Results Are In: ESB Official Rankings

:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy
:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy
:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy
:happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy

Oh yeah....and...

:thumbsup

 

This is why I was devastated when you were voted onto the committee. Who the hell do you think you are to make Lampley wait for an extension, ultimately not submit your rankings and then rip the final outcomes? Now youre on here spitting your rubbish once again, clearly stemming from your Hopkins vs Calzaghe bias. Tarver wasnt the man at LHW? I assume that Roy Jones Jr. wasnt either then? So who is the man? Erdei? And as far as Hopkins P4P rankings, deal with it. The man has fought more pound for pound fighters than anyone in the top 10 and just successfully jumped two divisions and beat the CONSENSUS man at LHW. Not to mention both of his bouts with Taylor were decided by contested, razor thin margins.

Just shut up already. You had the chance to submit your rankings, and you didnt.

To everyone else, I am very proud of how this turned out. The rankings look good. The one question I have is that for some of the people that elected not to vote for any champions, was this done intentionally or by mistake? Lampley, perhaps a public poll should be done because I am SHOCKED to find that only 66% of the voters voted Pavlik in as champion. That pretty much CANT be debated. I think that if everyone was asked whether they left out champions intentionally, we may find that fighters like Calderon and Vazquez may be voted in as champions.

Good Work ESB!

 

I re-looked at the rankings -

Overall it's on target, I had a few problems that were pretty significant, and to many people's surprise the biggest one is not even the Hopkins ranking, but the O'neil Bell ranking.

I guess it's because not enough people know a lot about the Cruiserweight division and just accept that Bell and Mormeck are the elite because they held the belts respectively, but honestly they are two of the weakest in the top 10 IMO, they have fought NONE of the newer blood that has come up the rankings and Mormeck especially defeated a crop of poor fighters, which includes an 'ancient' Virgil Hill that gave him competitive bouts.

As soon as Bell fights another top 10 with stamina, he's going to get destroyed, as Mormeck in two bouts was literally owning him every minute of the rounds before he gassed, sadly, Mormeck doesn't have great punching power like the others involved.

And I never have forgotten Bell nearly losing to Kelvin Davis and getting one of the worst gifts ever over an average fighter in Dale Brown, he's simply just not a very good fighter, certainly not even top 5 material H2H.

I hope this gets cleared up, that one bugs me because Bell and Mormeck essentially held the division hostage in their inactivity. Luckily, Mormeck has the balls to take on Haye, where he will be KOed properly.

 

I really dislike inactivity and 'in circle fighting' and then for the fans to just automatically accept that the in circle's are the best.

I'd pick 6-7 guys over Mormeck and Bell both and would be confident enough to bet.

I really hope it gets sorted out.

Some common opponents for Bell and Ding and Ling man for example :

Bell - Gift over Dale Brown, TKO 11 over Davis(****ing war).

Ding - TKO 2 over Dale Brown, TKO 3 over Davis.

Big difference in my opinion, and Ding is an agknowledged pretty limited guy with chin and huge punching power.:blood

 

It isn't glaring. His resume is fine. He wins. If you would like to drop him based on his talent level, then I can see your argument. But you should in no way shape or form drop fighters based on the assumption that they will lose when they step up.

 

'Resume' from my criteria doesn't just include the win itself, but the manner of the win.

Bell's victory over Mormeck is not so dissimiliar from Brewster's win over Wlad, Mormeck was owning him and gassed. This is very different than a pressure fighter wearing someone down in a contested battle, or just wearing him down period through consistent work, because all Brewster did was get unloaded upon and then jumped on Wlad when Wlad had nothing left in the tank...

Mormeck unloaded on Bell in the first and gassed in six, then Bell finally finished him in the 10th. The second bout was fraudulent in the sense that Mormeck had ref help, had the rounds end 40 seconds early when Bell was coming on and so on. I just don't find the inactivity of these two seemingly average competitors, which has held the championship belts hostage, to be correct and I think since Bell doesn't even have a championship belt anymore, he should be ranked accordingly because his resume is not very impressive, neither is Mormeck's for that matter, because Bell should have never been in line for his title in the first place, yet he gassed out and got KTFO by an average O'Neil Bell due to his intangible issue's.

The sad part again, is that Cowboy Dale Brown was robbed and I mean ROBBED, not just an unfair decision and that Bell would not have even been in place to fight Mormeck, it would have been Brown again.

The cross point is that common opponents for both were easily disposed of by a limited, but solid Darnell Wilson, guys that these two struggled with greatly.

So Mormeck HAS to be #1, I just wish Bell's run was taken into more consideration. I ranked Haye over him for example, Haye is clearly a much better fighter.

 

I don't think Karmazin will ever fight at 154 again

 

You can judge fighters like Calzaghe and Roy Jones against **** opposition. You use your intuition and little educated guesswork and rate them incredibly highly.

This certainly makes more sense than ranking Hopkins who looked poor last time out (with a huge size and stylistic advantage noless). Hopkins has also lost 2 fights recently, you decide to ignore this fact. He lost to Taylor who was recently exposed as a very average champion, you ignore this too. It should surely reflect poorly on Hopkins. You ignore all logic.

This is what I should hear from everyone (with one exception):
"Given the available evidence it is absolutely ****ing clear Hopkins should not be ranked anywhere near so highly. Thankyou for clearly pointing this out for us, I'll correct my mistake and remove Hopkins from my P4P list all together."

But no, instead, everyone starts defending Tarver.

 

You can judge how he won, but it doesn't matter as much as the fact that HE WON. You cannot lose sight of that. Winning ugly over champions is better than winning brilliantly over lesser competition in my book. If the fighter who is winning brilliantly is that good, he will prove it later on against good competition as well.

 

Bumpity Bump Bump!!!

 

It depends on how bad the opponononent and how brilliant the performance, you then weight it appropiately using your judgement.

Calzaghe's perfect display (one of the most breathtaking ever) against world champion Lacy (very good opponent) is therefore better than the entirity of Hopkins resume.

 

Much better, I reckon.

Are you going to ask me to justify this?