~ ESB's BIG FIGHT PICKS ~ Things we need to decide - PLEASE VOTE!

This content is protected

We have chosen 5 respected, objective posters charged with determining whether a robbery occured. These are: brooklyn1550, kg0208, sean, McGrain and sues2nd. IF they think a robbery occured, the official result would be altered for the purpose of our competition.

I thought the best way to do this is for the five all to have to agree (unanimously) that a robbery had occured; thus, we would only be changing official results that are clearly and obviously and undoubtedly wrong. If there is the slightest doubt a robbery had not occured, there wouldn't likely be unanimity, so the official result would not be changed, I thought.

Also, I thought the best way would be if all had to decide that a robbery had occured, rather just that the fighter who was deemed to lose had actually probably done more and deserved to win. This, I thought, would stop ESB overreacting if we all happen to convince ourselves that a certain style is more effective/admirable than what the general consensus out there between judges seem to be.

These two provisos, I thought, would ensure that an official result would be changed only in extreme cases, thus guaranteeing the viability of the league.

VOTE: if you want to maintain the current arrangements (Option 1) or if you want to change them:

• Option 2: a majority of members on the committee deciding that the official result should be changed would be enough to change it; unanimity no longer required
• Option 3: members of the committee wouldn't have to decide that a robbery had occured. Instead, it would be enough for them to decide that the other fighter should have won the fight instead; presumption of robbery no longer required for official result to be overturned, rather, incorrect judging would be sufficient for the result to be overturned
• Option 4: unanimity no longer required and incorrect judging (rather than plain robbery) sufficient to overturn official results (Options 2 + 3 together)

This content is protected

VOTE: If you want to keep the current scoring system unchanged, Vote for Option 5.

If you want to change the scoring system to include another possible pick: "SD/Draw", vote for Option 6:


I thought we could improve the scoring system by including a "split decision/draw" option, in the light of the Pac v. JMM II fight.

What I wanted to pick in that fight was a draw. However, the current insentive structure of the current scoring system didn't make that worthwhile. Even if you think the fight will be a draw, you know that judges don't alway score styles in the same way as each other; thus, one judge scores a very close/ 50/50 fight for one, and another for the other, with one going for a draw or for a very narrow decision, and thus, you can easily get a split decision, even if the "fair" result would have been a draw.

So I thought that we would all benefit from picking "SD/Draw" (split decision/draw) whenever feel a fight is truly 50/50 and that it could go either way, not just on the basis of the two fighters being equally matched, but also on the basis of the judges most likely not agreeing which style is "worth" more: e.g. pressure over counterpunching or counterpunching over pressure, etc.

Thus, under this system, a correct SD/draw pick, when the official result was either Draw or Split Decision, would win you 50 points.

A majority decision e.g. 114-113, 114-113, 113-113 - would still count as a "close UD" for scoring purposes, just like it has so far.

This content is protected

This is the BIG FIGHTS league - there are plenty of good fights out there, but in this one, we only concentrate on the big fights - fights with a lot at stake, fights involving two highly ranked fighters, where both have at least a decent chance of winning.

Fights like Bute v. Joppy don't belong in this league, for example, even if they are title fights.

However, some fights are bigger than others. For some fights, we know absolutely everything: take Pac v. JMM II for example: many of us have watched both fighters' last three fights in full, the weigh in, read interviews about their preparation and state of mind, press conferences, etc. - in other words, we knew pretty much all there was to know about all the factors that could affect the result. For other fights, like Andrade v. Stieglitz, for example, many have never even watched a round of Stieglitz, nevermind his last couple of fights. We know very little about their preparation, state of mind, weight, etc. and yet we make a decision about the result, on much less quality/relevant information than for the Pac v. JMM II fight, for example. Should both fights be given the same importance in the league, consequently? I thought not, so came up with the concept of "blue riband" fights - for really big fights we knew almost everything about, which would score for twice the points.

Some, however, feel that this is unfair, particularly since big fights have a lot of politics behind them, with so much at stake, and this might influence the judges' decision too! Some say, we should get rid of double scoring for really big fights altogether.

VOTE: if you want to keep the current "blue-riband" double scoring system for really big fights, fights like Vazquez v. Marquez, Pacquiao v. Marquez, Calzaghe v. Hopkins...vote for option 7.

If you want to get rid of the blue riband system altogether, and have all fights count for the same number of points, whether they are big fights or really big fights, vote for option 8.

This content is protected

If we do decide to keep the current system of blue riband events, we need to decide which fights should be "blue riband" and which should not. I thought that all of next weeks' big fights should be put up for a vote in this weeks' league, so we can decide which fights to run in the first place and which fights should be considered "blue riband".

I thought that unless voters vote for a fight to be run by a 50% majority over those voters who vote for a fight NOT to be run, the fight should not be run at all - this ensures that only big fights are run in the "big fight league". Also, I thought that unless the same majority apllied to those voting for an event to be considered "Blue Riband", it shouldn't be considered blue riband, but just a regular big fight - this ensures that we only consider really, reallyy big fights "blue riband events".

If you want to keep the current system, vote for Option 9.

If you want to change the current system to a system whereby it would be sufficient for a simple majority to vote for a fight to be run and for a simple majority to vote for a fight to be considered "blue riband" for this to be the case, vote for Option 10.

This content is protected

This content is protected

:good :good :good :good :good

 

Took some time to write...:good

 

Just 4, please!

...if you vote for 2 and 3, and one of them gets more votes as a result than 4, unless 2 and 3 get equal numbers of votes, 4 doesn't get picked...this is not a public vote, so I don't know whether people have voted for 2, 3 and 4...

 

If you want it to be as hard as possible for an official result to be overturned by the review panel, vote for option 1. With option 1, the result has to be not just wrong, but a robbery! Also, all five posters have to agree that it was a robbery for the official result to be changed.:good

 

Thank you for your comments and votes. If the majority vote for Option 1, we will only go to the review panel if 75%+ of ESB posters think that a fight result was wrong.