SURVEY CLOSED

No, not exactly but very similar. And yes, 9-10 years ago.

Back then I did the Surveys individually and used a Top 10 for every list. The scoring system this time uses a similar scoring method, but it's different (intending to create more separation).

 

Should you change your mind, deadline is still more than a month away. Your contributions would be most welcome.

 

No, definitely not including any lists from the previous Survey.

 

There is no rule against it.

 

This was my overall view as well. I am also interested in seeing if any noticeable trend shifts occur, but beyond that, this Survey is a bit more involved with each contributor providing 50% more names per division, when compared to last time.

 

With all due respect, it does not appear that you did.

For starters, I need only 15 names from each of the original 8, and only 25 names for the ATG list. You provided more than needed in almost every instance. More troubling, however, is the fact that at quick glance, you've included at least a couple of career amateurs, which is not at all in line with the point of the exercise.

Please kindly remedy. Thanks.

 

With all due respect, sounds like you're selling yourself short.

No pressure, but your contribution would most certainly be welcome.

 

Actually, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'd really like a consistent sample size throughout. So I am requiring 9 lists by the deadline.

 

Yes. I am requiring 9 lists.

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. But having a consistent sample size throughout the divisions is important to me.

I understand that as we venture south, knowledge generally decreases both because there is less interest and less exposure, both historically and (by and large) currently. It's not my desire to turn people off in that manner, where I'm hoping a best effort will inspire people to still give it a go, even if they're feeling less than 100% confident on the lower end of the spectrum.

 

In fairness, I never specifically mentioned that these lists were to be based on professional boxing careers - I had assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that this was understood.

But - to avoid any confusion going forward - we are indeed talking about the history of professional boxing for the purpose of these surveys.

 

I'd also like to quickly add that, looking at this a bit differently in the cases of you @mcvey and @BitPlayerVesti and undoubtedly others - your collective participation would surely strengthen the results of far more weight divisions than they would 'harm' (and I use that word VERY loosely, please do not mistake my meaning).

In other words, from my perspective at least, the benefits of your participation would tremendously outweigh the areas where you're feeling less than 100% confident.

No pressure though!