ESB Official Rankings Constitution: First Draft

[Lampley]

ESB RANKINGS: THE CONSTITUTION (Part I)


PURPOSE

The ESB Official Rankings are designed to reflect the expert opinions of international boxing fans who participate in the ESB virtual community. Given the lack of credibility of the various sanctioning bodies and media publications, along with the inherent limitation of having any one person attempt to rank the world's best fighters, boxing needs a set of more accurate, representative rankings.
This Constitution was crafted to assist with this process, clarifying the rules and guidelines by which the rankings will be compiled and maintained.


RANKINGS FORMAT

The ESB Official Rankings will include Champion and Top 10 Contender rankings for the following divisions: Heavyweight (201+ pounds), Cruiserweight (200 pounds maximum), Light Heavyweight (175), Super Middleweight (168., Middleweight (160), Junior Middleweight (154), Welterweight (147), Junior Welterweight (140), Lightweight (135), Junior Lightweight (130), Featherweight (126), Junior Featherweight (122), Bantamweight (118., Junior Bantamweight (115), Flyweight (112), Junior Flyweight (108. and Strawweight (105).

QUESTIONS:

1) Do we want to merge any divisions, such as Junior Flyweight and Strawweight?

2) Do we want to rank fewer fighters than 10 (say, 5?) at some of the lower divisions?


Another constant element of ESB Official Rankings will be Pound for Pound
rankings. These Top 10 rankings will include fighters from all weight divisions based on overall merit.


VOTING SCHEDULE

Voting will take place once a month, on the first Sunday of the month. Voting will close at 12:00am at time zone UTC-12, effectively keeping voting open until 8:00am EST on Monday morning. After that time, voting is closed for the month. Voters also may submit their votes early, although obviously they set themselves up for reprimand or even expulsion if they fail to incorporate the latest results.


VOTING PROCESS

Each voter will have the opportunity to vote on any Champion contingencies (explained later), top 10 Contender rankings for all divisions, and top 10 Pound of Pound Rankings.
However, they are not required to vote on a complete list of fighters, deferring to others in the divisions in which they feel less familiar.
Each voter will post his votes publicly to the ESB Official Rankings Voting thread, which will be posted during the week prior to the first Sunday of the month. There, the ESB community will have access to his picks. Once submitted, the votes CANNOT be changed, barring a redundancy or some other clerical error.
The posts will appear as follows, with Pound for Pound listed first and then proceeding by division in descending order, with that voter's best fighter listed No. 1:

Pound for Pound

1) Fighter X
2) Fighter Y
3) Fighter Z. …
10)

Heavyweight

1) Fighter A
2) Fighter B
3) Fighter C. …
10)

Cruiserweight

1) Fighter L
2) Fighter M
3) Fighter N. …
10)

…..

Strawweight

1) Fighter O
2) Fighter P
3) Fighter Q


Again, voters are not required to fill all slots on either the Pound for Pound or Divisional Rankings.
Additionally, in divisions where there is a Champion, voters will not rank the Champion and simply will list him at the top of their Divisional vote.

Example:

Super Middleweight

Champion: Fighter D

1) Fighter E
2) Fighter F
3) Fighter G. …

There is no Champion of the Pound of Pound rankings, only a top 10 list of fighters.


SCORING

Scoring will be based on a 100-point system. Each voter's No. 1 fighter -- for both Divisional and Pound for Pound rankings -- will receive 100 points; No. 2 will receive 90 points; No. 3 will receive 80 points; and so on, through the 10th position. Again, a Champion of a division is not included in the voting or the scoring, so the 100 points in a division ruled by a Champion goes to the No. 1 Contender.
After the voting period closes for the month, each voter's ballot will be tallied. The point totals will added for each fighter across all of the voters' ballots, and the rankings will be compiled based on which fighters have the highest point totals. This will apply for Division rankings and Pound for Pound rankings.
In cases where a voter doesn't completely fill out a division, the unfilled positions in that voter's rankings obviously will be ignored. Also, voters may not designate that a fighters get alternate numbers of points. If a voter lists four fighters in a division, the points awarded will be 100, 90, 80 and 70, respectively. A voter cannot, for example, rank four fighters in a division and then number them as 1), 2), 4) and 7) in an attempt to create separation among the four in terms of points.


ADDITIONAL BALLOT MEASURES

On the ESB Official Rankings Voting Thread, each voter will type or post his rankings onto the thread, as mentioned above.
Beneath the rankings, any other issue for vote (e.g., whether a bout is for a title, vacancy issues, expulsion of a member, changes to the Constitution) will appear on this post as well.
Note that the voting on new candidates for membership will not appear on this thread.



THE CHAMPION


REVOLUTIONARIES

In the initial round of voting, voters will decide which fighters are grandfathered into Champion positions. For this first round only, all voters must list a Champion for the divisions in which they believe one exists. Otherwise, 10 Contenders will form the rankings and the Championship will remain vacant.
To become an Official ESB Champion in the initial voting, a fighter must garner a vote of Champion from the majority (anything over 50.0%) of voters. If for some reason a voter chooses not to vote on a division at all, that vote will not count toward that fighter's Champion status either way. (This is highly unlikely to happen.)
If a fighter is listed as Champion by the majority of voters, he becomes the ESB Champion going forward and is subject to the ongoing rules established in the Constitution.

QUESTION:

Theoretically, if we like The Ring's list of champions, we could grandfather them in and not worry about voting on this issue.


WINNING A BELT

A fighter, ranked or unranked, automatically becomes a Champion if he defeats the current Champion in the ring.
In cases of a vacancy, if the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 2 Contender, the winner of that contest becomes the new Champion.
If the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 3 Contender, voters will decide in the voting period immediately prior to the fight whether that fight will be waged for the championship. Note that this issue will be decided -- and settled by a majority vote -- before the fight in question takes place, not after.
For example, if No. 1 Contender Fighter A is scheduled to face No. 3 Contender Fighter B on October 17, voting on whether the bout is a Championship contest will occur on the first Sunday of October -- not before, and not after.
Excluding the initial voting period, no fighter can inherit a championship belt. He must win it in the ring, even if the previous Champion is stripped.

