I'm in!dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:24 I always liked it that our board had it's own ranking, what do you think about reactivating it?
so, at first we must determine our current top 15, everyone should post his top 15 and i suggest this kind of scoring systemoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:25I'm in!dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:24 I always liked it that our board had it's own ranking, what do you think about reactivating it?
Maybe just top 10. It gets foggy after top 7/8, don't you think?dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:31so, at first we must determine our current top 15, everyone should post his top 15 and i suggest this kind of scoring systemoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:25I'm in!dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:24 I always liked it that our board had it's own ranking, what do you think about reactivating it?
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 15 points
12. 14 points
13. 13 points
14. 12 points
15. 11 points
What do you think? or should it be TOP 20? 16.-10p, 17.-8p, 18.-6p, 19.-4p, 20.-2p
so let it be 15, in top 10 almost everyone has the same fighters so we pretty much know how it would look like i thinkoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:42Maybe just top 10. It gets foggy after top 7/8, don't you think?dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:31so, at first we must determine our current top 15, everyone should post his top 15 and i suggest this kind of scoring system
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 15 points
12. 14 points
13. 13 points
14. 12 points
15. 11 points
What do you think? or should it be TOP 20? 16.-10p, 17.-8p, 18.-6p, 19.-4p, 20.-2p
you rank Huck in top 15 but no Hunter?oogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:48 1.Anthony Joshua
2.Tyson Fury
3.Deontay Wilder
4.Dillian Whyte
5.Luis Ortiz
6.Alexander Povetkin
7.Jarrell Miller
8.Joseph Parker
9.Kubrat Pulev
10.Adam Kownacki
11.Dereck Chisora
12.Dominic Breazeale
13.Marco Huck
14.Filip Hrgović
15.Bryant Jennings
My preliminary rankings.
Fine, I will try to make my top 15 list for today, tomorrow this list might be a little bit different.dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:52so let it be 15, in top 10 almost everyone has the same fighters so we pretty much know how it would look like i thinkoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:42Maybe just top 10. It gets foggy after top 7/8, don't you think?dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:31
so, at first we must determine our current top 15, everyone should post his top 15 and i suggest this kind of scoring system
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 15 points
12. 14 points
13. 13 points
14. 12 points
15. 11 points
What do you think? or should it be TOP 20? 16.-10p, 17.-8p, 18.-6p, 19.-4p, 20.-2p
I'm not convinced on Hunter, and after number 8 it gets tight. Huck was a coin toss.dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 13:02you rank Huck in top 15 but no Hunter?oogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 12:48 1.Anthony Joshua
2.Tyson Fury
3.Deontay Wilder
4.Dillian Whyte
5.Luis Ortiz
6.Alexander Povetkin
7.Jarrell Miller
8.Joseph Parker
9.Kubrat Pulev
10.Adam Kownacki
11.Dereck Chisora
12.Dominic Breazeale
13.Marco Huck
14.Filip Hrgović
15.Bryant Jennings
My preliminary rankings.
It might be valid if there are more than 20 lists by the end of January.
Code: Select all
BR TR PBO TN ESPN
1 Joshua 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 Wilder 2 3 2 3 2 2.4
3 Fury 3 2 3 2 3 2.6
4 Whyte 5 4 5 4 4 4.4
5 Povetkin 4 6 4 6 6 5.2
6 Ortiz 8 5 7 5 5 6
7 Miller 6 8 6 7 7 6.8
8 Pulev 7 10 8 8 9 8.4
9 Parker 10 7 9 9 8 8.6
10 Breazeale 9 11 10 10 11 10.2
11 Kownacki 11 9 11 11 11 10.6
12 Jennings 11 11 11 11 10 10.8
KISS method. Sounds smart to me.JCS wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:19 Just pick a few rankings and get an average..
BoxRec
The Ring
Transnational
PBO (Thank me later, Lennox)
ESPN (Didn't want to include Fat Dan, but an odd # helped break Wilder/Fury tiebreaker)
*Assigned an 11 if boxer was not in Top 10 on a list.Code: Select all
BR TR PBO TN ESPN 1 Joshua 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Wilder 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 3 Fury 3 2 3 2 3 2.6 4 Whyte 5 4 5 4 4 4.4 5 Povetkin 4 6 4 6 6 5.2 6 Ortiz 8 5 7 5 5 6 7 Miller 6 8 6 7 7 6.8 8 Pulev 7 10 8 8 9 8.4 9 Parker 10 7 9 9 8 8.6 10 Breazeale 9 11 10 10 11 10.2 11 Kownacki 11 9 11 11 11 10.6 12 Jennings 11 11 11 11 10 10.8
It is quite boring to see that kind of agreement between 5 major lists... seemingly doesn't leave much room for argument so yes, I like this method.oogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:24KISS method. Sounds smart to me.JCS wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:19 Just pick a few rankings and get an average..
BoxRec
The Ring
Transnational
PBO (Thank me later, Lennox)
ESPN (Didn't want to include Fat Dan, but an odd # helped break Wilder/Fury tiebreaker)
*Assigned an 11 if boxer was not in Top 10 on a list.Code: Select all
BR TR PBO TN ESPN 1 Joshua 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Wilder 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 3 Fury 3 2 3 2 3 2.6 4 Whyte 5 4 5 4 4 4.4 5 Povetkin 4 6 4 6 6 5.2 6 Ortiz 8 5 7 5 5 6 7 Miller 6 8 6 7 7 6.8 8 Pulev 7 10 8 8 9 8.4 9 Parker 10 7 9 9 8 8.6 10 Breazeale 9 11 10 10 11 10.2 11 Kownacki 11 9 11 11 11 10.6 12 Jennings 11 11 11 11 10 10.8
It is kind of depressing to build the list yourself, you realize how poor the HW scene is.not a boxrec board ranking thoughoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:24KISS method. Sounds smart to me.JCS wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:19 Just pick a few rankings and get an average..
