Anyone interested in a Classic Boxing Debate League?

This is just a thread to gauge interest....

My good friend, the late great Tomato Can from Boxing Addicts, had a pretty cool league at his site that was fun and seemed to work well.

I forget the exact rules, but I was thinking something like this....

1. You issue a challenge (like let's say, Who wins prime-for-prime, George Foreman or Larry Holmes?) and you pick a side. For argument's sake, let's say I started this thread and I pick Holmes. If McGrain had the audacity to think he could out-debate me on this front, he could accept my challenge and the debate begins.

2. McGrain would start the debate. The debate would be broken into three parts:
I. Introduction
II. Rebuttal
III. Closing Statement

Posts should be no longer than 500 words. So after McGrain starts with his opening, I would then post my opening statement, he would give his rebuttal, I would give my rebuttal, than each of us would give our closing statements......this should be alternating, and I imagine there should be something like a seven day limit between posts or something before a debate results in forfeit.

3. We find three judges who are not involved in the debate to score it on merit "round-by-round".

So in this example, I would have schooled McGrain by a score of 30-27 or something like that.



Would anyone be interested in something like this?

If so, sign on and add your name. If we can get 10 or so interested people, we can make something work.

I would have time to participate now and then and I can fill in more details as time goes, so feel free to ask any questions.

Let me know.

:smoke

INTERESTED PARTIES:

1. Rumsfeld

 

Okay, you're signed up!
:good

I think this can be fun and I have a pretty good way of organizing it I think. I will need people out there willing to help, who can judge debates they're not involved in, etc.

INTERESTED PARTIES:
1. Rumsfeld
2. El Bujia

 

I've thought about this and we've experienced this, too.

I think judging should be based on the following criteria:

1. Strength of the Argument
2. Plausibility of the Argument (personal opinion plays a part here, for sure)
3. Factual Accuracy & Command of Knowledge on the Topic (or something like this)

Of course, this is all subjective so no system will be perrfect. We have to hope that judges can be impartial to some extent, but personal opinion will undoubtedly play a factor (and probably should).

Let's take an extreme example.

Let's say I make a debate challenge: Who wins, 1971 Muhammad Ali versus 1999 Butterbean?

Common sense should prevail in something like this. If anyone was foolish enough to accept this challenge, they would need to make an incredible argument to persuade people that this could happen.

In that sense, I think the person accepting this challenge puts himself at inherent disadvantage which is why challenges issued should be on topics that are open for debate.

I have other ideas as well.

If we get enough interested people, we can try it out when I return from vacation after the Adamek-Grant fight.

I have ideas about how to determine a champion and what would be required of a champion.