QUESTION:

1) The No. 1 vs. No. 3 policy reflects what The Ring has done in recent years, but if people don't like it, it can be changed. I personally like it because if No. 2 doesn't seem willing to fight No. 1, No. 1 still should have a chance to win the belt. And if voters believe that No. 1 could and should fight No. 2 but opts for No. 3, they can refuse to designate that fight as a Championship contest.


LOSING A BELT

A Champion can lose his belt for one of three reasons: 1) Losing in the ring, 2) Vacating the division (moving in weight class, retiring, etc.), or 3) Not fighting for more than 365 days. Both No. 1 and No. 2 result in certain loss of the belt. Additionally for No. 2, if a fighter vacates a division and returns later, he does not regain Championship status and must fight for it along with the other Contenders.

No. 3 is a special case. A fighter who is inactive in his division for more than 365 days does not automatically lose his belt, but voters will have the option of stripping that fighter. This will be put to a separate vote for the voters, who will determine by majority vote whether that fighter retains his belt. If the voters elect to strip a Champion for inactivity, he becomes officially Inactive. A Champion who has been deemed Inactive cannot be a Contender, and thus he will be excluded from that division's rankings. He may, however, still be considered for Pound of Pound rankings.

QUESTIONS:

1) No. 3 obviously will be controversial. But I think we need to prevent fighters from taking a division hostage. Allowing voters to decide gives them the option of weeding out legitimate excuses for inactivity versus fighters who are doing nothing but milking a belt without actually defending it.

2) If a fighter is voted Inactive for his division, should he still be eligible for Pound for
Pound? Does that need to be legislated, or will the voters themselves settle that naturally with their votes?

[Lampley]

ESB RANKINGS: THE CONSTITUTION (Part II)

DIVISION IDENTITY


PROBLEM:

This is a very tricky issue, and I'm struggling with it. Ideas would be most helpful.

Scenario No. 1:

Let's say Jermain Taylor is voted or grandfathered in as the ESB Official Middleweight Champion. Taylor then fights No. 1 Contender Kelly Pavlik on September 29, and Pavlik wins the fight.

The rematch clause is for the fight to be held at 168 pounds. Pavlik's title presumably is not at stake. And win or lose, he remains the 160-pound champion provided he comes back down and defends, right?

Scenario No. 2:

Same conditions, but let's say the result of the first Taylor/Pavlik fight is a draw. This time, Taylor says on September 30 that he is vacating the Middleweight division. On November 18, he signs to fight Jeff Lacy at Super Middleweight. He then fights Lacy on January 25.

At what point has Taylor vacated the division?

A) Suppose Pavlik is a madman and gets a fight against No. 2 Middleweight Contender Arthur Abraham on October 31.

B) Let's say Pavlik and Abraham tangle on November 28.

C) Now let's consider Pavlik vs. Abraham on February 6.

Did Taylor vacate the division the moment he said that was his intention (I vote against this, because that gets dicey)? How about when he officially signs for another fight? For 'C,' I'd say it's pretty clear if he says he's vacated and then actually fights in another division.

What if Taylor gets to January 15 and pulls out of the Lacy fight, saying he's injured and wants to return to 160? If ESB voters have decided that Taylor already has vacated, does he automatically get his title back? Should he have to fight for it?

Alternatively, do you wait until the last possible moment, when Taylor actually fights Lacy, to determine that he has vacated. And in that case, do we allow voters to determine retroactively that Pavlik vs. Abraham was for the vacant Middleweight title?

A lot of this stuff can be determined by voters, but I believe there are three Constitutional issues involved?

1) How do we clarify which division a fighter belongs to, and what if he receives votes from different board members in different divisions?

2) At what point has a Champion vacated a belt, determining when the belt is wide open for the other Contenders?

3) Should voters be allowed to decide after the fact that a non-title fight was, in fact, for the title? (My vote would be no.)


Also, is there publication we trust to determine the division issue, so that it doesn't cause confusion for ESB voters heading into a Sunday vote?



THE VOTERS


COMPOSITION

The ESB divisional and pound for pound rankings will be voted upon by a select group of posters from the ESB online community. Those who have been voted onto the committee each will have one vote, equal to the vote of every other committee member.
There will be no fixed number of committee members, and membership presumably will grow over time. Voters will vote each period on the fate of board applicants, and they also will have the option of barring any members who fail to participate or who display unethical behavior.


INITIAL SELECTION

Initially, all ESB posters will be eligible to nominate 24 committee members, spread between the General Forum and Classic Forum. Posters can nominate just one poster, just one time, during this initial nomination period. An Official Nomination Thread will be posted on the General Forum and on the Classic Forum. At the end of the initial voting period, nominations will be tallied.
On the General Forum thread, the top 16 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board. On the Classic Forum thread, the top 8 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board.

QUESTION:

1) This process has been discussed at length by several posters, and most seem to believe this is the most representative way to add to the board. Speak now if you have other ideas.


ADDING A VOTER

After the initial period, voters can be added only by other voters. All posters at ESB who have contributed at least 1,000 posts are eligible, and they may announced their candidacy in the Official ESB Rankings Applicant Thread that will be started at the beginning of each month. Candidates have through Friday night -- for our purposes, that's 8:00am Saturday morning EST -- to make themselves eligible for vote by the committee members.
On that same thread, posters may argue their cases, and all ESB posters are welcome to either endorse or reject that nominee's candidacy.
Further, a poster must nominate himself for inclusion. No one may nominate that poster in his stead.
On the first Sunday of the month, committee members then will vote whether to accept each candidate. In order to be added to the committee, a nominee must achieve 75% affirmative votes from the committee. If accepted, that candidate becomes eligible to vote the following month.
If a candidate is rejected, the poster may not reapply to the committee for six months. This will cut down on nomination spamming, and hopefully will encourage candidates to consider thoughtfully whether they've contributed enough to the ESB community to warrant inclusion on the board.


