-6, Third loss to pool or out entirely.
This is just an example and I'm not attached to the numbers. Losses to Cayo and Reyes are losses to very capable guys.

I think more discussion is in order.

The thing is because Diaz was fighting at Jr. Welter the loss does not effect his lightweight rating... I would be happy if we could vote to drop him 3 spots but he lost at a higher weight, so like 115 with Darchinyan vs Agbeko it has no effect on the lightweight ratings.

I agree the loss to Cayo is a respectable one, but Julio has now lost 2 in a row, both minor upsets & he could potentially be rated our #6 lightweight until April 2010

I just think this new rule can open up vacancies for active, winning fighters. At the end of the day if anyone disagrees with a fighter being removed they can just vote against it & like all our votes the majority will rule

More voting .Wow.I'd imagine our users manual is resembling a yellow pages right about now.Jk,jk.I think we really need to revamp some guidelines/rules.I would rethink the entire dropping system 1-3 slots etc.When a ranked guy losses....a vote goes up with straight to the pool as an option for this type of situation.Cayo beat Diaz.I might be tempted to wink and nod on the weight and simply replace Diaz with Cayo at light...either way Diaz should not maintain rank at 140,135 and so on.And at his age and point in career,hes not going back to light.If he continues at all.

Originally Posted by Spicoli

More voting .Wow.I'd imagine our users manual is resembling a yellow pages right about now.Jk,jk.I think we really need to revamp some guidelines/rules.I would rethink the entire dropping system 1-3 slots etc.When a ranked guy losses....a vote goes up with straight to the pool as an option for this type of situation.Cayo beat Diaz.I might be tempted to wink and nod on the weight and simply replace Diaz with Cayo at light...either way Diaz should not maintain rank at 140,135 and so on.And at his age and point in career,hes not going back to light.If he continues at all.

I think the 1-3 option works well, if we're going to change it then maybe just for the guys in the top 5, those in the bottom 5 could have the straight to pool option should they lose a fight. But it could get messy & complicated, hence the reason just to vote to drop a fighter

I'd be for Cayo entering the pool at 140, but not gaining ranking at light... the fight was a Jr. Welterweight fight, Cayo is a Jr. Welter!

I'm not keen on the idea without further discussion. I do see the merits of dropping a guy like Diaz, because let's face it Mayo is no world-beater & would probably get handled by most guys in the Top 15 of his division. However, I don't think that if, for example, Marquez loses to Mayweather or Pacquiao loses to Cotto that they should drop lower in their respective divisions. I don't think Darchinyan's defeat to Agbeko means that he's no longer the best Super-Flyweight in the world. I'm not going to vote on this just yet.

Btw, I haven't been on in a week because of personal stuff so if you could point out anything I've missed that needs voting & Killer if you could let me know what you've checked for your updates so I can merge the old threads together I'd appreciate it

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I'm not keen on the idea without further discussion. I do see the merits of dropping a guy like Diaz, because let's face it Mayo is no world-beater & would probably get handled by most guys in the Top 15 of his division. However, I don't think that if, for example, Marquez loses to Mayweather or Pacquiao loses to Cotto that they should drop lower in their respective divisions. I don't think Darchinyan's defeat to Agbeko means that he's no longer the best Super-Flyweight in the world. I'm not going to vote on this just yet.

Btw, I haven't been on in a week because of personal stuff so if you could point out anything I've missed that needs voting & Killer if you could let me know what you've checked for your updates so I can merge the old threads together I'd appreciate it

Nothing much has changed, all the votes for this week have closed bar this one. Hope everythings good with you mate.

I agree with what your saying about Marquez & Agbeko, but we need something to deal with cases like Diaz'. Maybe we could edit killers rule of demoting a little... if a fighter is nomiated to be demoted the options should run from his current rank to the pool e.g. Diaz is number 6 so he could drop 1-4 (ranks 7-10) spots or straight to the pool.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I'm not keen on the idea without further discussion. I do see the merits of dropping a guy like Diaz, because let's face it Mayo is no world-beater & would probably get handled by most guys in the Top 15 of his division. However, I don't think that if, for example, Marquez loses to Mayweather or Pacquiao loses to Cotto that they should drop lower in their respective divisions. I don't think Darchinyan's defeat to Agbeko means that he's no longer the best Super-Flyweight in the world. I'm not going to vote on this just yet.

