New rule idea - Option to remove a rated fighter

[JazMerkin]

I'm good with that, are we still going to keep your rule of demoting? I think we should!

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.

[CFH]

I like the demotion idea, I think it should stay. Regarding the vote to drop a fighter to the pool, I have no problem with that option being included in the poll for a fighter who loses two fights in a row. If they're close decisions or losses to elite competition people will understand that and vote differently.

[killersheep]

I still think the demotion idea should stay, I have a feeling it won't be used often (that's at least my hope). I think it should only be used in more extreme cases where there is a deep pool and the rankings are getting really crowded with guys taking it easy.

I really want to emphasize this, if we continue with the demotion rule, managers should go in with the mindset of opposing the motion by default they must be convinced that it will benefit the rankings as a whole to agree with it. I personally have voted complacently and made mistakes. I will be paying much closer attention in the future.

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.

I think you misunderstood mate when a fight loses twice in a row it triggers a vote, not automatic poolage (new word I guess)

[JazMerkin]

I agree, both rules: the demotion & removal after 2 loses rules should be used at a minimum

I think the demotion idea is a good one. Guys keeping spots by beating weak opposition should get demoted over guys beating better opposition. Guys like Collazo & Bika should have to beat decent opposition to hold their spots, not lose to good opposition & then beat journeymen in the interim between those fights. Don't know about the 2 losses thing, it sounds good, but someone could easily lose 2 close fights in a row (let's say Cotto faces Pac twice & loses contentious decisions each time) & then being dropped to the pool because of that would be wrong IMO. I think it should always be put to the vote rather than be automatic.

I think you misunderstood mate when a fight loses twice in a row it triggers a vote, not automatic poolage (new word I guess)

Ah ok, if that's the case then I definitely support it. In a case like Diaz I support it, but let's say Joshua Clottey loses a close fight to Shane Mosley next time out, I wouldn't.

[Violent Demise]

Diaz should just be removed all together. Really it's pretty obvious he's shot. 3 of his prvious 4 fights have been above 135. Why's he even still ranked there?

[Galaxy]

Diaz should just be removed all together. Really it's pretty obvious he's shot. 3 of his prvious 4 fights have been above 135. Why's he even still ranked there?

The Kidd was initially voted in at #3 on the set up vote. He dropped 3 places to 6th after the Reyes loss. He had won a fight at 135 in Oct '08, so he still technically meet out requirements. But with this new option to drop a fighter to the pool after 2 straight defeats in a row, at least now we can remove him from the ratings.

I think moving rated fighters to the pool rather than out altogether is better because it sort of gives them a gatekeeper type role into our ratings. If beaten they will exit the pool & be replaced by their conqueror.