EXPELLING A VOTER

At its discretion, the voters may bar one of their peers. If any two members of the group formally ask that a member be expelled, a vote will take place on voting Sunday. If the board votes to dismiss the member at a 66.67% rate, that member immediately and permanently is removed from the board and the poster's rankings will not count for that month.
However, if an expelled member would like to reapply, he may wait six months and then do so. The expelled member then will be subject to the same 75% rule that applies to the general population.


QUESTION:

Voting on issues such as addition and subtraction of members is best done anonymously among committee members, but that isn't possible with the polls on ESB. There are some polling sites that might work out for us on this, but I'm happy to hear suggestions.
Another thought is that we could have posters select a Witness (non-voter) whose integrity is unquestioned on the board. That way, committee members could send their Yes or No votes to me and copy them to the Witness, to ensure legitimacy. Better yet, we could select a series of Witnesses either as an ongoing thing or per month, and I wouldn't always have to be involved.
The Witnesses could post the application results on the board themselves. However it works, I think allowing voters to make these decisions anonymously is key.


THE CONSTITUTION


RATIFICATION

This Constitution was drafted in order to provide a framework for ESB Official Rankings.
After the initial 24 voters are selected, they will partake in a special vote to ratify this Constitution. Ratification requires an 80% acceptance among members, and if it fails to pass, any lingering issues should be addressed immediately. Voting on rankings cannot begin until the Constitution has been affirmed.


CHANGES

The Constitution may be altered on voting Sunday by special vote, included on each poster's Rankings ballot. To bring a proposed amendment to vote, 5% of the membership must formally endorse the issue's inclusion on the next ballot.
To pass, a proposed amendment must receive an 80% approval from members.

[Piffer]

Heavyweight: no champ
Cruiser: Jean Marc Mormeck
Light Heavy: Zsolt Erdei
Super Middle: winner of Kessler/Calzaghe
Middle: Jermain
Junior Middle: No Champ
Welter: Floyd Mayweather
Junior Welter: Ricky Hatton
Lightweight: Joel Casamayor
pretty shady about everything below that

[kg0208]

Excellent from top to bottom IMO. Very concise.

For your questions.

If a fighter is inactive, I believe he should be removed from the list. It will be up to the voters what to do and where to rank him upon his return to the ring, with the exception that he cannot be ranked as Champion of that division since he was stripped.

This will prevent people listing Vitali Klitshco as champion ( I have seen some who think he deserves to still be Ring champion since he never lost it in the ring...that is absurd)

I also propose that we rank only 5 fighters at anything 112 and below. I seriously doubt that the committee members will know enough about those lower weight classes to rank 10. I may be wrong on this, but we shall see.

[kg0208]

Bump

[Lampley]

Excellent from top to bottom IMO. Very concise.

For your questions.

If a fighter is inactive, I believe he should be removed from the list. It will be up to the voters what to do and where to rank him upon his return to the ring, with the exception that he cannot be ranked as Champion of that division since he was stripped.

This will prevent people listing Vitali Klitshco as champion ( I have seen some who think he deserves to still be Ring champion since he never lost it in the ring...that is absurd)

I also propose that we rank only 5 fighters at anything 112 and below. I seriously doubt that the committee members will know enough about those lower weight classes to rank 10. I may be wrong on this, but we shall see.
Thanks, KG!

That makes sense about the PfP list running along the same lines as divisional rankings, as far as inactivity is concerned.

And I agree about the lower classes. I'd even be in favor of merging a couple down there, simply because it's so difficult to watch those guys on TV, and the divisions tend to be shallow.

[C Money]

Nice work Lampley!!!!

As to rematches and such asin the clause between Taylor and Pavlik?? If it takes place at 68 after 60?? Its not the MW Cahmpionship fight. Its a super middle event.

Merging the lower weight classes??? Thats tougher as most of those fighters will fight guys in their weight class which makes it hard to give a subjective ranking vs an opponent in a higher weight class.


The more we define this, the more I like it, and ESB takes another step ahead of the rest in things like this.

My only question is surrounding the nominations are we nominating 33 posters or less? Obviously some should already be included such as yourself.

[kg0208]

Nice work Lampley!!!!

As to rematches and such asin the clause between Taylor and Pavlik?? If it takes place at 68 after 60?? Its not the MW Cahmpionship fight. Its a super middle event.

Merging the lower weight classes??? Thats tougher as most of those fighters will fight guys in their weight class which makes it hard to give a subjective ranking vs an opponent in a higher weight class.


The more we define this, the more I like it, and ESB takes another step ahead of the rest in things like this.

My only question is surrounding the nominations are we nominating 33 posters or less? Obviously some should already be included such as yourself.

I think we are nominating less at first. 24 I think. I also think he is looking at making it so that you can only nominate 2 posters per person. So you can nominate two, I can nominate two, etc.

I don't think anyone should be able to nominate themselves.

[mad_takamura]

ns work and very good! :good though i know i obviously would'nt be part of it coz my avatar says what i am..and i'm proud of it!:happy

[T.C.W]

Sounds good.

[Guru_Too_You]

Is this still going down?

[Amsterdam]

Very good work.

[cross_trainer]

Is this still going down?

Yes. Decebal, Lampley and I have figured out how the elections will go. It's definitely going ahead.

[Amsterdam]

Yes. Decebal, Lampley and I have figured out how the elections will go. It's definitely going ahead.

You and I will be in the voting group, I am afraid.:D

[Lampley]

Thanks to everyone who has provided feedback so far. I need to focus on work the next few hours but will stop by later today and start to make some changes, based on various suggestions.

I hope that by the end of the weekend we can settle the major Constitutional issues, then move forward with nominations next week. Given that we have a couple weeks without major network fights, now is the perfect time to implement an official rankings system.

If the initial voters are selected and accept by say, the 28th, that would give us more than a week to ratify the Constitution and to work out any remaining kinks before the first month's voting.

