i'm with the committe, I just believe it should be larger to give a better and more reputable perspective.
Everyone who posts on ESB is the ESB group. A committe or "sub-group" of that overall pool is what I'm referring to. I'm fine with the committee process but believe that in the interest of fairness and quality that the "committe" should number closer to 50 than 10.
I think we are at the stage where we have to decide between: 1) A. choosing a committee that decides who the top ten contenders are before we ALL decide the order they come in in the rankings and B. choosing a committee that decides the very order of the top ten contenders in the rankings, once they have decided who those ten should be 2) and we also have to decide the number of committte members... 10? 15? 20? 25? more??? bear in mind that the more they are, the longer it will take them to agree on anything, and the longer it will take them to do so... ...on the other hand, the more they are, the less individual bias will influence the final outcome 3) and we also have to decide: how many nominations every one of us is allowed to make for committee member...I would say just one, to keep things simple and aslo 4) whether we want to have a blackballing process as well, to remove some people who have a lot of nominations, because they are haters/nuthuggers or not...I would say...NOT...to make things simpler again 5) not least...we have to decide who should run all these nominations/votes and processes, until we have the committee...
We would also need a criteria for selecting committee members. Very very basic so that others can form opinions.
nominations! I nominate kg0208, for example...then we add the number of nominations for your name, and if you are in the top 10 most nominated, or whatever, you make the shortlist...
I meant more of what qualities would be most beneficial to the position, so that people can nominate loosely based on that. But that would be complicated. First we need to find a way to keep the thread in THIS forum.
Name of the game with these things is simplicity...if it's too complicated, it will flop. If it's arbitrary, it will flop. Only way it works if it's simple and democratic and avoids subjectivity as much as possible.
KG has a VERY VERY important point about analysts and historians. Sometimes a fighter that any analyst would rate as technically inferior, or a sure loss to another fighter, SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be ranked higher. Mike Tyson was almost undoubtedly a vegas favorite in his fight for the title, but he was NOT the champion until he WON the title.
IMO the committee should consist of 50 members each voting for their own top ten contenders in each divsion. The results should be averaged amongst those voters to develop the rankings, similar to the NCAA coaches when voting for the top 25 teams in college football. Have nominations and vote on those nominees. Forget about blackballing the average of the haters/huggers opinions will shake out in the mix, thus giving an evenly mixed result.