Old Super-Middleweight/Middleweight/Light Middleweight Threads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

We have discussions of a very possible Pavlik vs. Williams fight.....why force a vote on the past wright fight as opposed to Williams fighting his way in against the top ranked Middle guy?

Where is the manager of the division?Would like to see Tams input on filling these spots.

I would propose that in the future all vacant spots are left open for a minimal amount of time prior to a vote on an upcoming fight to fill a vacant spot.Leaves room for natural flexibility...think Darwin ;D.Bud...I think its the number of spots and hindsight voting that are getting me.Just seems, with much respect,manufactured a bit.Not trying to break balls here and dont want to get bogged down.Just voicing opinion.

---

Where oh where could little Tam be? At this point I don't think his input is very valid as he has been very inactive.

The thing with waiting for the result of Pavlik/ Williams is that if Williams loses he probably gets removed from the pool... right? Whereas if he enters the fight as our number 8 guy he has the opportunity the be demoted with a lose & still possible be ranked.

imo 8 is a very fair entry for Williams... The Ring has him at 5!

I remember we did the same thing Antillon for the 10th spot at 135 at the time based on his 2 previous fights at lightweight that had already happened... do I sense some favoritism? Or is your boy Urbano exempt?

If you like put up a poll to see if other members feel we should have a time limit before voting to fill vacancies. But I feel filling the vacancies as soon as they become vacant is the best way to go, it gives us a complete top 10, based on the majority of the active managers opinions & creates opportunities for guys fighting those we voted in to win/ earn ranking...

---

Mate.The votes done and we are just spinning our wheels here and bogging it down.I just dont understand the reasoning and moving on Williams in that first part above?.I'm not particularly concerned with where I can still rank a guy should he lose?.....and a loss does not mean auomatic expulsion from the pool does it? Vote in at 10 is one thing but higher can be massaged.

I do my best to stay away from favoritism,it does not play hear but I'm not perfect & do believe Antillon merits ranking as hes campaigned there a few recently and spot was vacant at the time he won.Williams jumped to 160 pool off Wright win already?Can we propel a guy twice off same win really.

Anyway bud.No harm either way and just stuck on it.Cheers all is with respect Galaxy.Just hashing it out and letting it go.Guess this is all part of the system being molded into shape.cheers

Its all good Spicoli, I don't feel we're bogging it down, its good to discuss these things. I'm just trying to give the other side of the argument. There were 3 vacancies at 160, which is to many imo & to be honest I don't think anyone in the pool or in a possible upcoming fight is better than Williams, unless they beat him. Lorenzo, Griffin, Geale... Williams would have to be a strong favorite over them.

Although a loss does not necessarily mean removal from the pool, it usually does end up that way. Say if Williams loses to Pavlik in a close controversial fight he could remain at 8th, if its clear cut he could be dropped to 9th or 10th depending on a vote, if its a blowout he could drop back to the pool with a 3 point demotion.

I'm not saying I voted him in just because it gives us more options if he loses, I think he is the best choice to fill the position & if you can name one guy or upcoming fight that would elevate them above Williams I'd be willing to listen. But the fact is we have 3 vacant spots & Williams a p4pr is the best fighter imo to fill one of them...

I know you don't play favs bro, was just trying to show another example of where fights that had already happened had been used to fill a vacancy. I agree Antillon should be ranked.

The rule of filling vacancies was changed just recently by a vote, but can still use some tweaks. Like I said before; when voting to fill vacancies we should include the option to leave the spot vacant along with those nominated.

Mad respect Spicoli, your one of the guys that make this place so good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Sorry man, but I'm gonna have to stick with my original vote of Moore, although I do feel bad about it given voting numbers, as I just feel Martirosyan hasn't been beating fighters of the same quality. Moore also appears to be fighting Sergio Martinez in September so looks the most likely to be stepping up to world level soon.

---

That's your right as a manager mate, I've posted this weeks update

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Sorry man, but I'm gonna have to stick with my original vote of Moore, although I do feel bad about it given voting numbers, as I just feel Martirosyan hasn't been beating fighters of the same quality. Moore also appears to be fighting Sergio Martinez in September so looks the most likely to be stepping up to world level soon.

---

No need to apologize man, it's all good.

With the tragic death of Vernon Forrest the #10 position is vacant again

So who should it be?

DeAndre Latimore
Alfredo Angulo
Carlos Quintana
Vanes Martirosyan
David Lopez

I'm going to have to stay with my pick from the last vote - Martirosyan!

Anyone else want to vote on this?

The Poll has now closed. The results are as follows:

Deandre Latimore enters the #10 position by a vote of 3 points to 2 for Vane Martirosyan

I move that Vernon Forrest should be awarded an Honorary title at 154 and hold it until someone else claims the spot.