[Guru_Too_You]

Yes. Decebal, Lampley and I have figured out how the elections will go. It's definitely going ahead.

Excellent CT, good to see you as part of this project.

Not to add to the workload, but we could do some historical lists as well. Same voting system, but applied to both division by division historically, as well as P4P historically.

Given that the voters selected have shown merit in doing so of course.

[kg0208]

ns work and very good! :good though i know i obviously would'nt be part of it coz my avatar says what i am..and i'm proud of it!:happy

Your being a Pacfan doesn't bar you, as long as you can remove your bias as much as possible from the equation.

[kg0208]

On the vacated question with Taylor as an example.

I say the one year rule still applies. Say he fights and draws with Pavlik and doesn't rematch him but moves up to the SMW division. If he doesn't come back down and fight in the MW division within the year of the draw with Pavlik OR signs to fight another SMW fight, I say he vacates and we vote on a new champion if it merits it, as in the #1 and #2 fighters fight while Taylor is off at SMW but not vacated because the year is not up.

[Guru_Too_You]

On the vacated question with Taylor as an example.

I say the one year rule still applies. Say he fights and draws with Pavlik and doesn't rematch him but moves up to the SMW division. If he doesn't come back down and fight in the MW division within the year of the draw with Pavlik OR signs to fight another SMW fight, I say he vacates and we vote on a new champion if it merits it, as in the #1 and #2 fighters fight while Taylor is off at SMW but not vacated because the year is not up.

I like the addition of the two fight rule. Often times in the past fighters will challenge themselves a la Hatton and Mayweather, only to return to their previous division and fight within a year.

However, in a case like this, would the champion be exempt from the 365 day rule if he has already signed to fight a bout in his original division? Or is it 365 days period? I think this would have to be written into the bylaws somewhere, either way.

[Decebal]

Nice work, Lampley!:good

[kg0208]

I like the addition of the two fight rule. Often times in the past fighters will challenge themselves a la Hatton and Mayweather, only to return to their previous division and fight within a year.

However, in a case like this, would the champion be exempt from the 365 day rule if he has already signed to fight a bout in his original division? Or is it 365 days period? I think this would have to be written into the bylaws somewhere, either way.

Good question. Not sure....any other thoughts?

[Guru_Too_You]

QUESTION:

1) The No. 1 vs. No. 3 policy reflects what The Ring has done in recent years, but if people don't like it, it can be changed. I personally like it because if No. 2 doesn't seem willing to fight No. 1, No. 1 still should have a chance to win the belt. And if voters believe that No. 1 could and should fight No. 2 but opts for No. 3, they can refuse to designate that fight as a Championship contest.


I think that in order for it to be acceptable to have the #1 face the #3 for the championship, that there needs to be some sort of proof that the #1 challenger tried to fight the #2 guy in the division.


QUESTION:

Theoretically, if we like The Ring's list of champions, we could grandfather them in and not worry about voting on this issue.

I think that the only thing that should be grandfathered in are the linear champions, which of course, would bring the whole determination of lineage into the equation, but if we want our rankings to have historical merit, then lineage should be accounted for wherever it exists.

That being said, I think that the only tradition that has been defined in doing such would be the unification of the WBA+WBC titles. Its the only way its been done since the two titles were formed around the same time. Luckily for us, the only absurdity that would come of it would be that Kessler would be linear at SMW, but luckily, he's fighting Calzaghe and it will iron itself out.

What do you guys think about grandfathering in the linear champions?

[Guru_Too_You]

Good question. Not sure....any other thoughts?
Personally, with the long delays that are commonplace with champions today, I would much rather have them lose their title in the ring than by being stripped. I think that as long as they have a bout scheduled in their original division by the end of 365 days, then they should be ok. If there are cancellations or postponements, we could bring it to a vote. Then again, we could always vote on if the fighter receives an exemption from the 365 day rule given that they have a bout signed.

To me, this can only be the case if a fighter vacates the division and then returns. Champions who remain in their division and do not fight within 365 days should be stripped of their title. To me, being a champion means you at least fight once a year. I mean AT LEAST.

[kg0208]

[quote=lampley]

QUESTION:

1) The No. 1 vs. No. 3 policy reflects what The Ring has done in recent years, but if people don't like it, it can be changed. I personally like it because if No. 2 doesn't seem willing to fight No. 1, No. 1 still should have a chance to win the belt. And if voters believe that No. 1 could and should fight No. 2 but opts for No. 3, they can refuse to designate that fight as a Championship contest.
[quote]

I think that in order for it to be acceptable to have the #1 face the #3 for the championship, that there needs to be some sort of proof that the #1 challenger tried to fight the #2 guy in the division.


I think that the only thing that should be grandfathered in are the linear champions, which of course, would bring the whole determination of lineage into the equation, but if we want our rankings to have historical merit, then lineage should be accounted for wherever it exists.

That being said, I think that the only tradition that has been defined in doing such would be the unification of the WBA+WBC titles. Its the only way its been done since the two titles were formed around the same time. Luckily for us, the only absurdity that would come of it would be that Kessler would be linear at SMW, but luckily, he's fighting Calzaghe and it will iron itself out.

What do you guys think about grandfathering in the linear champions?

Problem with Lineal champions are that its hard to figure out sometimes who IS the real lineal champion. Also, sometimes the Lineal champion is clearly not as good as someone in his division.

But I don't want to be forced to put Erdai as the champion at 175:bbb

[Guru_Too_You]

QUESTION:

1) The No. 1 vs. No. 3 policy reflects what The Ring has done in recent years, but if people don't like it, it can be changed. I personally like it because if No. 2 doesn't seem willing to fight No. 1, No. 1 still should have a chance to win the belt. And if voters believe that No. 1 could and should fight No. 2 but opts for No. 3, they can refuse to designate that fight as a Championship contest.

Problem with Lineal champions are that its hard to figure out sometimes who IS the real lineal champion. Also, sometimes the Lineal champion is clearly not as good as someone in his division.

