BoxRec

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:33 Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:43

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:33 Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:48

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:43

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:33 Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

I didn't have him in my initial 15. Beating rudenko doesn't change that.

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 07:19

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:48

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:43

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 06:33 Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

I didn't have him in my initial 15. Beating rudenko doesn't change that.

I think the point of this exercise is to accept the consensus of the voters and not make it about "my list". I can't remember where I voted him and I don't care. Other people voted, he ended up 15, so now it's my job to access his latest performance with regards to this ranking. His performance was not terrible, but not impressive, so he stays where he is.

This is how it worked when Jezzamundo ran it. In two years time, if it continues, all of your original votes don't matter either. Any of the fighters that you voted for get their chance to enter the top 15 provided they win their next fight.

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:05 Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

dagilechia wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:11

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:05 Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

fighters that are inactive for 9 months will be voted on whether they should be removed from the list or not. fighters inactive for 12 months will be automatically removed.

i do not agree with the a) rule, i don't think that blatant robberies should be accepted just because they're official.

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:18

dagilechia wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:11

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:05 Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

fighters that are inactive for 9 months will be voted on whether they should be removed from the list or not. fighters inactive for 12 months will be automatically removed.

i do not agree with the a) rule, i don't think that blatant robberies should be accepted just because they're official.

Well, you know, it all depends what the point of the ratings are. If you want to compare the boxrec forum HW ratings to the WBC, IBF etc, then you should be using the same rules. Even the boxrec.com ratings are based on this.

But if your objective is to have a bit of fun and the comparisons to any other set of rankings is irrelevant, then what the heck, do whatever. Just don't complain when 15 eastside posters vote for Pulev to be #1 after a wide points decision loss to Joshua.

conan_the_cribber wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 08:05 Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

candyslim wrote: ↑03 Mar 2019, 13:14 Ortiz did exactly what was expected of him so he earns kudos for the win but not a great deal. I don't believe it's enough to propel him above Povetkin who has also laboured to a dull win over Hammer but there would have to be a pretty compelling reason in my view for a fighter to lose a place in the rankings despite winning.

Maybe someone below him got an outstanding win, that could do it.