Is this how cheap 'world' championships are now ..... that it's as meaningless a bauble as a degree or citation, when we think about just giving one out to someone because he's a nice guy who died too young?

Look at the tragedies that there have been in boxing over the years .... there would be thousands of deserving cases and that would devalue these titles even more than they already are (if that's possible)

A title is supposed to be the culmination of years of training, fighting, pain, disappointment and triumphs. If you win one, you are truly at the top of the game - an international class exponent of the art and the absolute best person, at that weight at that time. You never hold the title long as someone else will always be better one day ..... but for that glorious moment, you are truly on top of the world.

Fighters like Jerry Quarry, Cleveland Williams Zora Folley, Roland LaStarza, Charley Burley amd the like - who never won a world title - would be rolling in their graves.

Nothing against Forrest, but 'No', 'I say No' killersheep 'No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Is this how cheap 'world' championships are now ..... that it's as meaningless a bauble as a degree or citation, when we think about just giving one out to someone because he's a nice guy who died too young?

Look at the tragedies that there have been in boxing over the years .... there would be thousands of deserving cases and that would devalue these titles even more than they already are (if that's possible)

A title is supposed to be the culmination of years of training, fighting, pain, disappointment and triumphs. If you win one, you are truly at the top of the game - an international class exponent of the art and the absolute best person, at that weight at that time. You never hold the title long as someone else will always be better one day ..... but for that glorious moment, you are truly on top of the world.

Fighters like Jerry Quarry, Cleveland Williams Zora Folley, Roland LaStarza, Charley Burley amd the like - who never won a world title - would be rolling in their graves.

Nothing against Forrest, but 'No', 'I say No' killersheep 'No

---

You aren't a manager................ :p

oops, sorry mate ...... I didn't realise it was something else (apologies, I thought you were suggesting he was honoured with a real honorary belt/title)

I voted 'no', so maybe someone can just remove my vote or you can just discount one from the 'no' section?

:embarassed:

I say no....The rankings are hard enough without awarding honorary belts...then it will be a debate on whop to really put in the shoes etc

I was thinking we should leave that vacant spot open for a spell regardless?What sort honorary belt ?

I agree with this proposal. It would only be until the ranked #1 fought another top 5 fighter & he would take over. It's not like he was ranked #6, the guy was our #1 & deservedly so & had beaten a top 5 ranks within the last year. I know it's sentimental, but hell if there's a sport more prone to sentimentality I haven't come across it. I think until a fight is made that is worthy of being for the championship, then there is no one more deserving of the honorary championship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

I was thinking we should leave that vacant spot open for a spell regardless?What sort honorary belt ?

---

It doesn't look like you all should have a real champ there anyway?? Why not let him stay there temporarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I agree with this proposal. It would only be until the ranked #1 fought another top 5 fighter & he would take over. It's not like he was ranked #6, the guy was our #1 & deservedly so & had beaten a top 5 ranks within the last year. I know it's sentimental, but hell if there's a sport more prone to sentimentality I haven't come across it. I think until a fight is made that is worthy of being for the championship, then there is no one more deserving of the honorary championship.

---

Yeah this is a good idea.

Disclaimer: I am not a manager and I know nothing about boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

I was thinking we should leave that vacant spot open for a spell regardless?What sort honorary belt ?

---

It doesn't look like you all should have a real champ there anyway?? Why not let him stay there temporarily.

---

You might have a point about Williams.Its not as if he's defeated anyone of note or substance now that you think about it ;D


Hey Greg....by "leaving that spot vacant" was talking about Vernons rank...and not filling it in a quick vote....sort of a missing man formation in a fly over,out of repect.Leaving him ranked is the same,so yes.Been a long day:cwm13:

I vote no. Nothing against Forrest but whats the point of awarding a championship when he never meet our conditions since they were established? We have set in place certain rules & conditions & I think its wise to stick to them. Plus it would look bad for our ratings imo to have a dead man advance through our rankings & become recognized as our champion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I vote no. Nothing against Forrest but whats the point of awarding a championship when he never meet our conditions since they were established? We have set in place certain rules & conditions & I think its wise to stick to them. Plus it would look bad for our ratings imo to have a dead man advance through our rankings & become recognized as our champion.

---

I agree 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I vote no. Nothing against Forrest but whats the point of awarding a championship when he never meet our conditions since they were established? We have set in place certain rules & conditions & I think its wise to stick to them. Plus it would look bad for our ratings imo to have a dead man advance through our rankings & become recognized as our champion.

---

I dunno ....... it worked for John Ruiz in real life, after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I vote no. Nothing against Forrest but whats the point of awarding a championship when he never meet our conditions since they were established? We have set in place certain rules & conditions & I think its wise to stick to them. Plus it would look bad for our ratings imo to have a dead man advance through our rankings & become recognized as our champion.

