***A New, Fair System for Judging P4P***

[Decebal]

Let us consider how a fair system for judging p4p would work. To do this, I propose we:

1. analyse the current system and see its faults
2. try to remedy those faults within a new system
3. analyse the new system and see its faults
4. compare the results of the new system with our instinctive appreciation of what should be the p4p ranking
5. remedy the new system again to fit our instinctive appreciation better.

So...to start off with...

1. The Elite Circle:

Obviously, if you get beaten by the very best, you shouldn't fall down the p4p rankings as much as if you had been beaten by someone less good. Also, if you beat someone who is Elite, you should go up more in the rankings than if you had beaten someone less good...

BUT - the other side of the coin is the:

The Circle Jerk - if you get beaten by a big name in the circle of big names, you don't fall down much, even if/ because that big name has been beaten by another big name, that you yourself have beaten, etc. etc. - a closed system where if you're in, you're in for good, and if you're out, not only are you not going to get a chance to get in, but if you do, and win...you will become part of the circle jerk for good, win or lose.

How could this vicious circle be broken?

2. NAMES v. Live Threats

If you beat someone who has in the past beaten someone who was someone, you are someone, even if the someone you have beaten hasn't been much of anything for a while:p It's all to do with reputations - as if fighters don't decline/ move out of their prime...Even more perversely, if you beat a live threat who doesn't have much of a CV but is in fact moving into their prime, your win doesn't count for so much

How could this be remedied without allowing subjectivity to take over and mess things up?

3. Dodging vs. Not being beaten

If you dodge a live threat, you keep your high ranking because you haven't been beaten...How can this be remedied?

[peter5]

I think the p4p ratings will always be deabteable, its all subjective unfortunately. I think it was Lincoln who said

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time"

[Decebal]

I think the p4p ratings will always be deabteable, its all subjective unfortunately. I think it was Lincoln who said

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time"

Sure, wise words...but Lincoln would also have said, if we could ask him, something like:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the p4p rankings system. I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor changing it! Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today! Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.":D

[Decebal]

you make some excellent points decebal..

but its simply a lost cause..!

WHAT im most annoyed about, is the lack of big men in the p4p rankings.

off course fighters who are smaller, have an easier time throwing combos faster, as they are smaller, but isnt that what the meaning p4p is about. you would in your think of waldo as a 160 pounder, and think, what could he do at that weight. how well would he move, when you keep in mind he moves very well for such a big guy. wouldnt it be logical to assume, he would move excellent, if he was smaller.. and so on, and on..

lets take an example:

wladimir klittie he is dominating the hw div, he is doing his thing and doing it an a way, that leaves a good impression.

p4p his right hand and jab are amongst the best, but yet the guy aint ranked.

the p4p rankings really is bullshit, and favours the avreage sized guys.

another subject and fact, that you so wisely touch, the inner circles of boxing. the americans owning the p4p system, while their own fighters doesnt "ALLOW" others to join their circle. this is also a money problem, cause for hopkins, winky would be a bigger payday then perhaps calzaghe.

Yes...good point...bigger guys cannot throw the same artful flurries...on the other hand, small guys can still KO/TKO (But do so less often, right? So isn't there a trade-off? I really don't know the facts here...please help!)...how could this be remedied?

[Decebal]

P4P is a crock of shit.

Are you saying that the very concept is ridiculous, given the many complications that comparison across different weights provides? So...is this as ridiculous as saying: this 100 metres runner is a better athlete than that 1500 metres runner, or is it less ridiculous?:think

[Decebal]

I still don't think P4P really proves anything. it just depends what you consider essential in the game.

Floyd deserves to be in the top ten, in my estimation, because he's supremely skilled but he hasn't beaten the elite of his division, so he can't be no.1

Are different standards used for what constitutes a good boxer at different weights? If not, should there be? Which ones?:think

[Cookie]

I stopped thinking about the P4P thing a while ago. It's totally pointless and often makes little sense.

[Decebal]

I stopped thinking about the P4P thing a while ago. It's totally pointless and often makes little sense.

Out of interest, when was the system of p4p ranking introduced? Why? (People have known for millenia that an average big boxer can beat a good small boxer...)

[DanePugilist]

Firstly people need to realize that an elite doesn't remain elite till end of days. People eye too much on the name, and less on skills.

[Cookie]

Out of interest, when was the system of p4p ranking introduced? Why? (People have known for millenia that an average big boxer can beat a good small boxer...)

