BoxRec

jezzamundo wrote:
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

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

dagilechia wrote: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

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

dagilechia wrote:

dagilechia wrote: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.

Heretic wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
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.

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

Rob3_142 wrote: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

Rob3_142 wrote: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?

jezzamundo wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote: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.