Inactive Status

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 03 Feb 2003, 12:58

I see that for the second straight night a #1 in the rating fell to inactive status because he has not fought in a year. The two fighters are Vasili Jirov and Bernard Hopkins.

As Blue mentioned before fighters don't fight that often anymore, primarily due to TV, money, promotional problems; to name a few. What are people's thoughts about stretching the active/inactive switch to a longer time frame, say 15 or 18 months?

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 03 Feb 2003, 13:57

I voted for 18 months. It will slow down the questions of where's ... in the ratings? If a fighter has not fought in 18 months he probably IS done.

Local Talent · Post by **Local Talent** » 03 Feb 2003, 15:55

I don't know how much I count in this, but 12 months is a long time not to fight. I say keep it at what it is..

-Local Talent

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 03 Feb 2003, 17:24

I agree with 18 months.

phil · Post by **phil** » 04 Feb 2003, 05:45

They should be kept as active say for 18 months but the problem is rating someone who hasn't fought for a year. How can you be rated if you haven't fought for that long?
If you're out through injury, it's different.

Phil

murtelurre · Post by **murtelurre** » 05 Feb 2003, 10:03

Considering a fighter with a very long career, say from 18 to 35, when he is inactive for 18 months that inactivity corresponds with 9% of the whole career. That's quite a lot. If he has a 9-year career it comes to 18 % which is enormous. Most careers are not that long.
Of course when there is an illnes or injury you can't blame the fighter for the inactivity but in any other case the only thing one shouldn't do is encourage the actual trend of having only one or even less fights a year. whatever the arguments may be it's very detrimental for boxing. So, IMO it's unacceptable, exception made for the forementioned cases of illness and injury, that one should give in to fighters who are not really sportsmen and who don't want to fight (train and live like a sportsman?) on regular base.

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 05 Feb 2003, 10:10

You'd better increase the period to 18 months, or else we'll have Wladimir Klitschko ruling the heavyweight soon!

Liston · Post by **Liston** » 05 Feb 2003, 10:37

Although I think it is ridiculous to omit a fighter from the BoxRec ratings when he hasn't fought in 12 months, I also don't see the point in extending that period to 18 months considering how the BoxRec ratings work.
All you do is promote more inactivity and in 3 years time we're having a poll whether we should extend it to 2 years.

Why on earth are fighters omitted from a rating anyway when they are afterwards put back as if nothing happened?

Why do you all bother since you all claim the BoxRec ratings are just for fun? If you wish to improve them anyway, take a look at the system itself. Have you had a good look at your welterweight rating?

Knighthawk · Post by **Knighthawk** » 05 Feb 2003, 10:39

For better or worse, in 21st Century boxing, 12-month layoffs aren't that uncommon. Even 18 months isn't that rare.

I understand the rule, but it looks a little silly to have ratings that don't include the true middleweight champion and the consensus top cruiserweight.

glenndoll · Post by **glenndoll** » 05 Feb 2003, 11:04

It will look as silly as now when the ratings won't include a world champion when a 18-months lay-off is accepted.

Knighthawk · Post by **Knighthawk** » 05 Feb 2003, 11:16

It will look as silly as now when the ratings won't include a world champion when a 18-months lay-off is accepted.

True, but that won't happen nearly as often.

Maybe instead of just dropping people and then reinstating them when they fight again, hit them with a penalty after 12 months, increase it each month, and drop them after two years?

The penalties would also prevent people who have been inactive from popping right back where they left (Diego Corrales).

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 05 Feb 2003, 11:48

I agree with you, there should be an inactivity penalty rather than dropping fighters from the ratings and then having to put them back in.

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 05 Feb 2003, 12:14

Liston wrote:Although I think it is ridiculous to omit a fighter from the BoxRec ratings when he hasn't fought in 12 months, I also don't see the point in extending that period to 18 months considering how the BoxRec ratings work.
All you do is promote more inactivity and in 3 years time we're having a poll whether we should extend it to 2 years.

Why on earth are fighters omitted from a rating anyway when they are afterwards put back as if nothing happened?

Why do you all bother since you all claim the BoxRec ratings are just for fun? If you wish to improve them anyway, take a look at the system itself. Have you had a good look at your welterweight rating?

Is that a no, keep it like it is? Or is that a yes, change it? Or are you just bitching about the ratings for the 155th time? I am surprised however not to see your call letters.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 05 Feb 2003, 15:28

"Bingo" tomato can

Slurf · Post by **Slurf** » 07 Feb 2003, 10:37

Wouter has a good point. A diminishing system should be installed. One that's applied to everyone of course.
It duzn't make sense to put a guy away and then two months later put'em back in as if nuttin' happened.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 07 Feb 2003, 14:27

Looks like a 4 letter (word) ranking body is trying 2 stuff the ballot box.

Don’t distort the records & discriminate against the frozen out fighters with the subjective diminishing crap. :(
Just put a tag on a returning boxer keeping him out of the top (10?) contenders until he earns it back.
Anything below that doesn’t really matter, does it?

glenndoll · Post by **glenndoll** » 07 Feb 2003, 17:07

Blue wrote: Looks like a 4 letter (word) ranking body is trying 2 stuff the ballot box.

Don’t distort the records & discriminate against the frozen out fighters with the subjective diminishing crap. :(
Just put a tag on a returning boxer keeping him out of the top (10?) contenders until he earns it back.
Anything below that doesn’t really matter, does it?

Could it be that a 4 letterword person considers the ballot box as his property?
Some records belong in musea and are absolutely unfit to be reckoned with as far as rankings are concerned.
May be, Blue, you could honour some of the fighters you have in mind together with the Vietnam veterans but please leave them out of the rankings, most of all when the goal is to put hem in the first 10 or worse to bring them in the same ring with topfit young and very capable fighters.
Anything below ten doesn't really matter, you pretend. Well, speaking from a presumptuous haughtiness, that's one from a big caliber.
When a fighter finds the time to step out for a year or longer, he must find the time to fight his way back to the spot where he left. That's the logic itself.

Terp · Post by **Terp** » 08 Feb 2003, 06:59

Slurf wrote:Wouter has a good point. A diminishing system should be installed. One that's applied to everyone of course.
It duzn't make sense to put a guy away and then two months later put'em back in as if nuttin' happened.

Unless another fighter has actually done something to move ahead of them in their absence, I see no reason to drop the inactive fighter.

Rosendo Alvarez was top 2 before his layoff, and there's no reason why he shouldn't be after.

Inactive Status

Should the inactive status be increased?

Inactive Status

Inactivity