Well the term itself is said to have been coined to describe Ray Robinson. I'm not exactly sure how true that is. Could be folklore. It is a fact that a writer for Ring Magazine in an issue in the early 50s described Robinson as being "pound for pound". But I can't be sure if that was the first usage of the term either.

[DanePugilist]

You guys get too worked up over p4p rankings. If you like it then okay, but if you don't then just ignore the damn lists jeez.We don't like the way it is, so we are trying to fix it for those who care about it.

[Decebal]

You guys get too worked up over p4p rankings. If you like it then okay, but if you don't then just ignore the damn lists jeez.

Well...it's not as if P4P rankings were somehow only something that boxing anoracks would get involved with! Every professional body/organisation/magazine/writer has a list! It is considered the ultimate list in some ways - even more important than rankings for each weight!

[DanePugilist]

Well...it's not as if P4P rankings were somehow only something that boxing anoracks would get involved with! Every professional body/organisation/magazine/writer has a list! It is considered the ultimate list in some ways - even more important than rankings for each weight!professional bodies/organisations/magazines are corrupt and manipulated by other media. This is ESB and we should be the pioneers of a somewhat bullitproof system. Good initiative, Decebal.

My suggestion is that we look how complete a boxer is, coupled with whom he has met since the last update.

Let me give examples: Israel Vasquez and Rafael Marquez are usually in top 10 lists. They have great offensive skills, but their defense is near non-existant. They should get plusses for meeting, since they are both great, but minus for being incomplete, but meeting 3 times shouldn't grant them much pts, as first time.

[Carlos Primera]

I stopped thinking about the P4P thing a while ago. It's totally pointless and often makes little sense.
i feel the same way. the criteria is totally subjective to people, and i'm sure a certain amount of bias comes into play when ranking these guys.

[Decebal]

Oh yes, a couple of internet junkies on a forum are really going to fix the p4p crisis for the entire boxing commmunity.:roll:

Of course we are not going to change anything...but we could come up with a better system for our own use...and entertainment!

[Decebal]

No one really needs a p4p list to tell you who the elites of today's era are. So why even get all worked up over them? A well schooled boxing fan can easily distinguish between world class B level fighters and elite A level fighters. RING magazine is the highest authority in the boxing community when it comes to p4p lists. If you like it then good, if ya don't then ignore it.

Exactly WHY is the Ring the "highest authority"? What standards do they use that are so much better than any of the others? Or is it simply that we agree with them more?

[DanePugilist]

Oh yes, a couple of internet junkies on a forum are really going to fix the p4p crisis for the entire boxing commmunity.:roll:Just for this forum. I don't care about if other sites use them - but of course they are entitled to do so.

Btw I don't hope you are refering to us as internet junkies, while removing yourself from that equation.

[Decebal]

Btw I don't hope you are refering to us as internet junkies, while removing yourself from that equation.

:lol: El Rey is in full and total control of his massive internet habit...whereas the two of us are not!:bart

[Decebal]

Because they invented the ranking system so after years and years of them doing this they seem like the most credible source to go to... you don't need me to tell you this.

Besides they have well schooled boxing writers and analists who analyze and rank fighters in each and every division, and unlike the belt organizations they do it more for the love of the sport rather than the money. So add all that up and I put much more stock in their p4p rankings over anyone else's list out there.

Fine, so they are better and less biased analysts...but HOW is it that they compare fighters p4p? What criteria do they use once they have analysed individual fighters?:think

[DanePugilist]

:lol: El Rey is in full and total control of his massive internet habbit...whereas the two of us are not!:bartOf course he is - he keeps his 10 posts a day in check(which is 2 more than I).

[Decebal]

Read my post above my *****!

:lol:

[DanePugilist]

I am an internet junkie, of course.:D I'm just not one getting all worked up over a mythical list and trying to change it for all the world to see. That would be you guys.No, you are just getting worked over, that we are getting worked over a broken system.:lol:

[Decebal]

No, you are just getting worked over, that we are getting worked over a broken system.:lol:

:lol:

[Decebal]

Ask them... I'm guessing they don't use any kind of scientific criteria like some here like to use. They just see the fighters and compare thier talents and the opponents they've beaten and they have a vote and badda bing-badda boom, out pops a credible list. Rankings fighters isn't as complicated as some of you try and make it.

