Excellent CT, good to see you as part of this project. Not to add to the workload, but we could do some historical lists as well. Same voting system, but applied to both division by division historically, as well as P4P historically. Given that the voters selected have shown merit in doing so of course.
Your being a Pacfan doesn't bar you, as long as you can remove your bias as much as possible from the equation.
On the vacated question with Taylor as an example. I say the one year rule still applies. Say he fights and draws with Pavlik and doesn't rematch him but moves up to the SMW division. If he doesn't come back down and fight in the MW division within the year of the draw with Pavlik OR signs to fight another SMW fight, I say he vacates and we vote on a new champion if it merits it, as in the #1 and #2 fighters fight while Taylor is off at SMW but not vacated because the year is not up.
I like the addition of the two fight rule. Often times in the past fighters will challenge themselves a la Hatton and Mayweather, only to return to their previous division and fight within a year. However, in a case like this, would the champion be exempt from the 365 day rule if he has already signed to fight a bout in his original division? Or is it 365 days period? I think this would have to be written into the bylaws somewhere, either way.
I think that in order for it to be acceptable to have the #1 face the #3 for the championship, that there needs to be some sort of proof that the #1 challenger tried to fight the #2 guy in the division. I think that the only thing that should be grandfathered in are the linear champions, which of course, would bring the whole determination of lineage into the equation, but if we want our rankings to have historical merit, then lineage should be accounted for wherever it exists. That being said, I think that the only tradition that has been defined in doing such would be the unification of the WBA+WBC titles. Its the only way its been done since the two titles were formed around the same time. Luckily for us, the only absurdity that would come of it would be that Kessler would be linear at SMW, but luckily, he's fighting Calzaghe and it will iron itself out. What do you guys think about grandfathering in the linear champions?
Personally, with the long delays that are commonplace with champions today, I would much rather have them lose their title in the ring than by being stripped. I think that as long as they have a bout scheduled in their original division by the end of 365 days, then they should be ok. If there are cancellations or postponements, we could bring it to a vote. Then again, we could always vote on if the fighter receives an exemption from the 365 day rule given that they have a bout signed. To me, this can only be the case if a fighter vacates the division and then returns. Champions who remain in their division and do not fight within 365 days should be stripped of their title. To me, being a champion means you at least fight once a year. I mean AT LEAST.
LOL that good old Erdei. I guess that makes a good point though. I suppose if we strictly rank the best from top to bottom, it would iron itself out. I'm just a big fan of the lineage and the history it represents. Its just a shame that the politricks get in the way these days. Erdei should have been sparked out of that title ages ago.
I think two nominations per person sounds good, and I agree no one should be able to vote for himself this go-round. In the future, nominating oneself obviously is the way people will do it.
Good comments by tobkhan. 1) It seems most want to keep all the divisions separate, so let's go with that. 2) Most also expect that the lower divisions should have five ranked fighters only. That makes sense to me, so do we want to say the cutoff of 118? Everything below that will have top 5 rankings? 3) It makes sense that we should vote on our own starting champions. We'll have to do it just once, and we won't depend on The Ring or lineal rankings. 4) The division placement issue remains difficult for me to conceptualize for this project, but I think voting on issues as they arise will be the best way to go. I just have to think of a way to handle that in the primary document. 5) Thinking about it, I think you guys are right about allowing voters to name a champion after a fight. It's fair and it makes sense. 6) I think a 50% rate for adding new members is too low. Maybe my 75% is too high, so both adding and expulsion should be 66.7%?
This sounds like a good idea for down the road. I wonder, though, if you might need a totally different set of voters. At any rate, this won't be a part of the immediate plan.