Ratings discussions, ideas, concerns etc

[Spicoli]

Have to throw in my 2 cents and by no means am I trying to be a downer and disrespect the hard work and dedication you guys have put in but I'm not big on meshing the p4p and our official rankings together.

p4p can be veeeery subjective and while it credits some of the more high profile fighters it lacks in solidity....tends to bend in the wind I believe.Ive always thought it (all p4p lists) a bit askew and defined by ones preferences and their really is no solid definition.I'm still scratching my head at guys like Mayorga jumping to the Rings p4p ratings.He may have been worthy as top of division by by NO means was he one of 'The best fighters in the world'.Just something that has stuck with me.The ranking should be solid,just don't want to see it turn into a numbers game and get all convoluted.

Good thread Galaxy.One thing I was aiming for was a way to consolidate all of these polls and threads.Seems we may get lost in 'paperwork'.Limit the number of poll threads as to keep them tight knit with centered focus.At the rate we are going I cannot help but think that some members will get lost in wash of pages and we may not see resolved voting.May just focus on what directly interest us and end up having many unresolved issues,polls,votes,etc.Again....the work and effort you guys have done is to be commended and is much appreciated,maybe I just need the AM coffee

[JazMerkin]

Have to throw in my 2 cents and by no means am I trying to be a downer and disrespect the hard work and dedication you guys have put in but I'm not big on meshing the p4p and our official rankings together.

p4p can be veeeery subjective and while it credits some of the more high profile fighters it lacks in solidity....tends to bend in the wind I believe.Ive always thought it (all p4p lists) a bit askew and defined by ones preferences and their really is no solid definition.I'm still scratching my head at guys like Mayorga jumping to the Rings p4p ratings.He may have been worthy as top of division by by NO means was he one of 'The best fighters in the world'.Just something that has stuck with me.The ranking should be solid,just don't want to see it turn into a numbers game and get all convoluted.

Good thread Galaxy.One thing I was aiming for was a way to consolidate all of these polls and threads.Seems we may get lost in 'paperwork'.Limit the number of poll threads as to keep them tight knit with centered focus.At the rate we are going I cannot help but think that some members will get lost in wash of pages and we may not see resolved voting.May just focus on what directly interest us and end up having many unresolved issues,polls,votes,etc.Again....the work and effort you guys have done is to be commended and is much appreciated,maybe I just need the AM coffee

That's why I'm suggesting only using it as a voting option. So let's use it the Darchinyan/Agbeko fight as an example. We put up a poll with options, should Agbeko stay where he is or should he jump one spot taking Perez' spot in 3rd. I can definitely understand your concerns, as my main worry with the P4P list is how at times it seems like a popularity contest, with guys like Pavlik & Hatton particularly doing far better than their work suggests. So what I'm suggesting is using it as a voting method. Most of us here are pretty objective & knowledgeable about the sport & different divisions, so I don't think it would end up devaluing it. So I'm not suggesting that the P4P list means automatic jumps, just that it allows the committee to vote on it slightly differently if you get my drift.

[Spicoli]

Have to throw in my 2 cents and by no means am I trying to be a downer and disrespect the hard work and dedication you guys have put in but I'm not big on meshing the p4p and our official rankings together.

p4p can be veeeery subjective and while it credits some of the more high profile fighters it lacks in solidity....tends to bend in the wind I believe.Ive always thought it (all p4p lists) a bit askew and defined by ones preferences and their really is no solid definition.I'm still scratching my head at guys like Mayorga jumping to the Rings p4p ratings.He may have been worthy as top of division by by NO means was he one of 'The best fighters in the world'.Just something that has stuck with me.The ranking should be solid,just don't want to see it turn into a numbers game and get all convoluted.

Good thread Galaxy.One thing I was aiming for was a way to consolidate all of these polls and threads.Seems we may get lost in 'paperwork'.Limit the number of poll threads as to keep them tight knit with centered focus.At the rate we are going I cannot help but think that some members will get lost in wash of pages and we may not see resolved voting.May just focus on what directly interest us and end up having many unresolved issues,polls,votes,etc.Again....the work and effort you guys have done is to be commended and is much appreciated,maybe I just need the AM coffee

That's why I'm suggesting only using it as a voting option. So let's use it the Darchinyan/Agbeko fight as an example. We put up a poll with options, should Agbeko stay where he is or should he jump one spot taking Perez' spot in 3rd. I can definitely understand your concerns, as my main worry with the P4P list is how at times it seems like a popularity contest, with guys like Pavlik & Hatton particularly doing far better than their work suggests. So what I'm suggesting is using it as a voting method. Most of us here are pretty objective & knowledgeable about the sport & different divisions, so I don't think it would end up devaluing it. So I'm not suggesting that the P4P list means automatic jumps, just that it allows the committee to vote on it slightly differently if you get my drift.