Ranking fighters in each weightclass is not too hard, I agree...but ranking p4p is...for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread.:yep

[DanePugilist]

Ask them... I'm guessing they don't use any kind of scientific criteria like some here like to use. They just see the fighters and compare thier talents and the opponents they've beaten and they have a vote and badda bing-badda boom, out pops a credible list. Rankings fighters isn't as complicated as some of you try and make it.Since you are fine with the current system, feel free to use Ring magazines or the like. We find it broken, biased and incomplete.

[DanePugilist]

'Cause I'm better than you.:tongOr more of a junkie?:lol: :D

[DanePugilist]

Decebal, what did you think of this: "My suggestion is that we look how complete a boxer is, coupled with whom he has met since the last update."

Maybe it should more specified than Offensive/Defensive skills, then compile a total point for this fighter, coupled with points for last five fights(which are compiled from same system).

[DanePugilist]

Both.:yepSo far you have been better at humour, but fail at being constructive:lol: :tong :cool:

[Decebal]

Decebal, what did you think of this: "My suggestion is that we look how complete a boxer is, coupled with whom he has met since the last update."

Maybe it should more specified than Offensive/Defensive skills, then compile a total point for this fighter, coupled with points for last five fights(which are compiled from same system).

Only problem with that is "coupled with whom he has met since the last update" - if you start off with bad/biased rankings, it will take a long time for the over/underestimation to fade away even if you decide to judge stuff fairly. That is why I think we should start from scratch and not use any already made up ranking, whether deemed good or bad - we should decide the criteria first and then modify it after we see how what it comes up with compares to our gut instinct until we reach a happy equilibrium - then we will know we have it right!

[DanePugilist]

How so? Only problem I have with the RING rankings is they often tend to ranks guys too high because of hype.... but after a while that tends to fade and guys are ranked in their approprate spots. And as far as being biased goes you're out of your damn mind. RING rankings are the least biased rankings out there. They don't rank because of cash like the alphabet belts do, nor do they have a single guy like Dan Rafael do the entire list, they have well schooled fans on the sport decide because of their love of the game and nothing more and nothing less.You are contradicting yourself. First you say they often tend too high rank due hype, and then you say they are well schooled; well schooled guys don't believe in hype, they believe in what they see.:cool:

[DanePugilist]

I prefer being destructive thankyou very much.:bart That's why I have owned and destroyed this thread

El Rey KO 1 this thread.:bokc




:yepIt was merely a KD. We were merely being surprised by your hit, then we got back up and pwned you ever since, save in the humour department.

[Decebal]

It was merely a KD. We were merely being surprised by your hit, then we got back up and pwned you ever since, save in the humour department.

If El Rey has KD'ed anyone in this thread, it was the referee, with a low-blow!:D

[DanePugilist]

If El Rey has KD'ed anyone in this thread, it was the referee, with a low-blow!:D:lol: :lol: - all his posts have been low blows. Officials outta remove him from the ring.

[dangerousity]

you make some excellent points decebal..

but its simply a lost cause..!

WHAT im most annoyed about, is the lack of big men in the p4p rankings.

off course fighters who are smaller, have an easier time throwing combos faster, as they are smaller, but isnt that what the meaning p4p is about. you would in your think of waldo as a 160 pounder, and think, what could he do at that weight. how well would he move, when you keep in mind he moves very well for such a big guy. wouldnt it be logical to assume, he would move excellent, if he was smaller.. and so on, and on..

lets take an example:

wladimir klittie he is dominating the hw div, he is doing his thing and doing it an a way, that leaves a good impression.

p4p his right hand and jab are amongst the best, but yet the guy aint ranked.

the p4p rankings really is bullshit, and favours the avreage sized guys.

another subject and fact, that you so wisely touch, the inner circles of boxing. the americans owning the p4p system, while their own fighters doesnt "ALLOW" others to join their circle. this is also a money problem, cause for hopkins, winky would be a bigger payday then perhaps calzaghe.

Sure Wlad is dominating the HW division, but guys in the p4p rankings are dominating MULTIPLE divisions. Not only that, they also dont get KD in every fight, doesnt look that vulnerable, beats elites and dont get KTFO by journeyman's. Not hating on Wlad, one of my favs...but gotta be objective here. Wlad is not as dominant as people make him out to be...seing as he hasnt even managed to unify the HW yet after all these years and a crap HW crop it is too.

