Updating the BOXREC Forum Heavyweight Rankings CLOSED

[Heretic]

Thanks for the reply - I see your point but think it's reasonable to expect people to vote boxers to the positions they want them to occupy and take all topics into account.

I am ok with this... I just found out I have been doing my voting wrong all this time

On a side note... Doesn't this make it really hard to count the votes? For example here When I Voted for Wilder to drop to #10 and Takam to stay at #8 it actually means that according to my vote Takam should end up lower then Ruiz...

Also if I voted for Glazkov to stay where he is my vote for Hammer to be at #13 would have meant I voted him above Stiverne.

It is all bit confusing...

But as long as it is consistent I think I can figure out how to vote to get the result that I want to get

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

I always assumed the voting was sequential as well. Vote A takes effect, then Vote B etc etc.

[dagilechia]

Takam 8 Rekowski unranked
Hammer 13 (12 after Glazkov out) Price unranked
Wilder 5 Washington unranked
Glazkov out,

Jezzamundo - so was my vote counted as Hammer enters above Stiverne or counted as if i wanted him to stay below Stiverne? i think you should always make a separated topic if boxer have to be voted out or not, then no one will do any mistakes

[Tarkus]

Just look at the positions after all the perturbation have taken place and vote that. This is easiest for voting and for counting.

[jezzamundo]

Takam 8 Rekowski unranked
Hammer 13 (12 after Glazkov out) Price unranked
Wilder 5 Washington unranked
Glazkov out,

Jezzamundo - so was my vote counted as Hammer enters above Stiverne or counted as if i wanted him to stay below Stiverne? i think you should always make a separated topic if boxer have to be voted out or not, then no one will do any mistakes

I'll go back and check, but based on what you've quoted above, I would count the vote as Hammer to #12. I'm not going to do separate topics as I don't want to clog the forum when there are lots of fights, but I agree it would reduce mistakes. I will add something into the footer of the posts from now on to make it clearer. Strange I never considered that anyone would think of it sequentially rather than simultaneous.

[jezzamundo]

Thanks for the reply - I see your point but think it's reasonable to expect people to vote boxers to the positions they want them to occupy and take all topics into account.

I am ok with this... I just found out I have been doing my voting wrong all this time

On a side note... Doesn't this make it really hard to count the votes? For example here When I Voted for Wilder to drop to #10 and Takam to stay at #8 it actually means that according to my vote Takam should end up lower then Ruiz...

Also if I voted for Glazkov to stay where he is my vote for Hammer to be at #13 would have meant I voted him above Stiverne.

It is all bit confusing...

But as long as it is consistent I think I can figure out how to vote to get the result that I want to get

It doesn't make it hard to count them - I just tally all the votes at the same time and take the median vote of each topic then apply it to the rankings. Yes, based on Wilder to #10 and Takam to stay at #8, Ruiz would rise to #7 due to the removal of Glazkov.

[Rob3_142]

When will you do your next rankings, Jezza? Based on the recent heavyweight bouts.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

When will you do your next rankings, Jezza? Based on the recent heavyweight bouts.

There is one already up and running:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=209709

[jezzamundo]

When will you do your next rankings, Jezza? Based on the recent heavyweight bouts.

Bouts as in plural - was there another apart from Haye-Bellew that I should be aware of?

[Rob3_142]

When will you do your next rankings, Jezza? Based on the recent heavyweight bouts.

Bouts as in plural - was there another apart from Haye-Bellew that I should be aware of?

Apologies, you included the Wilder fight in the previous rankings.