---

I don't really think its about maintaining the rating as much as it is just giving a guy a salute.When two credible pool members,ranked members get it on and fill out the spot,so be it.We're not talking permanent here.In hindsight and respectfully,I have no problem with Lopez,Vanes,Lattimore waiting a bit and it came off as just a bit rushed Imo.He was a champion,and he was killed.Hopefully we don't need exceptions like this again.Rules are rules...you are correct and 100% right but we have made exceptions on maintaining ranks before.Izzy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I vote no. Nothing against Forrest but whats the point of awarding a championship when he never meet our conditions since they were established? We have set in place certain rules & conditions & I think its wise to stick to them. Plus it would look bad for our ratings imo to have a dead man advance through our rankings & become recognized as our champion.

---

I don't really think its about maintaining the rating as much as it is just giving a guy a salute.When two credible pool members,ranked members get it on and fill out the spot,so be it.We're not talking permanent here.In hindsight and respectfully,I have no problem with Lopez,Vanes,Lattimore waiting a bit and it came off as just a bit rushed Imo.He was a champion,and he was killed.Hopefully we don't need exceptions like this again.Rules are rules...you are correct and 100% right but we have made exceptions on maintaining ranks before.Izzy?

---

Give the guy a salute by all means... but there's no need to give him our championship! Sure he was a top fighter & a nice guy but he didn't meet our conditions. I can't see any reasonable reason to have a guy who's passed away included in our ratings! Especially if we want them to be credible... which is the reason I assume we maintain them in the 1st place, or else whats the point?

I know your opinions about filling vacancies but imo it give guys options... if we hadn't voted Antillon in to 10th at 135; Acosta victory would have only earned him a pool entry, where I feel he totally deserved ranking after defeating the highly touted prospect. Plus other places that maintain rankings don't leave positions vacant, if they have a top ten & someone drops out they fill the vacancy with a guy they feel is best by discussion, as we did by votes.

In regards to Vasquez' exception, he was out with a legitimate eye injury & there was the potential for him to return at that weight & we only maintained his ranking, we didn't award him the championship! There's no chance Forrest will return. Our ratings should be about the best current fighters in those divisions & due to tragic circumstances Forrest is no longer included in that group...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...ddleweight.jpg

How far should Karoly Balzsay (currently #7) fall after being stopped by unranked Robert Stieglitz in 10 rounds? 1-3 spots?

I vote 2 spots to settle at 9 pushing down the man he defeated recently Denis Inkin.

Should Jean Pascal be removed from the pool at 168 as he is now rated #6 at 175? His last fight at Super-Middle was April 4th ’09 so he still meets our requirements but what is the possibility of him returning to 168?

I think he should remain in the pool at 168 for a little while longer

his last fight and next fight are/were at 168. Most of the guys that he could challenge for a spot will be tied up in the tournament. I think he will stay at 175.

Steiglitz dominated him I say 3 spots it was definately a complete one sided beat down. I am sending out a prayer for Balzay and am waiting for some kind of news from the hospital saying he's ok.

I'd have liked an option to the pool, I can't see ranking him above Dirrell (let alone Ward who's in the pool) on the basis of that performance. I'd personally say he should drop to the pool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I'd have liked an option to the pool, I can't see ranking him above Dirrell (let alone Ward who's in the pool) on the basis of that performance. I'd personally say he should drop to the pool

---

Considering he lost to someone not even in the pool, I agree. This was a shock. I expected this outcome. But the other way around.

Dirrell will get back on if he wins any matches in the tournament he will be back on and bump Balzay out. This will work it's way out once the tournament gets going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Dirrell will get back on if he wins any matches in the tournament he will be back on and bump Balzay out. This will work it's way out once the tournament gets going.

---

Yeah it will. Gotta trust the system.

Drop him 3 slots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Dirrell will get back on if he wins any matches in the tournament he will be back on and bump Balzay out. This will work it's way out once the tournament gets going.

---

Yeah it will. Gotta trust the system.

Drop him 3 slots

---

You could say the same thing about Inkin losing to someone not in the pool, when he lost to Balzsay, yet he still remains ranked. I think you guys are being a little hard just because of a loss! Sure he was stopped, but Stieglitz isn't a bad fighter & packs a punch. I think a 3 place drop at most is fair considering he defeated a ranked fighter earlier this year...

As killer said the system will sort itself out as the tournament starts, it could also be argued that who has Dirrell beat that was better than Inkin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Dirrell will get back on if he wins any matches in the tournament he will be back on and bump Balzay out. This will work it's way out once the tournament gets going.

---

Yeah it will. Gotta trust the system.

Drop him 3 slots

---

You could say the same thing about Inkin losing to someone not in the pool, when he lost to Balzsay, yet he still remains ranked. I think you guys are being a little hard just because of a loss! Sure he was stopped, but Stieglitz isn't a bad fighter & packs a punch. I think a 3 place drop at most is fair considering he defeated a ranked fighter earlier this year...

As killer said the system will sort itself out as the tournament starts, it could also be argued that who has Dirrell beat that was better than Inkin?

---

I was being serious about my concern for his health, he was stretchered out of the ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Dirrell will get back on if he wins any matches in the tournament he will be back on and bump Balzay out. This will work it's way out once the tournament gets going.

---

Yeah it will. Gotta trust the system.

Drop him 3 slots

---

You could say the same thing about Inkin losing to someone not in the pool, when he lost to Balzsay, yet he still remains ranked. I think you guys are being a little hard just because of a loss! Sure he was stopped, but Stieglitz isn't a bad fighter & packs a punch. I think a 3 place drop at most is fair considering he defeated a ranked fighter earlier this year...

As killer said the system will sort itself out as the tournament starts, it could also be argued that who has Dirrell beat that was better than Inkin?

---

That's fine, butI think that with him only in 7th we should have been given the option of dropping him to the pool. Whether or not you believe we're being harsh, I think the option for him going to the pool off that loss should have been available

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Yeah it will. Gotta trust the system.

Drop him 3 slots

---

You could say the same thing about Inkin losing to someone not in the pool, when he lost to Balzsay, yet he still remains ranked. I think you guys are being a little hard just because of a loss! Sure he was stopped, but Stieglitz isn't a bad fighter & packs a punch. I think a 3 place drop at most is fair considering he defeated a ranked fighter earlier this year...

As killer said the system will sort itself out as the tournament starts, it could also be argued that who has Dirrell beat that was better than Inkin?

---

That's fine, butI think that with him only in 7th we should have been given the option of dropping him to the pool. Whether or not you believe we're being harsh, I think the option for him going to the pool off that loss should have been available

---

The option wasn't given because it isn't in our rules. Balzsay has been active, has one a fight in a year & hasn't lost 2 fights in a row...

Many times before I have suggested stuff along the lines of if a fighter in the bottom 5 of the top 10 loses the option to drop him to the pool should be an option, but everyone seems to change their mind when its brought up, which is why we went with the 2 loses in a row option instead.

Maybe we should just revamp the whole process of dropping: If a fighter loses to a lower ranked fighter we should have the option to drop them 1 place all the way to the pool, I think bottom 5 would be the best option & leave 1-3 spots for top 5 rated guys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galaxy

You could say the same thing about Inkin losing to someone not in the pool, when he lost to Balzsay, yet he still remains ranked. I think you guys are being a little hard just because of a loss! Sure he was stopped, but Stieglitz isn't a bad fighter & packs a punch. I think a 3 place drop at most is fair considering he defeated a ranked fighter earlier this year...

As killer said the system will sort itself out as the tournament starts, it could also be argued that who has Dirrell beat that was better than Inkin?

---

That's fine, butI think that with him only in 7th we should have been given the option of dropping him to the pool. Whether or not you believe we're being harsh, I think the option for him going to the pool off that loss should have been available

---

The option wasn't given because it isn't in our rules. Balzsay has been active, has one a fight in a year & hasn't lost 2 fights in a row...

Many times before I have suggested stuff along the lines of if a fighter in the bottom 5 of the top 10 loses the option to drop him to the pool should be an option, but everyone seems to change their mind when its brought up, which is why we went with the 2 loses in a row option instead.

Maybe we should just revamp the whole process of dropping: If a fighter loses to a lower ranked fighter we should have the option to drop them 1 place all the way to the pool, I think bottom 5 would be the best option & leave 1-3 spots for top 5 rated guys

---

I thought we'd agreed having that as an option. I think if a guy loses to a guy not even in our pool, it should at least be an option, certainly for guys ranked 6-10. I agree completely with the last paragraph.

This poll has now closed. The results are as follows:

Jean Pascall remains in the pool at 168 by a vote of 4 points to 2

This poll has now closed. The results are as follows:

Karoly Balzsay drops 3 spots by a vote of 3 points to 1 for 2 spots

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...ddleweight.jpg

I think that Denis Inkin should drop below Karoly Balzsay off the back of being beaten by him. Regardless of Balzsay's KO loss, I still think he deserves ranking over Inkin who's done nothing since getting beaten. Balzsay has at least kept busy fighting twice since then. Inkin doesn't deserve to be above Balzsay, let alone Dirrell or Ward, so I think he should drop a spot in anticipation of being jettisoned by someone during the Super-Six tournament.

Should they have switched positions following their fight? I've been neglecting my managerial duties lately.