BoxRec
The Ring
Transnational
PBO (Thank me later, Lennox)
ESPN (Didn't want to include Fat Dan, but an odd # helped break Wilder/Fury tiebreaker)
*Assigned an 11 if boxer was not in Top 10 on a list.Code: Select all
BR TR PBO TN ESPN 1 Joshua 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Wilder 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 3 Fury 3 2 3 2 3 2.6 4 Whyte 5 4 5 4 4 4.4 5 Povetkin 4 6 4 6 6 5.2 6 Ortiz 8 5 7 5 5 6 7 Miller 6 8 6 7 7 6.8 8 Pulev 7 10 8 8 9 8.4 9 Parker 10 7 9 9 8 8.6 10 Breazeale 9 11 10 10 11 10.2 11 Kownacki 11 9 11 11 11 10.6 12 Jennings 11 11 11 11 10 10.8
Yes, outside top 6-7-and maybe even 8 it gets awfully murky...and really a drop off after 1-2-3.JCS wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:29It is quite boring to see that kind of agreement between 5 major lists... seemingly doesn't leave much room for argument so yes, I like this method.oogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:24KISS method. Sounds smart to me.JCS wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:19 Just pick a few rankings and get an average..
BoxRec
The Ring
Transnational
PBO (Thank me later, Lennox)
ESPN (Didn't want to include Fat Dan, but an odd # helped break Wilder/Fury tiebreaker)
*Assigned an 11 if boxer was not in Top 10 on a list.Code: Select all
BR TR PBO TN ESPN 1 Joshua 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Wilder 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 3 Fury 3 2 3 2 3 2.6 4 Whyte 5 4 5 4 4 4.4 5 Povetkin 4 6 4 6 6 5.2 6 Ortiz 8 5 7 5 5 6 7 Miller 6 8 6 7 7 6.8 8 Pulev 7 10 8 8 9 8.4 9 Parker 10 7 9 9 8 8.6 10 Breazeale 9 11 10 10 11 10.2 11 Kownacki 11 9 11 11 11 10.6 12 Jennings 11 11 11 11 10 10.8
Yeah, but if we just take each of our rankings; apply actual rank number for each figher; total up across all our rankings; and take the avg, voila! We have our own average ranking.dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:31not a boxrec board ranking thoughoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:24KISS method. Sounds smart to me.JCS wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:19 Just pick a few rankings and get an average..
BoxRec
The Ring
Transnational
PBO (Thank me later, Lennox)
ESPN (Didn't want to include Fat Dan, but an odd # helped break Wilder/Fury tiebreaker)
*Assigned an 11 if boxer was not in Top 10 on a list.Code: Select all
BR TR PBO TN ESPN 1 Joshua 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Wilder 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 3 Fury 3 2 3 2 3 2.6 4 Whyte 5 4 5 4 4 4.4 5 Povetkin 4 6 4 6 6 5.2 6 Ortiz 8 5 7 5 5 6 7 Miller 6 8 6 7 7 6.8 8 Pulev 7 10 8 8 9 8.4 9 Parker 10 7 9 9 8 8.6 10 Breazeale 9 11 10 10 11 10.2 11 Kownacki 11 9 11 11 11 10.6 12 Jennings 11 11 11 11 10 10.8
some people would have Hrgović, Jennings and Hunter in their top 15, others would have Kuzmin, Kabayel and Hughie, that is why this method is less effective than the point method, you can't make average when one fighter was voted 5 times and other 8 and other 20 timesoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:33Yeah, but if we just take each of our rankings; apply actual rank number for each figher; total up across all our rankings; and take the avg, voila! We have our own average ranking.
Sure we can, it's more consensus. Unless you want it the other way, then more power to you.dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:51some people would have Hrgović, Jennings and Hunter in their top 15, others would have Kuzmin, Kabayel and Hughie, that is why this method is less effective than the point method, you can't make average when one fighter was voted 5 times and other 8 and other 20 times
lookoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:54Sure we can, it's more consensus. Unless you want it the other way, then more power to you.dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:51some people would have Hrgović, Jennings and Hunter in their top 15, others would have Kuzmin, Kabayel and Hughie, that is why this method is less effective than the point method, you can't make average when one fighter was voted 5 times and other 8 and other 20 times
Same can happen with the original scoring you showed, no?dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:58lookoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:54Sure we can, it's more consensus. Unless you want it the other way, then more power to you.dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:51
some people would have Hrgović, Jennings and Hunter in their top 15, others would have Kuzmin, Kabayel and Hughie, that is why this method is less effective than the point method, you can't make average when one fighter was voted 5 times and other 8 and other 20 times
for example:
Jennings' votes: 13 15 15 11 11 - - - 12 15 15 15 14 15
Hughie's votes: 10 - - - - - - 12 10 10 - -11 13
Jennings' average: 14.6
Hughie average: 11
but 11 people voted on Jennings and only 6 voted for Hughie. that is why this method doesn't works in this case
of course not. in my system Jennings would have 135 points, Hughie would have 90 pointsoogiebe wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 17:02Same can happen with the original scoring you showed, no?dagilechia wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:58look
for example:
Jennings' votes: 13 15 15 11 11 - - - 12 15 15 15 14 15
Hughie's votes: 10 - - - - - - 12 10 10 - -11 13
Jennings' average: 14.6
Hughie average: 11
but 11 people voted on Jennings and only 6 voted for Hughie. that is why this method doesn't works in this case