[KayEpps]

Instead of doing all of that - I just go off someone else's pound for pound list - like the Ring or Dan Rafeal's ESPN P4P list. These are some of the better ones that I've seen out there.

[DanePugilist]

:lol: but :nono

I've already pwned and dismantled all of you. All you're doing now is bitching and whining at the post fight interview. :yep

And it's spelled humor, not humour. Fucking foreigner.:twisted::lol:Yes, we are whining about what a Manfredo-wannabe is doing in a fight amongst us elites:lol: .

But thanks for the correction in my broken translator, didn't realize it was spelled the same way as in danish.

[DanePugilist]

Sure Wlad is dominating the HW division, but guys in the p4p rankings are dominating MULTIPLE divisions. Not only that, they also dont get KD in every fight, doesnt look that vulnerable, beats elites and dont get KTFO by journeyman's. Not hating on Wlad, one of my favs...but gotta be objective here. Wlad is not as dominant as people make him out to be...seing as he hasnt even managed to unify the HW yet after all these years and a crap HW crop it is too.Hard for a HW to dominate in multiple divisions, unless they didn't start as such.

[Decebal]

Hard for a HW to dominate in multiple divisions, unless they didn't start as such.

Only American kids start out as HWs...:bart

[DanePugilist]

Only American kids start out as HWs...:bartButter- and Babybean comes to mind:lol: :lol: . True US fighters.

[Fat Tony]

Sure Wlad is dominating the HW division, but guys in the p4p rankings are dominating MULTIPLE divisions. Not only that, they also dont get KD in every fight, doesnt look that vulnerable, beats elites and dont get KTFO by journeyman's. Not hating on Wlad, one of my favs...but gotta be objective here. Wlad is not as dominant as people make him out to be...seing as he hasnt even managed to unify the HW yet after all these years and a crap HW crop it is too.

It's "easy" to become champ in different weight classes, if there is only 5 lbs from weight class to weight class. Wlad would have to amputate one of his legs and and one of his arms to make 200 lbs.

[Decebal]

Max Kellerman once said that p4p can be viewed as a theoretical list which asks you if every fighter out there were to be the same size which one would come out on top. I didn't like that way of thinking of it because there's no telling ho wahat heavyweight would fight if you shrunk him down to say 160lbs, or vise versa. I think accomplishments should have to do as much with ranking a p4p fighter as fighting ability.

Now you are starting to take this thread seriously!:good

[Decebal]

Only because it was a chance to demean that loudmouth nut Max Kellerman.

:lol: that guy is so funny! He has such a funny voice and way of speaking - it's like he is being perpetually screwed by Jonah Falcon! And he looks like a chicken too!:patsch

[DanePugilist]

Max Kellerman once said that p4p can be viewed as a theoretical list which asks you if every fighter out there were to be the same size which one would come out on top. I didn't like that way of thinking of it because there's no telling ho wahat heavyweight would fight if you shrunk him down to say 160lbs, or vise versa. I think accomplishments should have to do as much with ranking a p4p fighter as fighting ability.Its Vice versa, you damn foreigner.:lol:

[sthomas]

Although P4P is a fun discussion it makes me wonder why so much weight is given to this fantasy. I no of no other major sport where pound for pound is discussed.. Best P4P; golfer, football player, basketball player, tennis player, marathon runner, shotputter, discuss thrower etc. Why not?

The other fantasy in boxing that really needs to be addressed is prime vs. prime fantasy time "capsule" matches like Marciano vs. Lewis, Robinson vs. Leonard etc. This is especially true in the heavy weight division. Ex. If Louis were to battle Lewis in a fantasy fighti, in their primes, and put the time capule year @ 1965, J Louis would be 2" taller and 15 lbs. heavier while L Lewis would be 2" shorter and 15 lbs. lighter. Why? Research tells us humans have been growing taller and heavier dramatically over the past. In the last 60 years the average height of the Dutch has increased by several inches!!!

So Jack Johnson would be about 6'5" today, Marciano 6'1" 220, etc...

[DanePugilist]

That's the only misspelled word you found in there? Pffft, just like the danish, always doing everything half-assed.It's called the danes, unless you are referring to pastry.

[DanePugilist]

If you say so...



That's the only misspelled word you found in there you uptight grammar correcting poof? Pffft, just like the danes, always doing everything half-assed.


Ya happy now?:DYes, I am ecstatic.:cool: , but don't pluck feathers, if you are a chicken.:tong

[DanePugilist]

Sarcasm is for people who aren't smart enough to be witty.

