Ratings discussions, ideas, concerns etc

[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.

[Galaxy]

I think its easier to keep the divisions all together

I think killers rule of voting for a fighter to be dropped one spot is the best way of dealing with the issue, it just needs a few tweaks

As for un-retiring fighters, I think they should have to earn their way back into the rankings, they retired (no matter for how long) & have to fight their way back in

The more I think about it the more I'm against combining the p4p to our divisional ratings, I see where Jaz is coming from, but like killer said our ratings are still young & will begin to give a better reflection in time. I too want to crown champions but manipulating the system is not the way to do it. If Floyd were to beat Mosley next he'd become our #1, then if he fought Cotto or Berto it would probably for the championship. It may take time but I think sticking to our system is best

[CFH]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

[JazMerkin]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

The key problem with this is, is will their replacement be any better? I mean JoeyUK is the only 'replacement' who's actually come in & done anything & to be fair to him, he's not one of the guys who's on the site every day, but at least he comes by & votes at times.

Most of the guys who've offered to be replacements aren't people who I can see making the effort to come in & I'm questionable of the boxing knowledge of some of them.

I'm not saying we don't need some new ones, but without people coming forward with the knowledge necessary it might be difficult. Why did Mick have to leave, he would've been perfect

I do think that we should institute some kind of discipline system to deal with your sexual predation of managers. I bet hitmanhatton's locked up in your basement right now ya sicko

[CFH]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

The key problem with this is, is will their replacement be any better? I mean JoeyUK is the only 'replacement' who's actually come in & done anything & to be fair to him, he's not one of the guys who's on the site every day, but at least he comes by & votes at times.

Most of the guys who've offered to be replacements aren't people who I can see making the effort to come in & I'm questionable of the boxing knowledge of some of them.

I'm not saying we don't need some new ones, but without people coming forward with the knowledge necessary it might be difficult. Why did Mick have to leave, he would've been perfect

I do think that we should institute some kind of discipline system to deal with your sexual predation of managers. I bet hitmanhatton's locked up in your basement right now ya sicko

Well, yeah, but he's dead so it doesn't really matter where I have him locked up at this point.

I know this might sound stupid, but maybe now that this system has its own board the prestige associated with being a manager will increase. We could put out a call on the main board to see if anyone is interested in joining us.

[Spicoli]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

We should consider it.But not get to a point to where we cannibalize ourselves.I think we need to knuckle down and just sort out what needs to be sorted out....the issues,votes,polls,systems and protocol and then get down to maintaining rankings.I know its early and good things take time but seems with every resolved issue...another pops up.I wonder if it has something to do with retaining people?


Oh and sorry to spurn the advances....but Ive never done THAT and am not fond of rope burns.but can I pick my own 'safety word' haaa.

how about one or two rotating manager slots.Given to new members.

[killersheep]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

We should consider it.But not get to a point to where we cannibalize ourselves.I think we need to knuckle down and just sort out what needs to be sorted out....the issues,votes,polls,systems and protocol and then get down to maintaining rankings.I know its early and good things take time but seems with every resolved issue...another pops up.I wonder if it has something to do with retaining people?


Oh and sorry to spurn the advances....but Ive never done THAT and am not fond of rope burns.but can I pick my own 'safety word' haaa.

how about one or two rotating manager slots.Given to new members.

Not a bad idea, or even a trial period.

[CFH]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

We should consider it.But not get to a point to where we cannibalize ourselves.I think we need to knuckle down and just sort out what needs to be sorted out....the issues,votes,polls,systems and protocol and then get down to maintaining rankings.I know its early and good things take time but seems with every resolved issue...another pops up.I wonder if it has something to do with retaining people?


Oh and sorry to spurn the advances....but Ive never done THAT and am not fond of rope burns.but can I pick my own 'safety word' haaa.

how about one or two rotating manager slots.Given to new members.

I was thinking of it as more of a last resort sort of a thing and a tool by which regular participation would be encouraged.

[JazMerkin]

I'd like to raise again the issue of the 1 year wait after a fighter moves up. I think when a fighter has made a high-profile commitment to moving up, we should free up space. The obvious example for me right now is Nonito Donaire, who has said he will simply not be going back to Flyweight as he was sauna suiting to make the weight for the Martinez fight. In instances like this, I really think its best we free up the space for fighters fighting in that division.

For example Urbano Antillon was ranked in the Super-Featherweight rankings long after it was clear he would not be coming back. I understand he didn't make any clear commitment to fighting at 135, but when a fighter has (e.g. Donaire, Abraham) then we should take that as them risking their spot, particularly once they've fought in that division.

Thoughts?

[killersheep]

I'd like to raise again the issue of the 1 year wait after a fighter moves up. I think when a fighter has made a high-profile commitment to moving up, we should free up space. The obvious example for me right now is Nonito Donaire, who has said he will simply not be going back to Flyweight as he was sauna suiting to make the weight for the Martinez fight. In instances like this, I really think its best we free up the space for fighters fighting in that division.

For example Urbano Antillon was ranked in the Super-Featherweight rankings long after it was clear he would not be coming back. I understand he didn't make any clear commitment to fighting at 135, but when a fighter has (e.g. Donaire, Abraham) then we should take that as them risking their spot, particularly once they've fought in that division.

Thoughts?

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how we effectively implement it. I would like to discuss it a little more, because I definately think it's something we need to address. I just want to make sure we are careful with this a lot of times what people say has nothing to do with reality and this specifically applies to fighters talking about their intentions.

[Spicoli]

Tempted to just say that where a guy has fought last is where he should be ranked.Maybe we should draw distinctions between a mere tune up and a 'meaningful' fight with top ten and pool members when?Can we track the number of guys who have gone up and how many have returned to lower weight class?Alot of contributing factors,are they rising for a proposed big payday,testing the waters...cannot or will not make the weight any longer.It comes down to guys being ranked in multiple divisions,pool and or top ten.Not big on that as it staggers other fighters progression and can make it messy.