candyslim wrote: β30 Mar 2019, 03:05
Why is that then? I'm just making the point that achievement has to be the basis of any ratings worth a dime. I mean we might believe that Hrgovic would dismantle Povetkin but that doesn't mean he deserves a higher ranking.
I have already agreed Miller beats Pulev and I wouldn't argue with anyone saying that Miller should rank above Pulev despite Pulev's career achievements being better than Miller's. My only objection is to the proposal that they should switch position based on a winning performance by Pulev. You don't demote fighters for stopping their opponent - especially one who could be described (if you're squinting or at a pinch) as a fringe contender - inside the distance.
I still don't understand why you shouldn't continue to vote what you believe. If you initially had Miller over pulev why would you change your mind off of that?
Well i wouldn't personally but these rankings are a consensus based 'project' (for want of a better word).
The forum has spoken and decided Pulev places above Miller. I might not agree but I respect and accept that, so my opinion as I see it, serves only to help decide whether a new result affects what has already been decided by the forum, not to re-open the argument about something that has already been agreed.
I hope that makes sense. It sounds a bit convoluted even to me who wrote it.
candyslim wrote: β01 Apr 2019, 03:43
Well i wouldn't personally but these rankings are a consensus based 'project' (for want of a better word).
The forum has spoken and decided Pulev places above Miller. I might not agree but I respect and accept that, so my opinion as I see it, serves only to help decide whether a new result affects what has already been decided by the forum, not to re-open the argument about something that has already been agreed.
I hope that makes sense. It sounds a bit convoluted even to me who wrote it.
I don't think any rankings panel in any sport works that way. Not sure why ours should.
I don't profess to know how ratings panels work, but if the forum has decided Pulev ranks higher than Miller then it seems pointless to me, not to say obstructive, to continue that argument unless circumstances change so as to challenge that decision.
Of course you may consider that Miller's victory over Dinu, being so much more emphatic than Pulev's is a change in circumstances that requires us to re-evaluate the question of Pulev's ranking relative to Miller, in which case that's fair enough. you may have a point.
If it was for example Dimitrenko rather than Dinu who Pulev beat in identical circumstances, I would argue the victory isn't significant enough to warrant any changes. The difference being that there is no Miller v Dimitrenko fight to compare Pulev's performance to.
I think the likelihood that when people decide where to rank a fighter, there is a wider scope than the most recent fight to consider.
Pulev rightly stopped his last opponent, but the manner of his victory (or the level of performance against the level of opposition) and the most recent activity will serve to influence my personal decision making.
Miller on the other hand has not fought against a formidable list of opposition, but has been regular and performed admirably in those fights, so in my opinion in the current climate ranks higher.
Its all for nowt though, as we'll soon understand Miller's worth when he goes toe to toe with Joshua.
Rob3_142 wrote: β02 Apr 2019, 06:54
I think the likelihood that when people decide where to rank a fighter, there is a wider scope than the most recent fight to consider.
cs: Well yes but shouldn't that wider scope have been considered previously when agreeing the previous rankings? Unless we are saying we clearly got it wrong last time, then surely the only thing that needs evaluating is what has changed. Let's pretend for the sake of the argument that Dinu wasn't a common opponent for both Miller and Pulev. In that case the only thing to consider (except maybe levels of activity / inactivity) is whether Pulev's victory over Dinu is sufficiently impressive to promote him over Ortiz or so deeply unimpressive as to demote him below Miller.
cs: The forum previously concluded rightly or wrongly that Pulev rates above Miller (subject to changes in circumstances) If there are no changes in circumstances we don't need to argue whether Miller rates above Pulev every time we vote. If government worked the same, revisiting and arguing every time about what they already decided last time, they would never get anywhere it would all be f*cked up ... Oh wait!
Pulev rightly stopped his last opponent, but the manner of his victory (or the level of performance against the level of opposition) and the most recent activity will serve to influence my personal decision making.
cs: Yes this is what I've been banging on about. Now forget the pretending: Dinu was a common opponent so this introduces the question of Miller and Pulev's performance against Dinu relative to each other. That is a change in circumstances that justifies re-evaluating their relative positions, do you see the difference, am I making sense?
The only problem with these rankings is we only get to influence the position of each fighter after each time they fight. Can we re-assess the rankings every time a fighter is inactive for 12 months? When did these rankings begin? Does this list take into account the likes of Pulev's last 5 fights? Or has this list only been active since his last few fights? Have the same set of posters influenced the list update every time Pulev has fought? (I'm just being facetious here).
I guess the point I'm making is the rankings are a lot more fluid than the management of this list suggests.