And that's Rooster to you mofo.:smokeCome on, I think you are pretty smart.:smoke

Thank you for the correction, sucker:cool:

[Decebal]

I've been having a think about this:

Accomplishement have only a small effect on the ranking. Just because you went 40-0 and beat some of the best guys three years ago has no bearing on the six crushing defeats you've faced since then (this is hypothetical, i'm not referring to a particular boxer).

So, on a skills basis(feel free to add to these), you could rate, as an burroughavg. across the last five fights:

General Attributes: Fitness, physical ability, conditioning, power, speed.

Offensive: combo punching, punch variety, accuracy, KO ratio, counter punching.
Defensive: Footwork, blocking skills, head movement.

Intangibles: Ring generalship, tactical awareness, fighting intelligence, adaptability, heart.
Quality of opposition: by using the above criteria to decide how "good" their opposition was
Outcome of last five fights: and then used in relation to the last five opponents (ie., a good win to a good fighter is worth as much as a fantastic win ove a limited fighter. Equally a bad loss to an elite is better than a bad loss to a decent fighter)

By using the last two particularly, I think it'd be easier to determine a genuine "accomplishment". For example, Shane Mosley's "close" win over Oscar is better than Floyd's win because DLH was a better and more active fighter at that point. The name, therefore, carries no special weight only a relative scored weight.

Now, the ratings are relative for each division, so say you score each category out of ten, you can compare the scores without worrying about equivalent skills, because it requires a different approach at HW to LW for example, despite a broadly similar toolkit.

Just my starting point.

Yap...this kind of approach will lead to objective appraisal!:good

[Decebal]

Now, the ratings are relative for each division, so say you score each category out of ten, you can compare the scores without worrying about equivalent skills, because it requires a different approach at HW to LW for example, despite a broadly similar toolkit.

so, each fighter can have a maximum of 60 points, allowing a direct comparison between weight classes. The ten with the highest scores are your top ten, P4P. If there's a deadlock, you can use the quality of opposition score as your barometer. If they still match, then you can just have a tied place.

.

I like that...it solves the problem that comes with heavier weights coming with fewer flurries and lighter weights coming with fewer KOs.

How about the circle jerk and dodging? You cannot get lots of points unless you fight top class oppositions, but what if the "top class opposition" studiously avoids you?:think

[DanePugilist]

I've been having a think about this:

Accomplishments have only a small effect on the ranking. Just because you went 40-0 and beat some of the best guys three years ago has no bearing on the six crushing defeats you've faced since then (this is hypothetical, i'm not referring to a particular boxer).

So, on a skills basis(feel free to add to these), you could rate, as an avg. across the last five fights:

General Attributes: Fitness, physical ability, conditioning, power, speed, fighting weight (is it the natural or too far above/below)

Offensive: combo punching, punch variety, accuracy, KO ratio, counter punching.

Defensive: Footwork, blocking skills, head movement.

Intangibles: Ring generalship, tactical awareness, fighting intelligence, adaptability, heart.

Quality of opposition: by using the above criteria to decide how "good" their opposition was

Outcome of last five fights: and then used in relation to the last five opponents (ie., a good win to a good fighter is worth as much as a fantastic win ove a limited fighter. Equally a bad loss to an elite is better than a bad loss to a decent fighter)

By using the last two particularly, I think it'd be easier to determine a genuine "accomplishment". For example, Shane Mosley's "close" win over Oscar is better than Floyd's win because DLH was a better and more active fighter at that point. The name, therefore, carries no special weight only a relative scored weight.

Now, the ratings are relative for each division, so say you score each category out of ten, you can compare the scores without worrying about equivalent skills, because it requires a different approach at HW to LW for example, despite a broadly similar toolkit.

so, each fighter can have a maximum of 60 points, allowing a direct comparison between weight classes. The ten with the highest scores are your top ten, P4P. If there's a deadlock, you can use the quality of opposition score as your barometer. If they still match, then you can just have a tied place.

My thoughts. Please discuss.Awesome work, mate. Along the lines what I had in mind, if I had the ability to do so.

[Decebal]

Along the lines what I had in mind, if I had the ability to do so.

ehm, ehm...don't you mean dilligence?:tired

[DanePugilist]

ehm, ehm...don't you mean dilligence?:tired:lol: :lol: Could be - Nah, I knew someone would do it better, hence ability with a hint of dilligence.

