Official ESB Rankings -- Vote Now

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Lampley, Sep 12, 2007.


Page 2 of 8
  1. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    #16
  2. Lampley

    Lampley Boxing Junkie banned

    7,508
    3
    Oct 30, 2005
    The committee members vote on the top contenders for each division, given that the Champion either will be established (after the initial period, anyway) or vacant.

    I'll have to research the best way to calculate votes, but I think a points system will work best. For example, something like the way the A.P. votes on college football (the No. 1 team has the most points).

    We'd have to fill in details, but you'd vote 1-10 for each division, as well as for Pound For Pound. Your No. 1 would receive the most points, and your No. 10 the least. You add up points and list the fighters in order of most points.

    What's cool about a committee approach is that you actually can have the points listed in parentheses beside each ranking.

    Hypothetically, for a PfP:

    1) Floyd Mayweather Jr. (3,240)
    2) Manny Pacquiao (1,650)

    It would give not only a rank, but an idea for the gap between certain positions.

    Divisional rankings wouldn't work quite the same way, because obviously the Champion is the Champion, but you'd still use the same formula for Contenders.
     
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    #17
  3. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    6
    Mar 14, 2007
    Or, if you make it an open thread where anyone can post their top 10's (but where only COMPLETE submissions will be counted), then (a) the nuthuggers should cancel each other out, and (b) it would discourage anyone who's only a nuthugger and doesn't know about the rest of boxing from voting, since they would need to make 18 top 10's a month just to have their vote even count. Yes, it would be a pain to tally for whoever takes that job, but I can't imagine that more than 40 or 50 posters would take the time and effort to actually rank all of the divisions each month.

    In any case, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of the committee idea. The beauty of setting things up this way is that you get the wisdom of crowds, and once you limit things to a committee, you lose that advantage.
     
    Brickhaus, Sep 12, 2007
    Brickhaus, Sep 12, 2007
    #18
  4. lockdon9w

    lockdon9w New Member Full Member

    20
    0
    Sep 1, 2007
    I think the AP System will work great for this system. I will help with any research, but I don't think I should vote just yet, since I am newer fan of boxing and to the forum.
     
    lockdon9w, Sep 12, 2007
    lockdon9w, Sep 12, 2007
    #19
  5. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    Too complicated with points...because they would have to agree how many points are at stake for each upcoming fight...
     
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    #20
  6. Lampley

    Lampley Boxing Junkie banned

    7,508
    3
    Oct 30, 2005
    What concerns me about this is the popularity contest nature of that vote. I certainly agree that many of those folks listed would be the best candidates to start the rankings, but I think we need to think along the lines of a Supreme Court appointment process, then let the process become more democratic over time.

    The reason I say that is we want to make sure that ESB rankings are reflective of international opinion, even better than the American-based Ring ever has been.

    Some of the best posters on the site spend a lot of their time on the European forum, for example, and they surely need to be included.
     
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    #21
  7. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    Well we also have to remember, a fight analyst picks fights. It doesn't mean he objectively ranks fighters by accomplishment and skill level.

    Most rated Miranda over Pavlik based on his work at 160. Pavlik beat him of course, just pointing out there is a difference.
     
    kg0208, Sep 12, 2007
    kg0208, Sep 12, 2007
    #22
  8. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    Fine...let us use a system to BLACKBALL any of the people on the list (nuthuggers and haters)...but the list should be based on the vote for best analyst - which was a fair and popular vote.

    So...from th2 top 20 top analysts...keep blackballing until we have 10 left...let people vote for whom they want blackballed...whoever the ten that have most votes are, they are dropped.
     
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    #23
  9. Lampley

    Lampley Boxing Junkie banned

    7,508
    3
    Oct 30, 2005
    No, no. Nothing like that.

    Let's say this is my hypothetical Pound for Pound vote:

    1) Floyd Mayweather Jr. (100 points)
    2) Manny Pacquiao (90 points)
    3) Bernard Hopkins (80 points)
    4) Joe Calzaghe (70 points)
    5) Kevin McBride (60 points)
    6) Miguel Cotto (50 points)
    (and so on)

    Votes would be for fighters only, not fights. And at once a month, hopefully people wouldn't get burned out.
     
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    #24
  10. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    Oh, I see...so points are given according to the number of votes? But then...what if I wanted to vote for PBF first, but for Cotto second? How would I do that? We would need at least 10 votes for each category...
     
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    #25
  11. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    I still don't think being a good analyst is a good measure of ranking fighters.

    Knowing who will win a fight and breaking it down is not the same as ranking a fighter objectively and placing him in rankings.

    Look at Zakman. Awesome analyst. But he doesn't take objective looks at records and rank accordingly. He wouldn't rank Taylor at all because he thinks he's a fraud and thinks as an analyst, he can't fight. But Taylor deserves to be ranked as the top MW based on resume and partially on skills.
     
    kg0208, Sep 12, 2007
    kg0208, Sep 12, 2007
    #26
  12. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    You are right! The only poster here who is 100% objective is Decebal, even if he is not a good analyst!

    ...see the problem?

    Of course it is the best analysts who are most likely to be objective...that is why they are good analysts in the first place - because they are objective!
     
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    Decebal, Sep 12, 2007
    #27
  13. Lampley

    Lampley Boxing Junkie banned

    7,508
    3
    Oct 30, 2005
    In time, a more democratic process is what would result. In the beginning, though, I think we just need to get the concept off the ground.

    If the committee becomes too inclusive, the rankings will lose meaning. It must be a set process by which a person nominates himself, based on his contributions to the board. If the initial group is solid and takes the rankings seriously, the haters and fanboys won't have a chance, which is a good thing.

    I'll describe all this in greater detail in the first draft of the constitution, but each First Sunday you'd have the members voting on the rankings, as well as voting on new members and on any other issues that arise. This will all be explained.

    For that first October vote, we'd establish the debut rankings -- and champions -- and probably have a relatively large number of voters added to the committee.

    To qualify, I'd suggest that any candidate have at least 1,000 posts on the site, and that they are approved at something like a 66.7% rate by the committee. We want to make it difficult enough that the bad eggs can be excluded.

    Over time, the committee would grow and grow to become more inclusive and diverse.

    But you have to be careful in the beginning, in order to keep such an ambitious project manageable.
     
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    Lampley, Sep 12, 2007
    #28
  14. Claypole

    Claypole Boxing Addict banned

    7,071
    4
    Aug 4, 2007
    I'm not so sure about the committee idea. If the rankings are to reflect the views of ESB members, then I would say it should be open to everybody to vote.
    Anybody who has enough knowledge, and inclination to come up with a top ten in every weight division surely deserves the right to have some input.
    Perhaps a committee could be formed to best decide how to go forward with this idea...
     
    Claypole, Sep 12, 2007
    Claypole, Sep 12, 2007
    #29
  15. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    Not necessarily. I won't argue the point, but to me rankings and analyzing are vastly different.

    And honestly I don't see the problem. We would be asking others to vote, not vote on themselves.
     
    kg0208, Sep 12, 2007
    kg0208, Sep 12, 2007
    #30
Page 2 of 8