But I don't want to be forced to put Erdai as the champion at 175:bbb
LOL that good old Erdei. I guess that makes a good point though. I suppose if we strictly rank the best from top to bottom, it would iron itself out.

I'm just a big fan of the lineage and the history it represents. Its just a shame that the politricks get in the way these days. Erdei should have been sparked out of that title ages ago.

[Lampley]

My only question is surrounding the nominations are we nominating 33 posters or less? Obviously some should already be included such as yourself.

We'll start with 24. And I won't be joining the committee at first. Thanks, tho. :p

[Lampley]

I think we are nominating less at first. 24 I think. I also think he is looking at making it so that you can only nominate 2 posters per person. So you can nominate two, I can nominate two, etc.

I don't think anyone should be able to nominate themselves.

I think two nominations per person sounds good, and I agree no one should be able to vote for himself this go-round. In the future, nominating oneself obviously is the way people will do it.

[Lampley]

Good comments by tobkhan.

1) It seems most want to keep all the divisions separate, so let's go with that.

2) Most also expect that the lower divisions should have five ranked fighters only. That makes sense to me, so do we want to say the cutoff of 118? Everything below that will have top 5 rankings?

3) It makes sense that we should vote on our own starting champions. We'll have to do it just once, and we won't depend on The Ring or lineal rankings.

4) The division placement issue remains difficult for me to conceptualize for this project, but I think voting on issues as they arise will be the best way to go. I just have to think of a way to handle that in the primary document.

5) Thinking about it, I think you guys are right about allowing voters to name a champion after a fight. It's fair and it makes sense.

6) I think a 50% rate for adding new members is too low. Maybe my 75% is too high, so both adding and expulsion should be 66.7%?

[C Money]

[quote=Guru_Too_You][quote=lampley]

QUESTION:

1) The No. 1 vs. No. 3 policy reflects what The Ring has done in recent years, but if people don't like it, it can be changed. I personally like it because if No. 2 doesn't seem willing to fight No. 1, No. 1 still should have a chance to win the belt. And if voters believe that No. 1 could and should fight No. 2 but opts for No. 3, they can refuse to designate that fight as a Championship contest.


Problem with Lineal champions are that its hard to figure out sometimes who IS the real lineal champion. Also, sometimes the Lineal champion is clearly not as good as someone in his division.

But I don't want to be forced to put Erdai as the champion at 175:bbb

Even harder to replace the vacancies:yep :lol:

After all of our previous banter regarding that shit??

I think I agree with one of you're last assesments, that LINEAL isnt what its cracked up to be.

[Lampley]

Excellent CT, good to see you as part of this project.

Not to add to the workload, but we could do some historical lists as well. Same voting system, but applied to both division by division historically, as well as P4P historically.

Given that the voters selected have shown merit in doing so of course.

This sounds like a good idea for down the road. I wonder, though, if you might need a totally different set of voters.

At any rate, this won't be a part of the immediate plan.

[C Money]

Good comments by tobkhan.

1) It seems most want to keep all the divisions separate, so let's go with that.

2) Most also expect that the lower divisions should have five ranked fighters only. That makes sense to me, so do we want to say the cutoff of 118? Everything below that will have top 5 rankings?

3) It makes sense that we should vote on our own starting champions. We'll have to do it just once, and we won't depend on The Ring or lineal rankings.

4) The division placement issue remains difficult for me to conceptualize for this project, but I think voting on issues as they arise will be the best way to go. I just have to think of a way to handle that in the primary document.

5) Thinking about it, I think you guys are right about allowing voters to name a champion after a fight. It's fair and it makes sense.

6) I think a 50% rate for adding new members is too low. Maybe my 75% is too high, so both adding and expulsion should be 66.7%?

:good

[Lampley]

On the vacated question with Taylor as an example.

I say the one year rule still applies. Say he fights and draws with Pavlik and doesn't rematch him but moves up to the SMW division. If he doesn't come back down and fight in the MW division within the year of the draw with Pavlik OR signs to fight another SMW fight, I say he vacates and we vote on a new champion if it merits it, as in the #1 and #2 fighters fight while Taylor is off at SMW but not vacated because the year is not up.

So do you think I should change the language to 365 days of inactivity *in that division*? Originally, I was just thinking of overall inactivity. Your proposal make sense.

I think it's dangerous to make any rules based on when a fight is signed. There always are conflicting reports about actual signing, and sometimes promoters will announce fighters before the ink has been spilled.

[Lampley]

I like the addition of the two fight rule. Often times in the past fighters will challenge themselves a la Hatton and Mayweather, only to return to their previous division and fight within a year.

However, in a case like this, would the champion be exempt from the 365 day rule if he has already signed to fight a bout in his original division? Or is it 365 days period? I think this would have to be written into the bylaws somewhere, either way.

I'm not sure what you mean by the two-fight rule. ???

As alluded to above, I think signing for a bout should not be recognized in the Constitution itself. Now, if the VOTERS want to recognize a signing, then cool. It's just too difficult to pin down a signing date to make it a formal part of the rankings process, IMO.

I think stepping into the ring should define "vacation."

To reiterate, though, a fighter over the 365 days doesn't automatically get stripped -- his title simply gets decided by majority vote. He might not fight for 10 years and still be the Champion, if voters think he deserves it. (Highly doubtful, but you get what I'm saying.)

[Lampley]

I think that in order for it to be acceptable to have the #1 face the #3 for the championship, that there needs to be some sort of proof that the #1 challenger tried to fight the #2 guy in the division.

Right, which can be determined by the voters. All No. 1 vs. No. 3 does is put the option to majority vote. If 51% percent think it's garbage for No. 1 not to be fighting No. 2, they won't award him the belt.

[Lampley]

Personally, with the long delays that are commonplace with champions today, I would much rather have them lose their title in the ring than by being stripped. I think that as long as they have a bout scheduled in their original division by the end of 365 days, then they should be ok. If there are cancellations or postponements, we could bring it to a vote. Then again, we could always vote on if the fighter receives an exemption from the 365 day rule given that they have a bout signed.