[DanePugilist]

I think this system will work greatly. Kessler would definately be top 10 p4p now.:smoke

[China_hand_Joe]

The best way to make a P4P list might be...


To rank fighters according to how good they are at the present, according to your best estimate.

Complicated?

[Decebal]

The best way to make a P4P list might be...


To rank fighters according to how good they are at the present, according to your best estimate.

Complicated?

Please read the thread and try and tackle some of the complications that have come up!:good

[DanePugilist]

an excellent post flux..

agree with just about everything.. though i would like to see, that if a fighter is fighting in a division, above his preferred weight, would recieve a serious amount of attention. as well as quality of opposition. ( talking p4p i assume, that their opponents, are of at least some quality, even when jumping up in weight)

now you have formed a good example as to how you would do it.. i came to think about in-activity or retired fighters making a comeback, how would you put that into the equation..?Yeah true. Minus pts for the one that has the natural weight, when fighting smaller guys, and vice versa.

[Decebal]

well, by my reckoning, a fighter with 45 points could easily end up being top ten. If you're avoided, there's just no way round that - you can only be judged on what you do. Let's say you get nothing but journeymen opposition - if you beat them all convincingly (wide UDs, early round KOs), you might have an average quality of opposition score (say 5) but the outcome score could bring that up.

I'll modify it thus:

Outcome of last 5 fights:

clear win: 2
close win: 1
draw: 0
close loss: -1
clear loss: -2

Now this is subjective, if a fighter gets the W but in fact it's considered a robbery... I'm not sure how you could take that into account fairly. you would need the group consensus, otherwise you follow the judges opinions.

So, three close wins, a close loss and a clear win would give you 4 points. Multiply that by your Quality of opp score and that would be what you add to the score. Means your overall score would now be higher potentially (obviously you could end up with 100 points) - so let's modify the total available score to 140 and class the last two categories into a single class which takes that calculation into account.

Looking at the current top ten, not many of them are fighting similarly elite opposition all the time, so it should balance out.

you still haven't tackled the problem of the circle jerk - its circularity...

[DanePugilist]

The best way to make a P4P list might be...


To rank fighters according to how good they are at the present, according to your best estimate.

Complicated?When you do such a thing you still need to look at many parameters - we will make a system that makes it easier to update and make such lists.

[DanePugilist]

you still haven't tackled the problem of the circle jerk - its circularity...Subtract .5 for each jerk?

[Decebal]

Subtract .5 for each jerk?

:lol:

[China_hand_Joe]

When you do such a thing you still need to look at many parameters - we will make a system that makes it easier to update and make such lists.

Achievements/resume should count for zero.

They too are eniterly subjective, the best bet is to guess who the best fighters in the world are, regardless of whether they have fought anyone.

When estimating this you will of course take into consideration some fighters are looking good against inferior opposition, but will use brainpower to detirmine whether you think they'll look as impressive when they step it up.

[DanePugilist]

Achievements/resume should count for zero.

They too are eniterly subjective, the best bet is to guess who the best fighters in the world are, regardless of whether they have fought anyone.

When estimating this you will of course take into consideration some fighters are looking good against inferior opposition, but will use brainpower to detirmine whether you think they'll look as impressive when they step it up.Our system seems to give fighters a base value determined by overall skills, but I think it would be good manners to consider whom you have fought in the last 5 fights, based on their base values.

[DanePugilist]

perhaps you draw up a system, and i mean literally draw.. a la your graphical view on calzone´s ability.

we have seen your marvellous graphical abilities, you remind me a little of the old danis "artist" jørgen klevin:deal:rofl - that brings up childhood memories.

[Decebal]

The Circle Jerk:

I think there's a good chance of this balancing out - if someone is consistently beating even decent level opposition well and has a good skill-set, they'll be near the top ten relatively quickly.

if they're being avoided, then there's no way to rate them because we've never seen them perform. people might be avoiding them, but even if they fought, they might lose - so you can't really factor for this.

.

Well...they'll get close to the top 10 but they'll never be allowed in the magic circle. They will be ducked and won't be able to get the points that someone in the magic circle who wins some and loses some against other magic circle opposition will get.

[DanePugilist]

Very good work, Flux. I think it could work. If circle jerking is no longer legitimate - it will not be claimed as elite vs elite no more; the win will be less great, if a better challenge is being avoided. I suggest it will move down to contender lvl.