I appreciate that this is not that serious of a rankings list, and it is a bit of fun, and designed to drive discussion, but I think a wider criteria than just the last fight needs to help this list find a better balance.
I believe I'm right in saying that the BoxRec Forum rankings only began this year, February was it?
In theory every fighter's record up until that date was taken into consideration, consequently we need concern ourselves only with results since the last update. Updates occur when a fight result is judged by Dagilechia (who came up with the idea of the forum's own rankings) that it could conceivably cause the forum i.e. us, to want to alter the ranking(s) based on that result.
That's how I read it anyway.
I did mention in my last post that we need to be mindful of inactivity which should negatively affect a fighter's ranking but as you said, it's a bit of fun so although it helps to have a bit of structure we don't need to get bogged down with a whole load of rules.
candyslim wrote: β07 Apr 2019, 09:00
I believe I'm right in saying that the BoxRec Forum rankings only began this year, February was it?
In theory every fighter's record up until that date was taken into consideration, consequently we need concern ourselves only with results since the last update. Updates occur when a fight result is judged by Dagilechia (who came up with the idea of the forum's own rankings) that it could conceivably cause the forum i.e. us, to want to alter the ranking(s) based on that result.
That's how I read it anyway.
I did mention in my last post that we need to be mindful of inactivity which should negatively affect a fighter's ranking but as you said, it's a bit of fun so although it helps to have a bit of structure we don't need to get bogged down with a whole load of rules.
it began like 10 January (this was the date when we started determining the top 15) and the first post-fight voting started 19 january after Rivas vs Jennings
candyslim wrote: β07 Apr 2019, 09:00
I believe I'm right in saying that the BoxRec Forum rankings only began this year, February was it?
In theory every fighter's record up until that date was taken into consideration, consequently we need concern ourselves only with results since the last update. Updates occur when a fight result is judged by Dagilechia (who came up with the idea of the forum's own rankings) that it could conceivably cause the forum i.e. us, to want to alter the ranking(s) based on that result.
That's how I read it anyway.
I did mention in my last post that we need to be mindful of inactivity which should negatively affect a fighter's ranking but as you said, it's a bit of fun so although it helps to have a bit of structure we don't need to get bogged down with a whole load of rules.
after 9 months of inactivity the fighter will be voted on whether he shoud be moved down, removed or stay on same position as he was. after 12 months of inactivity fighter will be removed from the list. after being removed he has 6 months to fight anybody and then the voting on whether he should enter the list or not will take place. if someone will be inactive for 18 months since the last fight then he can enter the list again only after beating a top 15 ranked opponent.
Always friendly Rob. We generally see things in a similar way and I always respect your opinion even when we don't.
It's like reading a book though. You pick it up from where you left off. There's no need to go back to the beginning every time. Same with rankings. You only need to consider what's changed since last time, no need to re-invent the wheel.
Deleted_Scenes wrote: β18 Apr 2019, 14:36
If Miller's B sample tests positive, will he be dropped from these rankings, with a vote on a replacement? Or are we keeping things in-ring only?
Drop the bastard I say!
If he only gets a slap on the hand by those in power- so be it- but let's make a stand right here.
Deleted_Scenes wrote: β18 Apr 2019, 14:36
If Miller's B sample tests positive, will he be dropped from these rankings, with a vote on a replacement? Or are we keeping things in-ring only?
we will vote after the official announcement of his suspension or at least the official cancellation of his fight vs AJ
jamamb wrote: β18 Apr 2019, 15:01
what wud be the process for voting him back in in the future?
5 of the guys in our ratings have tested positive, not just miller
the voting on him will take place after his next fight whoever and whenever he'll fight. if he will not be voted to enter the list, then he must defeat a top 15 opponent to be voted on again
Anthony Joshua - 22(21) 0 0 - next fight: 01.06.2019 vs 
Jarrell Miller - 23(20) 0 1 - (#7)
Tom Schwarz - 24(16) 0 0 - (unranked, BoxRec's #42)
Alexander Povetkin - 34(24) 2(1) 0 - next fight: 18.05.2019 vs TBA
Luis Ortiz - 31(26) 1(1) 0 - next fight: TBA
Kubrat Pulev - 27(14) 1(1) 0 - next fight: TBA
Joseph Parker - 25(19) 2(0) 0 - next fight: TBA
Adam Kownacki - 19(15) 0 0 - next fight: TBA
Γscar Rivas - 26(18) 0 0 - next fight: TBA
Filip HrgoviΔ - 7(5) 0 0 - next fight: TBA