This should be taken care of by the vote. I'd guess that if a Champion fights out of class and then signs before the 365 days, although he'd still have to be voted as Champion or stripped before the fight took place, most everyone would let him keep the title. It's difficult to imagine him getting stripped in that scenario.

[kg0208]

So do you think I should change the language to 365 days of inactivity *in that division*? Originally, I was just thinking of overall inactivity. Your proposal make sense.

I think it's dangerous to make any rules based on when a fight is signed. There always are conflicting reports about actual signing, and sometimes promoters will announce fighters before the ink has been spilled.

Well by signed, I mean confirmed and the date has been given and all that good stuff. This way we know for a fact the fighter doesn't plan on coming back into that division.

It could be dangerous, but of course if something is mentioned as a fight that is already signed, we could wait and vote on the ramifications of that signed fight until the next month's vote, this way we are sure the fight is signed.

[Lampley]

Well by signed, I mean confirmed and the date has been given and all that good stuff. This way we know for a fact the fighter doesn't plan on coming back into that division.

It could be dangerous, but of course if something is mentioned as a fight that is already signed, we could wait and vote on the ramifications of that signed fight until the next month's vote, this way we are sure the fight is signed.

I think an issue like that is best left to the voters at that time. These deals are all so variable and fluid, I don't think I can account for all the possibilities in the Constitution.

Maybe the best way is to say that voters can determine informally which fighters belong to which class -- this obviously excludes conversations about Champions, who are too important to be discussed casually -- and that if a dispute arises about where a guy should be ranked, majority rules.

You'll have some problems arise from time to time, I'm sure, but at least that way we allow for common sense to dictate. Most of the time, people generally agree on which guys belong to which division. I don't want to overthink it.

[kg0208]

I think an issue like that is best left to the voters at that time. These deals are all so variable and fluid, I don't think I can account for all the possibilities in the Constitution.

Maybe the best way is to say that voters can determine informally which fighters belong to which class -- this obviously excludes conversations about Champions, who are too important to be discussed casually -- and that if a dispute arises about where a guy should be ranked, majority rules.

You'll have some problems arise from time to time, I'm sure, but at least that way we allow for common sense to dictate. Most of the time, people generally agree on which guys belong to which division. I don't want to overthink it.

Good deal. I agree and that seems to be a more viable solution.

[Lampley]

I'm working on a re-draft tonight, and hopefully will have it ready for everyone to check out sometime tomorrow.

[Guru_Too_You]

I'm not sure what you mean by the two-fight rule. ???


KG suggested during his post using the Taylor-Pavlik example saying that if Taylor went up to SMW to fight Calzaghe lets say. If he were to then fight Kessler, for a second bout at SMW, he will have automatically vacated his MW title.

It kind of works in line with the 365 day rule but would take it out of the voters hand due to the automatic strip after two fights in a higher weight class.

[Guru_Too_You]

We'll start with 24. And I won't be joining the committee at first. Thanks, tho. :p

Bull shit.

Im gonna nominate you anyways.

[Quik]

cool good job man

[kg0208]

Bull shit.

Im gonna nominate you anyways.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

He can do as he pleases I guess and his thoughts on it make sense. But I think if he is NOMINATED by the forum, it hurts the integrity more for him not to go on to the committee.

Think about it. Not going onto the committee is to protect the ideal of integrity IN CASE there is some kind of backlash. If voted on, that is something that actually HAPPENED, and would in all likely hood prove that there would be little backlash to begin with right? We can't vote you in then get upset and say you did this just for personal gain.

[Lampley]

Update:

Swamped at work now, will have an update this evening or sometime tomorrow. I just don't want to rush it.

Thanks again to everyone for their suggestions so far.

[kg0208]

Update:

Swamped at work now, will have an update this evening or sometime tomorrow. I just don't want to rush it.

Thanks again to everyone for their suggestions so far.

:good

[Brickhaus]

Here's a question:

Why do we need to have it set up as a committee?

Ranking each weight class, and doing it seriously, is a major time commitment. Because it takes significant effort, there are two effects:

1) Only people who pay enough attention to the sport on the whole, and who are willing to put enough effort in, are even going to bother with ranking 170 guys, plus a P4P list.

2) People who are on the committee probably won't be able to do the rankings every month, because of the contraint.

If voting is open to everyone (on the condition that for a ballot to be counted, you must submit a complete ballot), then I think there are enough external controls to prevent the polls from being flooded by nuthuggers, and it also ensures that enough people do the polls every month to get a good grip on what the community thinks. Plus, that way you can't get any complaints about the composition of the committee, since anyone can be on it for any given month.

Just something to think about. I think this would make the process less complicated and also make the rankings more accurate. It would be good to encourage people from different geographical regions to participate, but it's not like we'll get a completely balanced view here either, as an English language-only forum. I've never seen a single Japanese poster on here for instance, and they have about 4 champions right now.

[Brickhaus]

On the other issues:

- I like the idea of 365 day layoff in the weight class means ineligibility for the polls
- I like the idea of starting from scratch on champs. Yes, that means that (a) it would be a while before many of the champions are filled, and (b) many of our champions could end up being different from the lineal/ring champs. However, if the point is to figure out who is the best, then why rely on someone else's rankings from earlier that were used to create the Ring or lineal champs?

- Re: moving weight classes. I think a person should stay eligible in a weight class until they've fought in another weight class with the intent of staying there.

- re: retirement - I think that only the 365 day rules should apply. Boxers come back from "retirement" way too quickly and way too often to start getting bogged down with stripping champs and reinstalling them 4 months later. I also don't think there should be any kind of 'emeritus' status. Once a champ is stripped and/or retires, they need to earn it back.

[dangerousity]

Sounds interesting. A bit much from the classic section though, 8 vs 16. The general pool of posters is certainly more than double that of the classic section.

[cuchulain]

Good work.

Congratulations to all who have put time and effort so far into this project.

I look forward to watching what unfolds.

[cross_trainer]

Sounds interesting. A bit much from the classic section though, 8 vs 16. The general pool of posters is certainly more than double that of the classic section.

8 vs. 24, not 16. :good

[McGrain]

Aye, great stuff you guys, great effort.

[Lampley]

KG suggested during his post using the Taylor-Pavlik example saying that if Taylor went up to SMW to fight Calzaghe lets say. If he were to then fight Kessler, for a second bout at SMW, he will have automatically vacated his MW title.

It kind of works in line with the 365 day rule but would take it out of the voters hand due to the automatic strip after two fights in a higher weight class.
A rule that's so rigid frightens me.

Here's an example why:

Roy Jones fought as a Super Middlweight in his three fights leading up to his Middlweight title shot against Bernard Hopkins.

After the Hopkins fight, he fought three times at 168 and then defended against Thomas Tate back at 160. He then left 160 for good.

The space between Hopkins and Tate was just over (by a few days) one year, so the way it stands now voters would have had the chance to strip Jones had then so chosen.

Everyone knew at the time leading up to the Hopkins fight that Roy wanted a belt at 160. They also knew he planned on defending the belt, despite his appearances at 168.

Something like that could become very messy if you make a hard rule.

[Lampley]

Bull shit.

Im gonna nominate you anyways.


Ha! Thanks, man, but I really would prefer to wait.

Now, after a couple months when I apply, I'm going to be very upset if I don't get in!

[Lampley]

Here's a question:

Why do we need to have it set up as a committee?

Ranking each weight class, and doing it seriously, is a major time commitment. Because it takes significant effort, there are two effects:

1) Only people who pay enough attention to the sport on the whole, and who are willing to put enough effort in, are even going to bother with ranking 170 guys, plus a P4P list.

2) People who are on the committee probably won't be able to do the rankings every month, because of the contraint.

If voting is open to everyone (on the condition that for a ballot to be counted, you must submit a complete ballot), then I think there are enough external controls to prevent the polls from being flooded by nuthuggers, and it also ensures that enough people do the polls every month to get a good grip on what the community thinks. Plus, that way you can't get any complaints about the composition of the committee, since anyone can be on it for any given month.

Just something to think about. I think this would make the process less complicated and also make the rankings more accurate. It would be good to encourage people from different geographical regions to participate, but it's not like we'll get a completely balanced view here either, as an English language-only forum. I've never seen a single Japanese poster on here for instance, and they have about 4 champions right now.

I like the committee approach because it helps preserve credibility. What will happen if you open it up is people's 15 aliases all will vote, and others will just work their agenda for the fighters they care about, then basically copy someone else's list to fill out the space.

The copy issue also is why I didn't make it mandatory to fill out every division. People should vote there they feel comfortable. I'm sure most people will either fill it out all the way or come pretty close, though.

[Lampley]

On the other issues:

- I like the idea of 365 day layoff in the weight class means ineligibility for the polls

Just to be clear, the 365-day rule just initiates a vote. The fighter isn't automatically stripped, but he is subject to be by majority vote.


- I like the idea of starting from scratch on champs. Yes, that means that (a) it would be a while before many of the champions are filled, and (b) many of our champions could end up being different from the lineal/ring champs. However, if the point is to figure out who is the best, then why rely on someone else's rankings from earlier that were used to create the Ring or lineal champs?

We won't be starting from true scratch, but voting them in ourselves to start. So Calzaghe, et al could be voted in during the October vote. And then the process becomes regular.

- Re: moving weight classes. I think a person should stay eligible in a weight class until they've fought in another weight class with the intent of staying there.

I mostly agree. Because of the squirrely nature of this issue, I've rewritten that section entirely in the Constitution and am much happier with it now. It's intentionally vague, but flexibility is key.



- re: retirement - I think that only the 365 day rules should apply. Boxers come back from "retirement" way too quickly and way too often to start getting bogged down with stripping champs and reinstalling them 4 months later. I also don't think there should be any kind of 'emeritus' status. Once a champ is stripped and/or retires, they need to earn it back.

Agreed.

[Lampley]

Sounds interesting. A bit much from the classic section though, 8 vs 16. The general pool of posters is certainly more than double that of the classic section.

You're right. I messed up Crosstrainer's proposed ratio when I scaled the number back to 24. It should have been 18 & 6. And if we aren't happy with the participation we get on the Classic forum, we'll shift it again.

I think it will work out, though.

[Lampley]

Updated! Thanks again to everyone for the great feedback.

I would have simply changed the original, but I'm not able to edit those first posts now. Guess it timed out or something.

Also, I have bolded the sections that are new, so you don't need to read the whole thing again.

ESB RANKINGS: THE CONSTITUTION


PURPOSE

The ESB Official Rankings are designed to reflect the expert opinions of international boxing fans who participate in the ESB virtual community. Given the lack of credibility of the various sanctioning bodies and media publications, along with the inherent limitation of having any one person attempt to rank the world's best fighters, boxing needs a set of more accurate, representative rankings.

This Constitution was crafted to assist with this process, clarifying the rules and guidelines by which the rankings will be compiled and maintained.


RANKINGS FORMAT

The ESB Official Rankings will include Champion and Top 10 Contender rankings for the following divisions: Heavyweight (201+ pounds), Cruiserweight (200 pounds maximum), Light Heavyweight (175), Super Middleweight (168. Middleweight (160), Junior Middleweight (154), Welterweight (147), Junior Welterweight (140), Lightweight (135), Junior Lightweight (130), Featherweight (126), Junior Featherweight (122) and Bantamweight (118.

The Rankings will include Champion and Top 5 Contender Rankings for Junior Bantamweight (115), Flyweight (112), Junior Flyweight (108. and Strawweight (105).

Another constant element of ESB Official Rankings will be Pound for Pound
rankings. These Top 10 rankings will include fighters from all weight divisions based on overall merit.


VOTING SCHEDULE

Voting will take place once a month, on the first Sunday of the month. Voting will close at 12:00am at time zone UTC-12, effectively keeping voting open until 8:00am EST on Monday morning. After that time, voting is closed for the month. Voters also may submit their votes early, although obviously they set themselves up for reprimand or even expulsion if they fail to incorporate the latest results.


