Thread: should we include the option to drop straight to the pool?

When deciding how far a (6-10 ranked) fighter should drop after a loss should we include the option to drop straight to the pool?
The loss would have to take place at the weight the fighter is rated at & would include the options of as many places as it would take for them to enter the pool.
E.g. #6 would be able to drop down as many as 4 places to 10th plus the option of straight to the pool. Fighters ranked champion to 5th would still follow the 1-3 spot rules.

We had the example of Karoly Balzsay last week, now Clinton Woods is another example, before that there was Sam Peter. There are others but those are a few of the top of my head.

I think its a good option to have for the bottom half of the top 10 & also allows for fighters to keep their ranking (e.g. Dirrell, Jones Jr possibly).

I vote to include the option on fighters ranked 6th-10th

Agreed

I think this is going to make it too complicated, I am personally glad RJJ is dropping out of the ranks. If someone feels strongly about anything specific they have the power at the beginning of the month to move someone down a rank as their manager special vote. I vote no keep things as they are we can use the tools already available to us.
An example with Woods say he gets voted down 3 spots as it looks like he will. Someones Manager vote (available on Tuesday) could be to replace him at 10th with someone from the pool, it goes to a vote and voila. Bottom line is we have the tools to make this happen now, we just need to use them.

Yes. And Woods should be the first fighter to drop under that rule. I have a problem with him being ranked over Roy Jones.

Have thought since day one that there should...in certain circumstances... no limits on dropping...yes the Sam Peter situation.After his 2nd straight loss then and his attitude,sad condition and lack of effort,he merited zero top ten ranking to me....though I'm not in favor of this being done only to preserve other fighters IMO for mostly name sake. Split on this honestly....why only 6-10?Sort of sets a sub catagory of top 10 within top 10?

Originally Posted by killersheep

I think this is going to make it too complicated, I am personally glad RJJ is dropping out of the ranks. If someone feels strongly about anything specific they have the power at the beginning of the month to move someone down a rank as their manager special vote. I vote no keep things as they are we can use the tools already available to us.
An example with Woods say he gets voted down 3 spots as it looks like he will. Someones Manager vote (available on Tuesday) could be to replace him at 10th with someone from the pool, it goes to a vote and voila. Bottom line is we have the tools to make this happen now, we just need to use them.

I don't think it'll be any more complicated, we a fighter ranked 6-10 loses we just put how many places they can drop & a pool option

I think it could get messy when we vote to demote someone like Woods & then need to vote to fill the vacancy, especially if the majority wanted that fighter dropped in the 1st place leaving the top 10 intact

The reason this rule will work better is say the #6 guy gets blown out by what should be a tune-up, the most he could drop is to 9th. The #10 guy would be forced out by no fault of his own & it could take at least 2 months minimum to demote the original #6 guy outta our ratings

I just think this rule will give us a better representation of the best fighters for our ratings, plus its really only adding #6 & 7 to the mix as 8,9 & 10 can already exit this way.

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Have thought since day one that there should...in certain circumstances... no limits on dropping...yes the Sam Peter situation.After his 2nd straight loss then and his attitude,sad condition and lack of effort,he merited zero top ten ranking to me....though I'm not in favor of this being done only to preserve other fighters IMO for mostly name sake. Split on this honestly....why only 6-10?Sort of sets a sub catagory of top 10 within top 10?

8,9 & 10 can already move to the pool with the 1-3 options, imo to drop a top 5 guy all the way to the pool would disregard any achievement that fighter had accomplished to get into that position in the 1st place

Most of us are pretty fair & having the rule does not necessarily mean we vote someone to the pool every time, just when the majority sees fit

The option to drop a fighter ranked 6-10 straight to the pool after a loss has been introduced by a vote of 5-1.