Btw, I haven't been on in a week because of personal stuff so if you could point out anything I've missed that needs voting & Killer if you could let me know what you've checked for your updates so I can merge the old threads together I'd appreciate it

Nothing much has changed, all the votes for this week have closed bar this one. Hope everythings good with you mate.

I agree with what your saying about Marquez & Agbeko, but we need something to deal with cases like Diaz'. Maybe we could edit killers rule of demoting a little... if a fighter is nomiated to be demoted the options should run from his current rank to the pool e.g. Diaz is number 6 so he could drop 1-4 (ranks 7-10) spots or straight to the pool.

What about just saying if a fighter loses two fights in a row we vote to drop him to the pool, regardless of what weightclass he's ranked in? This would simplify things from what we are talking about.

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I'm not keen on the idea without further discussion. I do see the merits of dropping a guy like Diaz, because let's face it Mayo is no world-beater & would probably get handled by most guys in the Top 15 of his division. However, I don't think that if, for example, Marquez loses to Mayweather or Pacquiao loses to Cotto that they should drop lower in their respective divisions. I don't think Darchinyan's defeat to Agbeko means that he's no longer the best Super-Flyweight in the world. I'm not going to vote on this just yet.

Btw, I haven't been on in a week because of personal stuff so if you could point out anything I've missed that needs voting & Killer if you could let me know what you've checked for your updates so I can merge the old threads together I'd appreciate it

Nothing much has changed, all the votes for this week have closed bar this one. Hope everythings good with you mate.

I agree with what your saying about Marquez & Agbeko, but we need something to deal with cases like Diaz'. Maybe we could edit killers rule of demoting a little... if a fighter is nomiated to be demoted the options should run from his current rank to the pool e.g. Diaz is number 6 so he could drop 1-4 (ranks 7-10) spots or straight to the pool.

What about just saying if a fighter loses two fights in a row we vote to drop him to the pool, regardless of what weightclass he's ranked in? This would simplify things from what we are talking about.

I'm good with that, are we still going to keep your rule of demoting? I think we should!

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Nothing much has changed, all the votes for this week have closed bar this one. Hope everythings good with you mate.

I agree with what your saying about Marquez & Agbeko, but we need something to deal with cases like Diaz'. Maybe we could edit killers rule of demoting a little... if a fighter is nomiated to be demoted the options should run from his current rank to the pool e.g. Diaz is number 6 so he could drop 1-4 (ranks 7-10) spots or straight to the pool.

What about just saying if a fighter loses two fights in a row we vote to drop him to the pool, regardless of what weightclass he's ranked in? This would simplify things from what we are talking about.

I'm good with that, are we still going to keep your rule of demoting? I think we should!

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Originally Posted by killersheep

What about just saying if a fighter loses two fights in a row we vote to drop him to the pool, regardless of what weightclass he's ranked in? This would simplify things from what we are talking about.

I'm good with that, are we still going to keep your rule of demoting? I think we should!

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm good with that, are we still going to keep your rule of demoting? I think we should!

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.

I like the demotion idea, I think it should stay. Regarding the vote to drop a fighter to the pool, I have no problem with that option being included in the poll for a fighter who loses two fights in a row. If they're close decisions or losses to elite competition people will understand that and vote differently.

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Originally Posted by killersheep

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.

I think you misunderstood mate when a fight loses twice in a row it triggers a vote, not automatic poolage (new word I guess)

Originally Posted by killersheep

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.

I think you misunderstood mate when a fight loses twice in a row it triggers a vote, not automatic poolage (new word I guess)

Ah ok, if that's the case then I definitely support it. In a case like Diaz I support it, but let's say Joshua Clottey loses a close fight to Shane Mosley next time out, I wouldn't.