BoxRec

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 14:43 pretty sure oscar rivas got voted down didnt he

i see absolutely 0 problem with it.,.guys shouldnt get some sort of immunity for beating nobodies

the way the rankings work is that sometimes guys drift too high, and it's tough to change the situation until they actually fight and we can vote on them. he may not fight for another year at his rate, this is the chance people get to place him where they think he should be

moving him down 1 spot is hardly unreasonable

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 14:56 it was, the wbc isnt gawd, he weighed more than hunter did

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 14:59 221 of dynamite baby!

i just dont see why the vote should be anything other than where you think he should be based on what he's achieved/how good he is relative to the other guys. if someone genuinely thinks joe parker should rate 1 spot above hunter based on those factors, it doesnt make sense to vote to keep hunter ahead merely because hunter just beat a can. if someone think hunter's done more lately/is better ,etc.....then that's when you keep him higher


factoring stuff like what other voters voted for last time, the mere fact that he won his last fight -separated from the quality of that result etc...just unnecessarily complicates the rankings and ends up with rankings that are too frozen imo

i'll cast another hunter to 9

oogiebe wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 15:21

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 14:59 221 of dynamite baby!

i just dont see why the vote should be anything other than where you think he should be based on what he's achieved/how good he is relative to the other guys. if someone genuinely thinks joe parker should rate 1 spot above hunter based on those factors, it doesnt make sense to vote to keep hunter ahead merely because hunter just beat a can. if someone think hunter's done more lately/is better ,etc.....then that's when you keep him higher


factoring stuff like what other voters voted for last time, the mere fact that he won his last fight -separated from the quality of that result etc...just unnecessarily complicates the rankings and ends up with rankings that are too frozen imo

i'll cast another hunter to 9

We voted hunter to 8 or whatever.

Parker then fought and we didn't vote him past Hunter.
Hunter wins vs a can, but we'll vote him down to have Parker over him.

Yeah, makes a whole lotta sense! lol

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 15:48 so agree or disagree

people should vote on the fighters based on where they currently think that fighter should be rated in the division

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 15:54 of course

so then we can agree that if someone thinks hunter should rate 9th and joe parker 8th, go ahead and vote hunter to 9 even if he just beat a can . if they think hunters got the better resume, is better, etc. keep hi at 8 or even vote him higher, perhaps go top 3 like ironbeard suggests lol

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Aug 2021, 15:59 of course they are free to vote that way my man! we agree

btw who laid out the rule that we couldnt reassess someone's resume, skill, etc with each vote? is that written down somewhere that each vote must only factor in 1 fight of the guy being voted upon, and that we must accept their current ranking as being where they should be? and besides, as i said, the rankings are made up of a bunch of votes, hunter being at 8 for example doesnt mean everyone had him there to start. i know several ppl here have called out his ranking well before this

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 17:21

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 12:16 Keep him where he is.

Still won, shouldn't move down. Can't move him up.

No one below is even making waves..

what a crap division.

if someone thinks he's too high to start, of course they can move him down even if he wins

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑07 Aug 2021, 03:50 someone also voted hunter completely out , so that should balance out with ironbeards vote

as i said, to me it's simple: people should just vote the fighter where they think that fighter currently stands within the division, no matter if the guy just beat a bum, and no matter what other posters previously voted the guy in at.

the thought process of "well, i really think hunter should be lower than parker, but hunter just beat a can so hunter has to stay higher ranked' makes 0 sense to me. im pretty sure that some of the people advocating that approach have dropped winning fighters on multiple occasions btw...

candyslim wrote: ↑07 Aug 2021, 03:47

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 17:21

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 12:16 Keep him where he is.

Still won, shouldn't move down. Can't move him up.

No one below is even making waves..

what a crap division.

if someone thinks he's too high to start, of course they can move him down even if he wins

it seems wrong to demote someone who has just won a fight but I'm (maybe unfairly) disappointed in Hunter. He has the right to reject a fight that he considers doesn't pay enough to justify the risk, but turning down a final-eliminator against Hrgovic and fighting this Wilson (I can't even recall his first name at the minute) instead, has the whiff of the farmyard, I'm sorry.

The drawback of a rule where only the fighters involved can be affected by our vote, and you don't get demoted for winning any fight, is that provided you fight someone, anyone, on a regular basis then your rating is guaranteed never to degrade. That can't be right, can it?

Hunter to 9th and Parker moves up. No disrespect to Ironbeard but can I propose we disregard his protest-vote as this will distort the result. Maybe we should start over every 6 or 12 months and vote on our rankings from scratchlike the first time?

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑07 Aug 2021, 03:50 someone also voted hunter completely out , so that should balance out with ironbeards vote

as i said, to me it's simple: people should just vote the fighter where they think that fighter currently stands within the division, no matter if the guy just beat a bum, and no matter what other posters previously voted the guy in at.

the thought process of "well, i really think hunter should be lower than parker, but hunter just beat a can so hunter has to stay higher ranked' makes 0 sense to me. im pretty sure that some of the people advocating that approach have dropped winning fighters on multiple occasions btw...