I hear you bud.I can def see your reasoning Jaz.I just think we could get into manufacturing positions.It may all boil down to a consensus that Agbeko deserves to be higher than Perez,Not so much on beating a p4p guy...but a better fighter in Vic than Mabuza ?Maybe we collectively did not look far enough down the road??I'm not sure who the manager of 118 is but would be interested in their opinion.Love the p4p list,alot of focus and work put into it but I believe we will get bogged down.It should stand alone for its quality.


just a thought for all....why not make a thread for each division and all related polls,votes are entered there in and references to key developments over time are referenced on the most current page for locating purposes?Gives the division a center point instead of many,many names bouncing around?Make us managers earn our keep

[JazMerkin]

I can definitely see the concerns you guys have, my main concern is that the new rule killer has brought in won't lead to guys facing weak opposition being demoted, as nearly half of our managers aren't pro-active enough to vote, let alone actually do anything in their division. It's generally us three, CFH, VD, Daxx & killer who actually vote on issues. I think part of the problem we have is that a lot of the people who originally voted on divisions have now gone & IMO there's a danger that younger, exciting fighters who've come on don't really get their due. Boxing moves fairly fast, particularly at the lower end of each of our rankings & I think opposition plays a big part in deciding who goes where. For example, Ngoudjo has been sitting in our rankings ahead of guys beating better opposition like Ortiz or Maidana.

I'm just trying to find another method that might help result with us having the best 10 fighters in each division in that division, as well as hopefully bringing us a champion.

[Galaxy]

Remember Jaz, the guys in our rankings have either earned their rankings or been voted in so dropping them to much could be a little unfair. I agree that some of the managers aren't as active as others but its not to stop us from keeping an eye on all our ratings as a whole. (Like you did with Torres' situation.)

I think fighters winning their rankings is fair, & although there maybe lots of young talent around they need to beat someone ranked or be voted in to ascertain a ranking. You can say what you want about Ngoudjo but his opposition has been pretty good & everyone but the loss to Urango was competitive


With it approved to fill vacancies by voting coming in at 4 votes to 1, we might want to have a think about who we want to vote on for filling these spots. Next week is pretty quiet with only 2 ranked fighters fighting so we might want to post some polls on these vacancies:


#10 at Heavy is vacant

#10 at Jr. Middle is vacant

#10 at Jr. Welter is vacant but we have voted that the Mayweather/ Marquez winner fills that spot

#10 at Jr. Feather is vacant

#10 at Jr. Bantam is vacant & with Kirilov coming out at the beginning of August there’ll be 2 spots available

#9 & #10 at Jr. Fly are vacant

#10 at Straw is vacant


I like Spicoli's idea for a separate thread for each division but that's going to be 17 divisions, plus one for the p4p! Maybe we could break it into groups like killer has (3 or so to a group) If we had a main thread with links to each division would be great.

I think the best way to do the polls might be a couple grouped together with multiple choice.

e.g

TITLE: Prescott, M. Vasquez, I. Vasquez.

OPTIONS:

Prescott out of pool.
Prescott remains in pool.
M. Vasquez for #10.
M. Vasquez into pool.
I. Vasquez removed from 122 & into pool at 126.
I. Vasquez remain ranked at 122 & into pool at 126.
I. Vasquez into the pool at 122 & 126.

I think we can have up to 10 options per poll so maybe 3 polls is all we'll need for the weekly votes.

etc, sorry for the long post but had a bit to say...

[JazMerkin]

Breaking down threads by division don't seem possible possible, I've tried. I can understand your points, but I think there's also the problem that our rankings don't take account of 'unretiring' boxers. Let's say Calzaghe came back today, he fulfills all the criteria to be ranked, has fought in the past 12 months & in the past 18 beat our #1 & #10. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I want our rankings to be realistic of where the best guys in the division are & also create more champions. Maybe a suggestion being that in the instance that Mosley fought Mayweather after the JMM fight, that that becomes a fight to get a champ, as the 1-5 rule doesn't take into account the respective quality of divisions or of a fighter coming up.

Maybe a way to deal with it is that if a fighter hasn't beaten a ranked or pool opponent in 2 years, they can drop below fighters who've beaten better opposition in that time on a committee vote. I feel Zab Judah & Clinton Woods are both examples of this. I just think quality of opposition needs to be factored in, at least at the lower end of the rankings where we have guys doing the bare minimum to hold position.

[killersheep]

I can appreciate what Jaz is saying about p4p fighters, but I don't think that it is something we can quantitatively implement. The p4p fighters are sure to be at or near the top of their weight classes anyway and beating them takes over their spot.

I also think that have a thread for each weight class would be very difficult to maintain.

The issues that have come up recently reflect the infancy of this system, but I think it's heading in the right direction. The reason I brought up the Manager's choice idea was because although our system does a good scatter shot of saying who's who, a little tweaking would give a more accurate representation of true rankings.