Have to say,Not a fan of top ten vacant slots.Think we should do everything possibel to fill them all....vote on pool members within time frame??
Also,I am about to get laughed at and ridiculed.Now just think before jumping.At heavyweight....ahem...cough.....John Ruiz........He may be gruesome in style but has competed on a Championship level forever.I use competed lightly
If Ruiz signs a fight, the winner will be put in the pool (unless he fights a ranked fighter of course)
Eddie Chambers is fighting Sam Peter if he wins he gets ranked and by default the vacancy gets filled, from the field moving down.
Also, failing Chambers beating Peter, Arreola is already in the pool and is fight Jameel McCline 4/11/09 for the vacant #10 spot.
Last edited by killersheep; 03-23-2009 at 04:33 PM.
For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.
I already suggested this one for Straw.
I'm o.k. with have vacant spots, I would rather have them empty than just fill them for the sake of filling them.
I think Arreola/ McCline is of high enough quality to fill the vacant spot at heavy should Chambers not defeat Peter.
Question: If say Ibragimov who is in the pool too, was fighting someone roughly the same quality as McCline around the same time would the committe vote to see which fight should fill the vacancy?
The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be
Not loving the idea of A Chambers only criteria in the Peter fight.Think if Peter is meaningful enough that a win over him gets Chambers ranked,then a Peter win should earn him the same.Neither is in the pool right now....So Chambers (or both) would be skipping it all together.
So what do you guys think about how many people should be in the pool?
I earlier suggested 3, however that may not be sufficient to fill vacancies in a timely manner. On the other hand, The more fighters in the pool the more complex tracking becomes. Perhaps 5 is a good number more than that we vote someone out less people fight their way in.
Hmmm, opinions?
For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.
Is he ranked in top ten ??I swear I need to print the rankings out or put em in a file easy .Nevermind the previous waaa then.My bad Killer
5 in the pool sounds very good.Alot of comers to include.What about a Kevin Johnson....I think he'll continue to have a hard time getting big fights.Personnaly,but sounds like I'm in the minority,I'd put Ruiz in the pool.Not caught up on Sosnowskis next opponent and how he stands.....but is that the same one who very nearly became Zuri Lawrences first ever KO victory??
Not sure if the pool should be limited over time, what I mean is 5 will be a good limit to start with. (If there are fighters who were voted for but missed the top 10 I think they should remain in the pool for the time being even if theres more than 5, not sure if this has occurred?).
My feeling is if a fighter is in the pool & they are beaten by an unranked they should be removed & the winner enters the pool.
We could use something like the way ranked fighters move down, if beaten in a competitive bout with a ranked fighter they could remain in the pool, if blown out they should be removed. If they draw with a ranked fighter they could remain, if an unranked draws with a ranked fighter or one in the pool they themselves could enter the pool.
The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be
Sad but true on the Zuri Lawrence thing, but he's looked much better aside from that fight. I think that was a fnf that we had a thread for and everything, Lawrence just flat out embarressed Albert. If Lawrence knew how to punch he would probably have taken him out.
Good call on Kevin Johnson, I'd back him for whomever he's fighting next to go into the pool.
For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.
What did we do...take the discussions into the Smokey backrooms like all of the other alphabet committees .Jk but I have to chime in on ranking placement off a loss.Namely one Samuel Peter
I'd drop him out of the top ten all together.I like Case by case and this is a case of a guy loosing two and I believe preforming terribly in both.Uninspired,unmotivated and unwilling to knuckle down in training let alone in the ring when it counts the most.Just my
I'm o.k. with the one spot drop as Chambers was far from dominant! I could justify two spots based on it being Peter's second lose in a row & the fact he hasn't won a fight at heavy in over a year.
Anyone else think fighters should remain in the pool as long as they are winning (at least once a year), regardless of fighting for a ranked position or not?
If a fighter is inactive at their ranked weight for over a year I feel it should be put to the committee to vote on what sort of penalty they should recieve to their ranking. Extreme cases (Vasquez) could recieve an extention, fighters who have been fighting but at other weights could drop a spot or two, or in certain cases be removed to the pool.
Anyone else have opinions around these ideas?
The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be
SADDO BOXING OFFICIAL RATINGS UPDATE
HEAVYWEIGHT
Eddie Chambers debuts at number six following his majority decision over Samuel Peter who previously held that position. The entrance of Chambers causes Samuel Peter, Juan Carlos Gomez, David Haye & Alexander Dimitrenko all to drop one rung each to seventh, eight, ninth and tenth respectively.
Super Flyweight
Hugo Cazares (eighth at Flyweight) enters at number 10 on the heels of his victory over Roberto Vasquez who exits (remains ranked number nine at bantam). Jose Lopez (currently number nine at Flyweight) enters the pool with his unanimous decision over Pramuansak Posuwan.
Flyweight
Jose Lopez drops to the pool because of inactivity. Omar Salado moves from 10th to 9th to fill the spot. The 10th spot is now vacant.
Courtesy of Galaxy. <------------------
For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks