Official ESB Rankings -- Vote Now

[Lampley]

With the unfortunate demise of The Ring as a semi-objective source of rankings, isn't it time that a thriving, geographically diverse community such as this one compile its own rankings?

I have a framework in mind for how this would work -- and ultimately would be self-maintaining, a necessity for any perpetuating idea on a message board -- and will start putting together a constitution if people are interested.

I think it could be a lot of fun and bring even more eyeballs to the board.

What are your thoughts?

[brooklyn1550]

I like it

[Decebal]

I would go with fluxstuff as a good starting point.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[C Money]

It can be no worse or less meaningful than just about every other set of rankings:lol:

Yes!!

If nothing else it lets ESB'ers express their opinions as a whole:good

[ripcity]

With the unfortunate demise of The Ring as a semi-objective source of rankings, isn't it time that a thriving, geographically diverse community such as this one compile its own rankings?

I have a framework in mind for how this would work -- and ultimately would be self-maintaining, a necessity for any perpetuating idea on a message board -- and will start putting together a constitution if people are interested.

I think it could be a lot of fun and bring even more eyeballs to the board.

What are your thoughts?
I think something can work what kind of frame work do you have in mind?

[pipe wrenched]

With the unfortunate demise of The Ring as a semi-objective source of rankings, isn't it time that a thriving, geographically diverse community such as this one compile its own rankings?

I have a framework in mind for how this would work -- and ultimately would be self-maintaining, a necessity for any perpetuating idea on a message board -- and will start putting together a constitution if people are interested.

I think it could be a lot of fun and bring even more eyeballs to the board.

What are your thoughts?

I like it. I have checked out about all the sites I could find and ESB by far is the BEST. I think a ratings system among the great people that frequent ESB would hold as much credibility (if not more because we have no political gain from it) at least among the community, and it would be real cool to see as a melting pot what we come up with.
Great idea.:good

[Lampley]

I think something can work what kind of frame work do you have in mind?
Long story short:

1) A committee that decides whom to add to its ranks

2) Voting on the first Sunday of every month


The key is to set it up like this: 1) Simple, 2) Precise, 3) Transparent, 4) Self-Maintaining.

You have to nail the constitution to diamond exactness just for clarity's sake, but the process itself needs to be very easy.

My idea is to select maybe 20 members or so initially, then let them select others on each month to expand the ranks of voters.

It certainly would be a work in progess in the beginning, and the mods would have to support the idea by agreeing to keep the official rankings Sticky at the top of the board.

That said, with a week or two to write the constitution and another week to tweak it based on everyone's input, I think we could be ready to roll the first Sunday in October.

Given how great this fall will be, it would be a perfect starting point.

[C Money]

Long story short:

1) A committee that decides whom to add to its ranks

2) Voting on the first Sunday of every month


The key is to set it up like this: 1) Simple, 2) Precise, 3) Transparent, 4) Self-Maintaining.

You have to nail the constitution for clarity's sake, but the process itself needs to be very easy.

My idea is to select maybe 20 members initially, then let them select others on each month to expand the ranks of voters.

It certainly would be a work in progess in the beginning, and the mods would have to support the idea by agreeing to keep the official rankings Sticky at the top of the board.

That said, with a week or two to write the constitution and another week to tweak it based on everyone's input, I think we could be ready to roll the first Sunday in October.

Given how great this fall will be, it would be a perfect starting point.

Getting more convincing:good :yep

DOUBLE YES.

[Decebal]

So...how would this vote work?

[Lampley]

As I see it, there are two major hurdles to jump for this to work:

1) The Mods have to support the idea by making the ESB Official Rankings a Sticky thread

2) I, with the help of everyone else, would have to select the initial voters to be knowledgable, agenda-free, and geographically diverse.

With support from ESB and the right group of initial voters, we can get her going in time for October.

[kg0208]

Long story short:

1) A committee that decides whom to add to its ranks

2) Voting on the first Sunday of every month


The key is to set it up like this: 1) Simple, 2) Precise, 3) Transparent, 4) Self-Maintaining.

You have to nail the constitution to diamond exactness just for clarity's sake, but the process itself needs to be very easy.

My idea is to select maybe 20 members or so initially, then let them select others on each month to expand the ranks of voters.

It certainly would be a work in progess in the beginning, and the mods would have to support the idea by agreeing to keep the official rankings Sticky at the top of the board.

That said, with a week or two to write the constitution and another week to tweak it based on everyone's input, I think we could be ready to roll the first Sunday in October.

Given how great this fall will be, it would be a perfect starting point.
Certainly a good idea....known nuthuggers need not apply to the committee....nor haters.

[Decebal]

As I see it, there are two major hurdles to jump for this to work:

1) The Mods have to support the idea by making the ESB Official Rankings a Sticky thread

2) I, with the help of everyone else, would have to select the initial voters to be knowledgable, agenda-free, and geographically diverse.

With support from ESB and the right group of initial voters, we can get her going in time for October.

You don't have to pick the initial voters...we can go according to the results of the ESB TOP ANALYST competition...the top 10...as voted by all of us...should be the initial ten.

ESB doesn't need to play ball at all, although I am sure they will...we can do this no probs.

[brooklyn1550]

I say let the moderators and a poster selected by each one of the mods gets to chose who is on the committee.

[kg0208]

You don't have to pick the initial voters...we can go according to the results of the ESB TOP ANALYST competition...the top 10...as voted by all of us...should be the initial ten.

ESB doesn't need to play ball at all, although I am sure they will...we can do this no probs.
When was this done? And where is the thread? See the problem with those threads is they get moved to the lounge, and then it gets picked up there half way through and the Boxing Forum members don't get votes. Much of the Lounge doesn't post here, so that may be a little flawed.

[Decebal]

I know how the vote would work...take SMW rankings for example...everyone agrees that Bute is in the top 10...each voter on the committee would vote for a number 1-10 for him, and those three or four others generall agreed to be close in the rankings to Bute, above and below...then, according to the average...Bute would find his place on the rankings.

[Decebal]

When was this done?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Lampley]

So...how would this vote work?

The committee members vote on the top contenders for each division, given that the Champion either will be established (after the initial period, anyway) or vacant.

I'll have to research the best way to calculate votes, but I think a points system will work best. For example, something like the way the A.P. votes on college football (the No. 1 team has the most points).

We'd have to fill in details, but you'd vote 1-10 for each division, as well as for Pound For Pound. Your No. 1 would receive the most points, and your No. 10 the least. You add up points and list the fighters in order of most points.

What's cool about a committee approach is that you actually can have the points listed in parentheses beside each ranking.

Hypothetically, for a PfP:

1) Floyd Mayweather Jr. (3,240)
2) Manny Pacquiao (1,650)

It would give not only a rank, but an idea for the gap between certain positions.

Divisional rankings wouldn't work quite the same way, because obviously the Champion is the Champion, but you'd still use the same formula for Contenders.

[Brickhaus]

Or, if you make it an open thread where anyone can post their top 10's (but where only COMPLETE submissions will be counted), then (a) the nuthuggers should cancel each other out, and (b) it would discourage anyone who's only a nuthugger and doesn't know about the rest of boxing from voting, since they would need to make 18 top 10's a month just to have their vote even count. Yes, it would be a pain to tally for whoever takes that job, but I can't imagine that more than 40 or 50 posters would take the time and effort to actually rank all of the divisions each month.

In any case, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of the committee idea. The beauty of setting things up this way is that you get the wisdom of crowds, and once you limit things to a committee, you lose that advantage.

[lockdon9w]

I think the AP System will work great for this system. I will help with any research, but I don't think I should vote just yet, since I am newer fan of boxing and to the forum.

[Decebal]

The committee members vote on the top contenders for each division, given that the Champion either will be established (after the initial period, anyway) or vacant.

I'll have to research the best way to calculate votes, but I think a points system will work best. For example, something like the way the A.P. votes on college football (the No. 1 team has the most points).

We'd have to fill in details, but you'd vote 1-10 for each division, as well as for Pound For Pound. Your No. 1 would receive the most points, and your No. 10 the least. You add up points and list the fighters in order of most points.

What's cool about a committee approach is that you actually can have the points listed in parentheses beside each ranking.

Hypothetically, for a PfP:

1) Floyd Mayweather Jr. (3,240)
2) Manny Pacquiao (1,650)

It would give not only a rank, but an idea for the gap between certain positions.

Divisional rankings wouldn't work quite the same way, because obviously the Champion is the Champion, but you'd still use the same formula for Contenders.

Too complicated with points...because they would have to agree how many points are at stake for each upcoming fight...

[Lampley]

You don't have to pick the initial voters...we can go according to the results of the ESB TOP ANALYST competition...the top 10...as voted by all of us...should be the initial ten.

ESB doesn't need to play ball at all, although I am sure they will...we can do this no probs.

What concerns me about this is the popularity contest nature of that vote. I certainly agree that many of those folks listed would be the best candidates to start the rankings, but I think we need to think along the lines of a Supreme Court appointment process, then let the process become more democratic over time.

The reason I say that is we want to make sure that ESB rankings are reflective of international opinion, even better than the American-based Ring ever has been.

Some of the best posters on the site spend a lot of their time on the European forum, for example, and they surely need to be included.

[kg0208]

Well we also have to remember, a fight analyst picks fights. It doesn't mean he objectively ranks fighters by accomplishment and skill level.

Most rated Miranda over Pavlik based on his work at 160. Pavlik beat him of course, just pointing out there is a difference.

[Decebal]

What concerns me about this is the popularity contest nature of that vote. I certainly agree that many of those folks listed would be the best candidates to start the rankings, but I think we need to think along the lines of a Supreme Court appointment process, then let the process become more democratic over time.

The reason I say that is we want to make sure that ESB rankings are reflective of international opinion, even better than the American-based Ring ever has been.

Some of the best posters on the site spend a lot of their time on the European forum, for example, and they surely need to be included.

Fine...let us use a system to BLACKBALL any of the people on the list (nuthuggers and haters)...but the list should be based on the vote for best analyst - which was a fair and popular vote.

So...from th2 top 20 top analysts...keep blackballing until we have 10 left...let people vote for whom they want blackballed...whoever the ten that have most votes are, they are dropped.

[Lampley]

Too complicated with points...because they would have to agree how many points are at stake for each upcoming fight...
No, no. Nothing like that.

Let's say this is my hypothetical Pound for Pound vote:

1) Floyd Mayweather Jr. (100 points)
2) Manny Pacquiao (90 points)
3) Bernard Hopkins (80 points)
4) Joe Calzaghe (70 points)
5) Kevin McBride (60 points)
6) Miguel Cotto (50 points)
(and so on)

Votes would be for fighters only, not fights. And at once a month, hopefully people wouldn't get burned out.

[Decebal]

No, no. Nothing like that.

Let's say this is my hypothetical Pound for Pound vote:

1) Floyd Mayweather Jr. (100 points)
2) Manny Pacquiao (90 points)
3) Bernard Hopkins (80 points)
4) Joe Calzaghe (70 points)
5) Kevin McBride (60 points)
6) Miguel Cotto (50 points)
(and so on)

Votes would be for fighters only, not fights. And once a month, hopefully people wouldn't get burned out.

Oh, I see...so points are given according to the number of votes? But then...what if I wanted to vote for PBF first, but for Cotto second? How would I do that? We would need at least 10 votes for each category...

[kg0208]

Fine...let us use a system to BLACKBALL any of the people on the list (nuthuggers and haters)...but the list should be based on the vote for best analyst - which was a fair and popular vote.

So...from th2 top 20 top analysts...keep blackballing until we have 10 left...let people vote for whom they want blackballed...whoever the ten that have most votes are, they are dropped.

I still don't think being a good analyst is a good measure of ranking fighters.

Knowing who will win a fight and breaking it down is not the same as ranking a fighter objectively and placing him in rankings.

Look at Zakman. Awesome analyst. But he doesn't take objective looks at records and rank accordingly. He wouldn't rank Taylor at all because he thinks he's a fraud and thinks as an analyst, he can't fight. But Taylor deserves to be ranked as the top MW based on resume and partially on skills.

[Decebal]

I still don't think being a good analyst is a good measure of ranking fighters.

Knowing who will win a fight and breaking it down is not the same as ranking a fighter objectively and placing him in rankings.

Look at Zakman. Awesome analyst. But he doesn't take objective looks at records and rank accordingly. He wouldn't rank Taylor at all because he thinks he's a fraud and thinks as an analyst, he can't fight. But Taylor deserves to be ranked as the top MW based on resume and partially on skills.

You are right! The only poster here who is 100% objective is Decebal, even if he is not a good analyst!

...see the problem?

Of course it is the best analysts who are most likely to be objective...that is why they are good analysts in the first place - because they are objective!

[Lampley]

Or, if you make it an open thread where anyone can post their top 10's (but where only COMPLETE submissions will be counted), then (a) the nuthuggers should cancel each other out, and (b) it would discourage anyone who's only a nuthugger and doesn't know about the rest of boxing from voting, since they would need to make 18 top 10's a month just to have their vote even count. Yes, it would be a pain to tally for whoever takes that job, but I can't imagine that more than 40 or 50 posters would take the time and effort to actually rank all of the divisions each month.

In any case, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of the committee idea. The beauty of setting things up this way is that you get the wisdom of crowds, and once you limit things to a committee, you lose that advantage.

In time, a more democratic process is what would result. In the beginning, though, I think we just need to get the concept off the ground.

If the committee becomes too inclusive, the rankings will lose meaning. It must be a set process by which a person nominates himself, based on his contributions to the board. If the initial group is solid and takes the rankings seriously, the haters and fanboys won't have a chance, which is a good thing.

I'll describe all this in greater detail in the first draft of the constitution, but each First Sunday you'd have the members voting on the rankings, as well as voting on new members and on any other issues that arise. This will all be explained.

For that first October vote, we'd establish the debut rankings -- and champions -- and probably have a relatively large number of voters added to the committee.

To qualify, I'd suggest that any candidate have at least 1,000 posts on the site, and that they are approved at something like a 66.7% rate by the committee. We want to make it difficult enough that the bad eggs can be excluded.

Over time, the committee would grow and grow to become more inclusive and diverse.

But you have to be careful in the beginning, in order to keep such an ambitious project manageable.

[Claypole]

I'm not so sure about the committee idea. If the rankings are to reflect the views of ESB members, then I would say it should be open to everybody to vote.
Anybody who has enough knowledge, and inclination to come up with a top ten in every weight division surely deserves the right to have some input.
Perhaps a committee could be formed to best decide how to go forward with this idea...

[kg0208]

You are right! The only poster here who is 100% objective is Decebal, even if he is not a good analyst!

...see the problem?

Of course it is the best analysts who are most likely to be objective...that is why they are good analysts in the first place - because they are objective!

Not necessarily. I won't argue the point, but to me rankings and analyzing are vastly different.

And honestly I don't see the problem. We would be asking others to vote, not vote on themselves.

[Lampley]

Oh, I see...so points are given according to the number of votes? But then...what if I wanted to vote for PBF first, but for Cotto second? How would I do that? We would need at least 10 votes for each category...

I'm not sure what you're asking.

You'd vote:

1) Mayweather (100)
2) Cotto (90)
(down through your top 10)

That's assuming we'd use a 100-point system, which definitely is up for debate.

[pipe wrenched]

Lampley- I was under the impression that we could set up a way for the whole community to vote. If you only choose a few that will hardly represent what the community feels as a whole. Perhaps we could sticky a poll for the top boxers in each weight class and P4P and let everyone vote so we get the ESB results as a whole community.

Not to sound like a cry baby, but I know I wouldn't be chosen as a voter as well as a lot of others, and I think for an accurate view of ESB's rankings all members should get to vote.

[Decebal]

I propose this:

We separate the top 20 posters as voted for in the ESB TOP ANALYST competition into two groups.

Everyone is allowed to vote once for each group for the poster they most want blackballed. The top 5 in each group are eliminated. We are left with 10...THE ESB TEN!

These decide amongst themselves who the top 10 contenders in each weight category and p4p are. This can be done by them voting for fighters to be either removed from the list of top 10 or added to it.

Then, the rest of us can decide exactly what order the 10 on the list should go...

How about that?

[Jose FM]

Alot of bias with some people on here.

[C Money]

I'm not so sure about the committee idea. If the rankings are to reflect the views of ESB members, then I would say it should be open to everybody to vote.
Anybody who has enough knowledge, and inclination to come up with a top ten in every weight division surely deserves the right to have some input.
Perhaps a committee could be formed to best decide how to go forward with this idea...

I tend to agree with this:yep

The question that arises in my mind is, can the mods track multiple ID's?? Someone could make multiple accounts/votes which in certain cases could skew the vote.

I'm all for one man/woman, one voice......even BITCHTIME:lol:

Now tell me I'm biased!!!!:rofl :rofl

[C Money]

I propose this:

We separate the top 20 posters as voted for in the ESB TOP ANALYST competition into two groups.

Everyone is allowed to vote once for each group for the poster they most want blackballed. The top 5 in each group are eliminated. We are left with 10...THE ESB TEN!

These decide amongst themselves who the top 10 contenders in each weight category and p4p are. This can be done by them voting for fighters to be either removed from the list of top 10 or added to it.

Then, the rest of us can decide exactly what order the 10 on the list should go...

How about that?

I think they should be reflective of the overall board opinion:good

Not knocking you're proposal, but a sub-group doesnt represent ESB.

[Lampley]

I'm not so sure about the committee idea. If the rankings are to reflect the views of ESB members, then I would say it should be open to everybody to vote.
Anybody who has enough knowledge, and inclination to come up with a top ten in every weight division surely deserves the right to have some input.
Perhaps a committee could be formed to best decide how to go forward with this idea...

I hear what you're saying, but for it to really work, we'd all have to be patient.

The problem is that all registered voters would include all the haters and fanboys, plus their 15 aliases, and at the end of the day, you'd have created an ESPN poll.

Everyone could contribute in the sense that we all have direct access to the voters -- "Hey XXX, you need watch this Youtube, just so you can see how good my boy is" -- then hopefully establish crediblity on the site to be added to he voting committee.

Mainly, it would give ESB a chance to site its own rankings for a change, and a set that's much more objective and representative in terms of geography than The Ring or any other source of rankings.

[pipe wrenched]

Alot of bias with some people on here.

Yes, but not all biased in the same areas. If we all had our own individual votes, bias or not, we could see as a whole how ESB members as a whole rank the top fighters. I love that idea, but am against having 20 or so of us to come up with rankings that should stand for the ESB members as a whole.

[lockdon9w]

I like the idea of

1st (100)
2nd (90)
3rd (80)
4th (70)
....

That will compare the closest or how far a part the fighters are like the college football poll.

[pipe wrenched]

Also, if it's done by a select commitee, it's guranteed that a whole lot of us will still bitch about something or another when it's done. If we can figure out a fair way for each man/woman to vote for themselves then the results will speak for themselves and should be nothing to bitch about.

[Claypole]

How many people on ESB actually have enough knowledge to come up with a full set of rankings?

[C Money]

I hear what you're saying, but for it to really work, we'd all have to be patient.

The problem is that all registered voters would include all the haters and fanboys, plus their 15 aliases, and at the end of the day, you'd have created an ESPN poll.

Everyone could contribute in the sense that we all have direct access to the voters -- "Hey XXX, you need watch this Youtube, just so you can see how good my boy is" -- then hopefully establish crediblity on the site to be added to he voting committee.

Mainly, it would give ESB a chance to site its own rankings for a change, and a set that's much more objective and representative in terms of geography than The Ring or any other source of rankings.

I like the idea, I dislike the sub-group. ESB is comprised of us all, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If some sub group was necessary?? The number of voters should be increased, to broaden the spectrum at least somewhat.

[Decebal]

I think they should be reflective of the overall board opinion:good

Not knocking you're proposal, but a sub-group doesnt represent ESB.

So how would you propose choosing who is on the committee? Another vote, especially to decide who should be on the committee? I could live with that, no problem!:good

[kg0208]

I like the idea, I dislike the sub-group. ESB is comprised of us all, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If some sub group was necessary?? The number of voters should be increased, to broaden the spectrum at least somewhat.

That I agree with. Not 10 or 20, but something like 40-50 if we do a sub group.

[Decebal]

Ok...I am confused...what is this "sub group"? Is it the committee that decides who the top ten contenders are, before we all vote what order they shoudl come in?

[Lampley]

The two major problems with a purely democratic vote are that you'll include people who aren't qualified or have an agenda, and that the rankings will skew heavily toward more popular and American fighters.

In a sense, every thread started on the board is a vote, and anyone is free to participate.

But for Official ESB Rankings, I think you need them to be expert in nature in order for the effort to be worthwhile.

Maybe we should, through discussion, select 10 members, then let everyone vote on the other 10. I just want to make sure the great European posters are represented, who may not spend quite as much time on the General Forum.

[kg0208]

The two major problems with a purely democratic vote are that you'll include people who aren't qualified or have an agenda, and that the rankings will skew heavily toward more popular and American fighters.

In a sense, every thread started on PBF or ODLH is a vote, of sorts, and anyone is free to participate.

But for Official ESB Rankings, I think you need them to be expert in nature in order for the effort to be worthwhile.

Maybe we should, through discussion, select 10 members, then let everyone vote on the other 10. I just want to make sure the great European posters are represented, who may not spend quite as much time on the General Forum.

Perhaps a seperate vote for European, the Americas, and then World (asian Aussie, etc, since I don't think there are as many of them individually?) Then the committee is fairly represented on all sides.

[Decebal]

The two major problems with a purely democratic vote are that you'll include people who aren't qualified or have an agenda, and that the rankings will skew heavily toward more popular and American fighters.

In a sense, every thread started on the board is a vote, and anyone is free to participate.

But for Official ESB Rankings, I think you need them to be expert in nature in order for the effort to be worthwhile.

Maybe we should, through discussion, select 10 members, then let everyone vote on the other 10. I just want to make sure the great European posters are represented, who may not spend quite as much time on the General Forum.

Please look at the ESB top analyst thread that I posted already...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Achillesthegreat [Only registered and activated users can see links] 1013.51%Amsterdam [Only registered and activated users can see links] 1418.92%cross_trainer [Only registered and activated users can see links] 2635.14%janitor [Only registered and activated users can see links] 22.70%john garfield [Only registered and activated users can see links] 79.46%JohnThomas1 [Only registered and activated users can see links] 22.70%McGrain [Only registered and activated users can see links] 68.11%sean [Only registered and activated users can see links] 45.41%Zakman


Aren't there enough Europeans in the top 10?

[Lampley]

That I agree with. Not 10 or 20, but something like 40-50 if we do a sub group.

I agree, but I don't think we have any fair way of doing that initially. If we start with 20 for October and have the initial vote for rankings as well as the initial process for voting on new members, hopefully we'll add a bunch of enthusiastic, expert posters who will bump up the numbers for November and December.

It's just too difficult to pull names out of thin air. Let the posters nominate themselves, and their track records will speak for themselves.

[Decebal]

Perhaps a seperate vote for European, the Americas, and then World (asian Aussie, etc, since I don't think there are as many of them individually?) Then the committee is fairly represented on all sides.

I think that is a bad idea...then we'll start to calibrate according to the numbers from each area...let's keep it simple and have faith that the top analysts would agree the right top 10 contenders, before we all decide the order they come in.

[Lampley]

Perhaps a seperate vote for European, the Americas, and then World (asian Aussie, etc, since I don't think there are as many of them individually?) Then the committee is fairly represented on all sides.

Interesting thought.

First things first, I'll work on a constitution to explain how this madness can work, and then we'll get to the selection of initial voters.

[kg0208]

I think that is a bad idea...then we'll start to calibrate according to the numbers from each area...let's keep it simple and have faith that the top analysts would agree the right top 10 contenders, before we all decide the order they come in.

Well that would mean I agree the top analysts are the choice. I don't and have stated why.

I read your analyst thread and it was stated there as well. There is a difference in analysis knowledge and historical knowledge. Historical knowledge is more important here, or at least the process by which historical knowledge is gathered and portrayed. Rankings and fight predictions are not the same IMO.

I still do not see a clear and concise way of doing any of these things, and Lampley is right that a democratic process will be skewed.

[Lampley]

Please look at the ESB top analyst thread that I posted already...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Achillesthegreat [Only registered and activated users can see links] 1013.51%Amsterdam [Only registered and activated users can see links] 1418.92%cross_trainer [Only registered and activated users can see links] 2635.14%janitor [Only registered and activated users can see links] 22.70%john garfield [Only registered and activated users can see links] 79.46%JohnThomas1 [Only registered and activated users can see links] 22.70%McGrain [Only registered and activated users can see links] 68.11%sean [Only registered and activated users can see links] 45.41%Zakman


Aren't there enough Europeans in the top 10?

I agree that it's a very good group, but I don't think we should be bound by it. But yes, that's an excellent starting point.

[Lampley]

Well that would mean I agree the top analysts are the choice. I don't and have stated why.

I read your analyst thread and it was stated there as well. There is a difference in analysis knowledge and historical knowledge. Historical knowledge is more important here, or at least the process by which historical knowledge is gathered and portrayed. Rankings and fight predictions are not the same IMO.

I still do not see a clear and concise way of doing any of these things, and Lampley is right that a democratic process will be skewed.

I agree, which is why you need the right people. We might have to exclude a few who have agendas against certain fighters, in order to maintain fairness. Then, if they get voted on in October, that's great. It means the system is working.

[Decebal]

I agree that it's a very good group, but I don't think we should be bound by it. But yes, that's an excellent starting point.

Fine, let's start afresh! Let's have an identical "nominations counter", but instead of it being for ESP TOP ANALYST, it would be for ESB OFFICIAL RANKINGS COMMITTEE MEMBER...

Every poster can nominate once. Once we count the nominations, we take the top 1o or 2o with most nominations, and they become the COMMITTEE members.

They are responsible for selecting to top ten contenders.

We then decide the order they come in.

Agreed?

[Claypole]

I've changed my mind about the committee. It might not be perfect, but it's simple way to get the ball rolling. Perhaps potential committee members would nominate themselves and it gets put to a ballot which is open to all. Any flaws in the system would show up pretty quickly.

[Decebal]

Fine, let's start afresh! Let's have an identical "nominations counter", but instead of it being for ESP TOP ANALYST, it would be for ESB OFFICIAL RANKINGS COMMITTEE MEMBER...

Every poster can nominate once. Once we count the nominations, we take the top 1o or 2o with most nominations, and they become the COMMITTEE members.

They are responsible for selecting to top ten contenders.

We then decide the order they come in.

Agreed?

Anybody there?:think

[Lampley]

Fine, let's start afresh! Let's have an identical "nominations counter", but instead of it being for ESP TOP ANALYST, it would be for ESB OFFICIAL RANKINGS COMMITTEE MEMBER...

Every poster can nominate once. Once we count the nominations, we take the top 1o or 2o with most nominations, and they become the COMMITTEE members.

They are responsible for selecting to top ten contenders.

We then decide the order they come in.

Agreed?

I like your idea for selecting the members, although maybe 15 of them would be good, and then we can handpick the other 5 to add balance or fill in gaps.

But I think we still have to avoid having everyone vote regardless of qualification. Over time, I'd imagine that all of the good and regular posters will make it, excluding those who show obvious bias.

First things first, I need to start working on the constitution that will keep this thing moving forward once we've gotten it started.

I know this stuff usually doesn't work, but I want to give it a serious go and see if we can make it truly worthwhile for the ESB community.

[C Money]

That I agree with. Not 10 or 20, but something like 40-50 if we do a sub group.


I like this better.


Also to Decebal, yes a voting process would be the most democratic way to arrive at the group.

A sub-group is any grouping that represents the boards but doesnt include a one vote/one poster situation.

[Decebal]

I like your idea for selecting the members, although maybe 15 of them would be good, and then we can handpick the other 5 to add balance or fill in gaps.

But I think we still have to avoid having everyone vote regardless of qualification. Over time, I'd imagine that all of the good and regular posters will make it, excluding those who show obvious bias.

First things first, I need to start working on the constitution that will keep this thing moving forward once we've gotten it started.

I know this stuff usually doesn't work, but I want to give it a serious go and see if we can make it truly worthwhile for the ESB community.

Careful, mate! You have to get it right first time! If it's a flop the way you run it - it's game over for this great idea...We should have a vote for who should run this thing...I know it's your idea...but we have to be sure to get it right FIRST TIME!

Handpicking is a shot in the foot - it discredits everything! What is the point of the whole ESB rankings system that involves everyone if you don't trust the ESB members to pick the right people to be on the committee?

Having a committee that is too big (larger than 15) ensures decisions are less biased, but makes decisions much harder to take (and longer)...I think we should stick to 10 because ten are the number of options in the polls - it will make their decision making much easier...and ours...if we want to blackball one of them...for whatever reason, later.

Leaving people out on the basis of expertise or qualifications defeats the whole point of this thing! We want to bring as many people as possible to the site, create a movement...if we don't do so...we might as well let the committee decide the rankings on their own, after we decide who is on the committee...

[Decebal]

A sub-group is any grouping that represents the boards but doesnt include a one vote/one poster situation.

I don't understand...sorry.

[C Money]

I like your idea for selecting the members, although maybe 15 of them would be good, and then we can handpick the other 5 to add balance or fill in gaps.

But I think we still have to avoid having everyone vote regardless of qualification. Over time, I'd imagine that all of the good and regular posters will make it, excluding those who show obvious bias.

First things first, I need to start working on the constitution that will keep this thing moving forward once we've gotten it started.

I know this stuff usually doesn't work, but I want to give it a serious go and see if we can make it truly worthwhile for the ESB community.

i'm with the committe, I just believe it should be larger to give a better and more reputable perspective.

[C Money]

I don't understand...sorry.

Everyone who posts on ESB is the ESB group.

A committe or "sub-group" of that overall pool is what I'm referring to.
I'm fine with the committee process but believe that in the interest of fairness and quality that the "committe" should number closer to 50 than 10.

[cuchulain]

Certainly a good idea....known nuthuggers need not apply to the committee....nor haters.


And the haters are worse than the huggers.

[Decebal]

I think we are at the stage where we have to decide between:

1) A. choosing a committee that decides who the top ten contenders are before we ALL decide the order they come in in the rankings

and

B. choosing a committee that decides the very order of the top ten contenders in the rankings, once they have decided who those ten should be


2) and we also have to decide the number of committte members...

10?
15?
20?
25?
more???

bear in mind that the more they are, the longer it will take them to agree on anything, and the longer it will take them to do so...
...on the other hand, the more they are, the less individual bias will influence the final outcome


3) and we also have to decide:

how many nominations every one of us is allowed to make for committee member...I would say just one, to keep things simple

and aslo

4) whether we want to have a blackballing process as well, to remove some people who have a lot of nominations, because they are haters/nuthuggers or not...I would say...NOT...to make things simpler again

5) not least...we have to decide who should run all these nominations/votes and processes, until we have the committee...

[kg0208]

And the haters are worse than the huggers.

Depends on the group IMO...

[ripcity]

I think this can work

[Decebal]

Right...I'm off...good night...will check tomorrow to see what you've decided!:good

[kg0208]

I think we are at the stage where we have to decide between:

1) A. choosing a committee that decides who the top ten contenders are before we ALL decide the order they come in in the rankings

and

B. choosing a committee that decides the very order of the top ten contenders in the rankings, once they have decided who those ten should be


2) and we also have to decide the number of committte members...

10?
15?
20?
25?
more???

bear in mind that the more they are, the longer it will take them to agree on anything, and the longer it will take them to do so...
...on the other hand, the more they are, the less individual bias will influence the final outcome


3) and we also have to decide:

how many nominations every one of us is allowed to make for committee member...I would say just one, to keep things simple

and aslo

4) whether we want to have a blackballing process as well, to remove some people who have a lot of nominations, because they are haters/nuthuggers or not...I would say...NOT...to make things simpler again

5) not least...we have to decide who should run all these nominations/votes and processes, until we have the committee...


We would also need a criteria for selecting committee members. Very very basic so that others can form opinions.

[Decebal]

We would also need a criteria for selecting committee members. Very very basic so that others can form opinions.

nominations!

I nominate kg0208, for example...then we add the number of nominations for your name, and if you are in the top 10 most nominated, or whatever, you make the shortlist...

[kg0208]

nominations!

I nominate kg0208, for example...then we add the number of nominations for your name, and if you are in the top 10 most nominated, or whatever, you make the shortlist...

I meant more of what qualities would be most beneficial to the position, so that people can nominate loosely based on that. But that would be complicated.

First we need to find a way to keep the thread in THIS forum.

[Decebal]

First we need to find a way to keep the thread in THIS forum.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Name of the game with these things is simplicity...if it's too complicated, it will flop. If it's arbitrary, it will flop. Only way it works if it's simple and democratic and avoids subjectivity as much as possible.

[DanePugilist]

As long as Kessler will top the list after 3rd of November, I don't mind.

[codeman99998]

KG has a VERY VERY important point about analysts and historians.

Sometimes a fighter that any analyst would rate as technically inferior, or a sure loss to another fighter, SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be ranked higher.

Mike Tyson was almost undoubtedly a vegas favorite in his fight for the title, but he was NOT the champion until he WON the title.

[C Money]

I think we are at the stage where we have to decide between:

1) A. choosing a committee that decides who the top ten contenders are before we ALL decide the order they come in in the rankings

and

B. choosing a committee that decides the very order of the top ten contenders in the rankings, once they have decided who those ten should be


2) and we also have to decide the number of committte members...

10?
15?
20?
25?
more???

bear in mind that the more they are, the longer it will take them to agree on anything, and the longer it will take them to do so...
...on the other hand, the more they are, the less individual bias will influence the final outcome


3) and we also have to decide:

how many nominations every one of us is allowed to make for committee member...I would say just one, to keep things simple

and aslo

4) whether we want to have a blackballing process as well, to remove some people who have a lot of nominations, because they are haters/nuthuggers or not...I would say...NOT...to make things simpler again

5) not least...we have to decide who should run all these nominations/votes and processes, until we have the committee...

IMO the committee should consist of 50 members each voting for their own top ten contenders in each divsion. The results should be averaged amongst those voters to develop the rankings, similar to the NCAA coaches when voting for the top 25 teams in college football.

Have nominations and vote on those nominees.

Forget about blackballing the average of the haters/huggers opinions will shake out in the mix, thus giving an evenly mixed result.

[Decebal]

IMO the committee should consist of 50 members each voting for their own top ten contenders in each divsion. The results should be averaged amongst those voters to develop the rankings, similar to the NCAA coaches when voting for the top 25 teams in college football.

Have nominations and vote on those nominees.

Forget about blackballing the average of the haters/huggers opinions will shake out in the mix, thus giving an evenly mixed result.

I agree with you!:good

Anyone want to add their support to this plan?

It's very simple and yet...because there are 50 of them, and because we nominate them...it should provide for very good results!

[kg0208]

IMO the committee should consist of 50 members each voting for their own top ten contenders in each divsion. The results should be averaged amongst those voters to develop the rankings, similar to the NCAA coaches when voting for the top 25 teams in college football.

Have nominations and vote on those nominees.

Forget about blackballing the average of the haters/huggers opinions will shake out in the mix, thus giving an evenly mixed result.

There won't be many haters or huggers in there anyways because of nominations.

[Decebal]

There won't be many haters or huggers in there anyways because of nominations.

indeed! huggers and haters are not likely to be nominated by more than a few...so they would not make top 50.

[C Money]

indeed! huggers and haters are not likely to be nominated by more than a few...so they would not make top 50.

Everyone has some bias and many will call it hating/hugging, whatever!! Its the spice of life, I suppose:yep

I'd like to see such a process.

[Decebal]

Isn't 50 slightly too many though? Just imagine the poor guy who has to collate all the info - 50 list for each weightclass +p4p - every month!!!

Wouldn't 25 be enough, whilst still not being too few?

[kg0208]

Isn't 50 slightly too many though? Just imagine the poor guy who has to collate all the info - 50 list for each weightclass +p4p - every month!!!

Wouldn't 25 be enough, whilst still not being too few?

Happy medium of 30-40 seems like the likely outcome here.

25 may not be enough and 50 is alot when you think about it.

Just
Type
Like
This
And
Imagine

Well you get the drift....imagine 50 names and then ALL their lists for what, 18 weight classes?

[Decebal]

Happy medium of 30-40 seems like the likely outcome here.

25 may not be enough and 50 is alot when you think about it.

Just
Type
Like
This
And
Imagine

Well you get the drift....imagine 50 names and then ALL their lists for what, 18 weight classes?

let's go with 33 then...we have to be realistic! These guys might be glad to be on the committee...but when they have to do all that work - if someone decides one month not to keep it going - it's a blig flop!

I think an odd number is better, in case we get draws...this should sort that one out!

33 anyone?

[C Money]

Happy medium of 30-40 seems like the likely outcome here.

25 may not be enough and 50 is alot when you think about it.

Just
Type
Like
This
And
Imagine

Well you get the drift....imagine 50 names and then ALL their lists for what, 18 weight classes?

OK.... I'm not trying to be difficult:nono :lol:

I just think a larger list lends more credibility, 30-40 is fine.

Though I imagine that one could create an Excel spreadsheet, which once set up, would make it just a matter of typing in the results.

[C Money]

let's go with 33 then...we have to be realistic! These guys might be glad to be on the committee...but when they have to do all that work - if someone decides one month not to keep it going - it's a blig flop!

I think an odd number is better, in case we get draws...this should sort that one out!

33 anyone?

Ok by me

[Decebal]

OK.... I'm not trying to be difficult:nono :lol:

I just think a larger list lends more credibility, 30-40 is fine.

Though I imagine that one could create an Excel spreadsheet, which once set up, would make it just a matter of typing in the results.

33?

has a nice look to it...

[C Money]

33?

has a nice look to it...

:yep

[kg0208]

33?

has a nice look to it...

Yah, could even give it name or something :lol::lol::lol: Like Oceans 11:deal

Nominations for the ESB 33!!

[Decebal]

...anyone who thinks that we shouldn't elect 33 committee members "The ESB 33" by nominations, each poster - one nomination, top 33 most nominated to become "The ESB 33" for one year, when the nominations process is repeated, with" The ESB 33" being responsible for ranking the top 10 contenders in each weightclass as well as the top 10 p4p, each month?...

...speak NOW, or forever hold your tongue!:deal

[cross_trainer]

delete.

[cross_trainer]

delete.

[kg0208]

Problem

We need to create a committee fairly democratically that represents the multi-national makeup of ESB. The committee will then select new members, as per Lampley's plan.



Solution

Allow each major regional forum to elect a number of posters to the committee. The number of posters they elect will be based on forum population measured by thread count.



How it works

Currently, we have:



General Forum--5862 threads (68%)
European Forum--141 threads (2%)
British Forum--419 threads (5%)
Aussie Forum--341 threads (4%)
Classic Forum--1865 threads (21%)

Each forum gets a minimum of one vote.

Since we have a maximum of 10 spots to fill, Classic will elect half the posters the General forum gets, rounding down.

Totals:


European -- Elect 1 poster
British -- Elect 1 poster
Aussie -- Elect 1 poster
General -- Elect 5 posters
Classic -- Elect 2 posters



How do the Elections Work?

Very simple. Create a ballot thread in each major forum. Posters are allowed 1 week to vote. Each poster may only vote for one person. When the week passes, the top scorers (top 1, 2, or 5 depending on the forum) will become the new board.



Anything Else?

Yes. Lampley will automatically be the 11th member because this is his idea and he's running the show.

Well I think the formula works, but I would say multiply each by 3 or so. More posters I think are needed in the committee to get a qualifying sample of ESB's overall opinion.

Kinda like a Gallop poll.

[Decebal]

Problem

We need to create a committee fairly democratically that represents the multi-national makeup of ESB. The committee will then select new members, as per Lampley's plan.



Solution

Allow each major regional forum to elect a number of posters to the committee. The number of posters they elect will be based on forum population measured by thread count.



How it works

Currently, we have:



General Forum--5862 threads (68%)
European Forum--141 threads (2%)
British Forum--419 threads (5%)
Aussie Forum--341 threads (4%)
Classic Forum--1865 threads (21%)

Each forum gets a minimum of one vote.

Since we have a maximum of 10 spots to fill, Classic will elect half the posters the General forum gets, rounding down.

Totals:


European -- Elect 1 poster
British -- Elect 1 poster
Aussie -- Elect 1 poster
General -- Elect 5 posters
Classic -- Elect 2 posters



How do the Elections Work?

Very simple. Create a ballot thread in each major forum. Posters are allowed 1 week to vote. Each poster may only vote for one person. When the week passes, the top scorers (top 1, 2, or 5 depending on the forum) will become the new board.



Anything Else?

Yes. Lampley will automatically be the 11th member because this is his idea and he's running the show.

I think this will definitely not work...

First of all...I have only posted in the European forum a couple of times...even though I am European...this applies to most here!

There is no relation between the area you come from and where you post more often.

Secondly, what if cross_trainer is picked by Classic, British and General forum???

Thirdly, 10/11 would be too few to be representative!

This needs more thought, me thinks!;)

[kg0208]

Problem

We need to create a committee fairly democratically that represents the multi-national makeup of ESB. The committee will then select new members, as per Lampley's plan.



Solution

Allow each major regional forum to elect a number of posters to the committee. The number of posters they elect will be based on forum population measured by thread count.



How it works

Currently, we have:



General Forum--5862 threads (68%)
European Forum--141 threads (2%)
British Forum--419 threads (5%)
Aussie Forum--341 threads (4%)
Classic Forum--1865 threads (21%)

Each forum gets a minimum of one vote.

Since we have a maximum of 10 spots to fill, Classic will elect half the posters the General forum gets, rounding down.

Totals:


European -- Elect 1 poster
British -- Elect 1 poster
Aussie -- Elect 1 poster
General -- Elect 5 posters
Classic -- Elect 2 posters



How do the Elections Work?

Very simple. Create a ballot thread in each major forum. Posters are allowed 1 week to vote. Each poster may only vote for one person. When the week passes, the top scorers (top 1, 2, or 5 depending on the forum) will become the new board.



Anything Else?

Yes. Lampley will automatically be the 11th member because this is his idea and he's running the show.

Well I think the formula works, but I would say multiply each by 3 or so. More posters I think are needed in the committee to get a qualifying sample of ESB's overall opinion.

Kinda like a Gallop poll. You still come out with about 30 posters or so...didn't do the math because math irritates me even in it's most primitive forms.

[cross_trainer]

Well I think the formula works, but I would say multiply each by 3 or so. More posters I think are needed in the committee to get a qualifying sample of ESB's overall opinion.

Kinda like a Gallop poll.

OK. Yeah, just multiply everything by three. If everyone would prefer more people, that's fine.

My initial thought, though, was to make it small to begin with so that it's manageable and will get off the ground easily.

[cross_trainer]

I think this will definitely not work...

First of all...I have only posted in the European forum a couple of times...even though I am European...this applies to most here!

There is no relation between the area you come from and where you post more often.

Secondly, what if cross_trainer is picked by Classic, British and General forum???

Thirdly, 10/11 would be too few to be representative!

This needs more thought, me thinks!;)
1) Well, I'd say that Europeans are a bit more likely to post in the European section than non-Europeans. Moreover, posters in the general forum will contain several Europeans as well, and doubtless some will be elected.

2) You'd go with the next lowest scorer if one was already elected by a previous forum. A poster cannot represent two different forums.

3) Take the recommendation above, and multiply each number by 3. That would solve nonrepresentation.

[Decebal]

OK. Yeah, just multiply everything by three. If everyone would prefer more people, that's fine.

My initial thought, though, was to make it small to begin with so that it's manageable and will get off the ground easily.

11 is not enough...33 might be too many...sure!

Best way to do this is to put the nominations thread in the General forum, where we all go regularly, and advertise it in the other forums as well...whoever the 33 (or whatever) who get the most nominations, it is them!

I don't think someone should be on the list just because it was his/her idea! Lampley does not need that kind of affirmative help! He is good enough to be nominated on his own merits!

What do you think?

[cross_trainer]

11 is not enough...33 might be too many...sure!

Best way to do this is to put the nominations thread in the General forum, where we all go regularly, and advertise it in the other forums as well...whoever the 33 (or whatever) who get the most nominations, it is them!

I don't think someone should be on the list just because it was his/her idea! Lampley does not need that kind of affirmative help! He is good enough to be nominated on his own merits!

What do you think?

In general, I agree and will delete my proposal as it's more unwieldy than yours. Two changes, though:


1) Lampley should be part of it not because he "deserves" it, but because he's the one who's managing the process and seems to know what he's doing. He's also dedicated to the idea and will keep us on track.

2) Posters should be drawn from the two major population centers--Classic and General--rather than just the General forum. Since Classic has 1/3 of the threads, and its posters generally stay in the Classic section, it should get 1/3 of whatever the General forum gets.


Agreed?

[Decebal]

1) Well, I'd say that Europeans are a bit more likely to post in the European section than non-Europeans. Moreover, posters in the general forum will contain several Europeans as well, and doubtless some will be elected.

2) You'd go with the next lowest scorer if one was already elected by a previous forum. A poster cannot represent two different forums.

3) Take the recommendation above, and multiply each number by 3. That would solve nonrepresentation.

1) is a red herring. I post about Canadian fighters in the Canadian forum...but am not Canadian...anyway, I don't see why you want to devide people us according to areas? I would trust you to be objective EVEN :yep though you are American, because I respect you as a poster and as an analyst!

Also, which forum should I, as a European vote in? European or General, or both, or what?

I don't see how your system solves problems - seems to complicate things unnecessarily, in fact, in my view...

[Decebal]

In general, I agree and will delete my proposal as it's more unwieldy than yours. Two changes, though:


1) Lampley should be part of it not because he "deserves" it, but because he's the one who's managing the process and seems to know what he's doing. He's also dedicated to the idea and will keep us on track.

2) Posters should be drawn from the two major population centers--Classic and General--rather than just the General forum. Since Classic has 1/3 of the threads, and its posters generally stay in the Classic section, it should get 1/3 of whatever the General forum gets.


Agreed?

I agree with 2, because so many Classic posters only go there...fair enough...

I don't agree with 1, UNLESS Lampley would become the overseer RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing...i.e. if the thing don't work, or stops working, we know whom to blame! I thought that this would be too much pressure on him and that responsiblity should be shared amongst the committee members, but IF Lampley takes it upon his shoulders, fine!

[Decebal]

To decide...do we stick with 33?

(If you consider yourself a Classic forum regular, nominate in the Classic forum, if not, in the General forum...but only one nomination per poster...)

How's that?

[cross_trainer]

I agree with 2, because so many Classic posters only go there...fair enough...

I don't agree with 1, UNLESS Lampley would become the overseer RESPONSIBLE for the whole thing...i.e. if the thing don't work, or stops working, we know whom to blame! I thought that this would be too much pressure on him and that responsiblity should be shared amongst the committee members, but IF Lampley takes it upon his shoulders, fine!

Agreed. If Lampley wants to, he should direct the whole thing. If not, it's a corporate deal.

Since you want 33 posters, we'll divide them up as I already mentioned--24 to General and 8 to Classic (1/3 of General). The 33rd place will be reserved for Lampley if he wants it. If not, it will go to the 25th-best guy in the General forum.




Now all you have to do is start a "ESB Ballot/Voting" thread in each forum explaining it. Good luck. :good

[Decebal]

Agreed. If Lampley wants to, he should direct the whole thing. If not, it's a corporate deal.

Since you want 33 posters, we'll divide them up as I already mentioned--24 to General and 8 to Classic (1/3 of General). The 33rd place will be reserved for Lampley if he wants it. If not, it will go to the 25th-best guy in the General forum.




Now all you have to do is start a "ESB Ballot/Voting" thread in each forum explaining it. Good luck. :good

Everyone happy with this?

Speak now!!!

[cross_trainer]

Everyone happy with this?

Speak now!!!

YES!!! :D
:party:party:party

[Decebal]

YES!!! :D

I know your vote counts for a hell of a lot...but it's still just one vote!:D

If most people are happy in 10 hours, when I come back here again, I will start the whole rigmarole!:good

[cross_trainer]

I know your vote counts for a hell of a lot...but it's still just one vote!:D

If most people are happy in 10 hours, when I come back here again, I will start the whole rigmarole!:good

I know--I'm kidding. Just happy to see this finally become a reality.

[Decebal]

I know--I'm kidding. Just happy to see this finally become a reality.

It will be great! "The ESB 33" Rankings!:happy :happy :happy

Finally a list that ALL of us will agree on!:nut

[Lampley]

Thanks to Decebel, Cross Trainer and others for such great ideas. CT, I love your idea of incorporating other forums. I also agree that it could be problematic to include each of them.

However, involving the Classic forum is an absolute must. Some of the best threads I've ever read on this site exist there, and the signal-to-noise ratio generally tends to be greater.

As for me, for now I will decline having a vote. Maybe later I'll nominate myself, but initially, I just want this concept to take off.

I think I'd vote for 22 initial members, sort of the happy medium. A 33-voter committee sounds big to me for the first month. Remember, this number will grow for November, possibly by quite a few. We'll see.

I'm drafting a working Constitution right now, and I hope to post the first edition in the next day or so. I'll definitely need ideas and feedback on a few issues.

[Lampley]

Agreed. If Lampley wants to, he should direct the whole thing. If not, it's a corporate deal.

Since you want 33 posters, we'll divide them up as I already mentioned--24 to General and 8 to Classic (1/3 of General). The 33rd place will be reserved for Lampley if he wants it. If not, it will go to the 25th-best guy in the General forum.




Now all you have to do is start a "ESB Ballot/Voting" thread in each forum explaining it. Good luck. :good

I'd like to direct it for now, and then step back as hopefully the system begins to breathe on its own. It's always better to have a system in place, rather than the efforts of one person or a set of individuals.

And I'm fine with 33, if that's what you guys prefer.

[Decebal]

Thanks to Decebel, Cross Trainer and others for such great ideas. CT, I love your idea of incorporating other forums. I also agree that it could be problematic to include each of them.

However, involving the Classic forum is an absolute must. Some of the best threads I've ever read on this site exist there, and the signal-to-noise ratio generally tends to be greater.

As for me, for now I will decline having a vote. Maybe later I'll nominate myself, but initially, I just want this concept to take off.

I think I'd vote for 22 initial members, sort of the happy medium. A 33-voter committee sounds big to me for the first month. Remember, this number will grow for November, possibly by quite a few. We'll see.

I'm drafting a working Constitution right now, and I hope to post the first edition in the next day or so. I'll definitely need ideas and feedback on a few issues.

Allright, bro!:lol: You run away with it! Your idea, after all! Just make sure the system is simple yet fair!:good

[kg0208]

I'd like to direct it for now, and then step back as hopefully the system begins to breathe on its own. It's always better to have a system in place, rather than the efforts of one person or a set of individuals.

And I'm fine with 33, if that's what you guys prefer.

Good show bud:good

[cross_trainer]

I'd like to direct it for now, and then step back as hopefully the system begins to breathe on its own. It's always better to have a system in place, rather than the efforts of one person or a set of individuals.

And I'm fine with 33, if that's what you guys prefer.

As the guy who thought this up, perhaps you should make the threads. Decebal and I are regulars in the Classic section and known for our...unusual contest threads. People will take more notice if you post.

[Lampley]

As the guy who thought this up, perhaps you should make the threads. Decebal and I are regulars in the Classic section and known for our...unusual contest threads. People will take more notice if you post.

That makes sense. How does an intial voter group of 24 sound? That way, we can go 16 & 8 between the two forums.

[kg0208]

That makes sense. How does an intial voter group of 24 sound? That way, we can go 16 & 8 between the two forums.

Start smaller and build it up I guess is the idea here? Makes sense, this way we can get a sampling of how it will work.

[Lampley]

Start smaller and build it up I guess is the idea here? Makes sense, this way we can get a sampling of how it will work.

Yeah, I think it will be much smoother if we keep it small the first month. If all goes well, quite a few members should have a chance to be added for November -- in time to vote on the aftermath of Calzaghe/Kessler.

[kg0208]

I have lurked for a while on these boards --- and just recently have started posting under the moniker 'Vex_id'...

something like this is a fantastic idea and would definitely draw in more of an audience to this site - while further legitimizing the already top-tier boxing enthusiasts/historians/analysts that are found on these boards.

make it happen.

Welcome then. Enjoy posting:good

[C Money]

Glag to hear carlos1968 approve!!!


:good