VOTING PROCESS

Each voter will have the opportunity to vote on any Champion contingencies (explained later), top 10 Contender rankings for all divisions, and top 10 Pound of Pound Rankings.

However, they are not required to vote on a complete list of fighters, deferring to others in the divisions in which they feel less familiar.

Each voter will post his votes publicly to the ESB Official Rankings Voting thread, which will be posted during the week prior to the first Sunday of the month. There, the ESB community will have access to his picks. Once submitted, the votes CANNOT be changed, barring a redundancy or some other clerical error.

The posts will appear as follows, with Pound for Pound listed first and then proceeding by division in descending order, with that voter's best fighter listed No. 1:

Pound for Pound

1) Fighter X
2) Fighter Y
3) Fighter Z. …
10)

Heavyweight

1) Fighter A
2) Fighter B
3) Fighter C. …
10)

Cruiserweight

1) Fighter L
2) Fighter M
3) Fighter N. …
10)

…..

Strawweight

1) Fighter O
2) Fighter P
3) Fighter Q


Again, voters are not required to fill all slots on either the Pound for Pound or Divisional Rankings.
Additionally, in divisions where there is a Champion, voters will not rank the Champion and simply will list him at the top of their Divisional vote.

Example:

Super Middleweight

Champion: Fighter D

1) Fighter E
2) Fighter F
3) Fighter G. …

There is no Champion of the Pound of Pound rankings, only a top 10 list of fighters.


SCORING

Scoring will be based on a 100-point system. Each voter's No. 1 fighter -- for both Divisional and Pound for Pound rankings -- will receive 100 points; No. 2 will receive 90 points; No. 3 will receive 80 points; and so on, through the 10th position. Again, a Champion of a division is not included in the voting or the scoring, so the 100 points in a division ruled by a Champion goes to the No. 1 Contender.

After the voting period closes for the month, each voter's ballot will be tallied. The point totals will added for each fighter across all of the voters' ballots, and the rankings will be compiled based on which fighters have the highest point totals. This will apply for Division rankings and Pound for Pound rankings.

In cases where a voter doesn't completely fill out a division, the unfilled positions in that voter's rankings obviously will be ignored. Also, voters may not designate that a fighters get alternate numbers of points. If a voter lists four fighters in a division, the points awarded will be 100, 90, 80 and 70, respectively. A voter cannot, for example, rank four fighters in a division and then number them as 1), 2), 4) and 7) in an attempt to create separation among the four in terms of points.


ADDITIONAL BALLOT MEASURES

On the ESB Official Rankings Voting Thread, each voter will type or post his rankings onto the thread, as mentioned above.

Beneath the rankings, any other issue for vote (e.g., whether a bout is for a title, vacancy issues, expulsion of a member, changes to the Constitution) will appear on this post as well.

Note that the voting on new candidates for membership will not appear on this thread.


SPECIAL VOTES

For issues that arise with immediate importance, a Special Vote may be called by any member of the committee. A Special Vote may deal with a variety of topics, than cannot be delayed until the next month's vote.

The procedure for a Special Vote is as follows: A member calls for a Special Vote and creates a thread with a poll on ESB. The poll is to be left open for FIVE days exactly. The function for making each vote public also is to be turned on. Each voter will choose one of the options and, by majority rule, a new action is thus initiated. These threads obviously will be open to the entire ESB community, but with the exception of cases that are very close, it should be clear which side has won. In extreme cases, the thread starter is responsible to tallying votes based on the eligible voters who participated.

Note 1: For a Special Vote to take effect, at least 50% of the committee must vote. If the thread fails to garner sufficient participation, the measure in question cannot be implemented.

Note 2: A thread and its poll may not overlap with any fights or events that are pertinent to the issue at hand. The poll must end before or begin after any such events.



THE CHAMPION


REVOLUTIONARIES

In the initial round of voting, voters will decide which fighters are grandfathered into Champion positions. For this first round only, all voters must list a Champion for the divisions in which they believe one exists. Otherwise, 10 Contenders will form the rankings and the Championship will remain vacant.

To become an Official ESB Champion in the initial voting, a fighter must garner a vote of Champion from the majority (anything over 50%) of voters. If for some reason a voter chooses not to vote on a division at all, that vote will not count toward that fighter's Champion status either way. (This is highly unlikely to happen.)

If a fighter is listed as Champion by the majority of voters, he becomes the ESB Champion going forward and is subject to the ongoing rules established in the Constitution.

WINNING A BELT

A fighter, ranked or unranked, automatically becomes a Champion if he defeats the current Champion in the ring.

In cases of a vacancy, if the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 2 Contender, the winner of that contest becomes the new Champion.

If the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 3 Contender, voters will decide in the voting period immediately prior to the fight whether that fight will be waged for the championship. Note that this issue will be decided -- and settled by a majority vote -- before the fight in question takes place, not after.

For example, if No. 1 Contender Fighter A is scheduled to face No. 3 Contender Fighter B on October 17, voting on whether the bout is a Championship contest will occur on the first Sunday of October -- not before, and not after.

In special circumstances and held under the rules of a Special Vote or during a regular monthly Vote, a fighter can be named Champion based on the majority vote of the committee. This would include situations in which a No. 1 Contender has beaten a No. 2 or a No. 3 Contender, and the previous Champion either vacated the division or exited the sport.


LOSING A BELT

A Champion can lose his belt for one of three reasons: 1) Losing in the ring, 2) Vacating the division (moving in weight class, retiring, etc.), or 3) Not fighting for more than 365 days. Both No. 1 and No. 2 result in certain loss of the belt. Additionally for No. 2, if a fighter vacates a division and returns later, he does not regain Championship status and must fight for it along with the other Contenders.

No. 3 is a special case. A fighter who is inactive in his division for more than 365 days does not automatically lose his belt, but voters will have the option of stripping that fighter. This will be put to a separate vote for the voters, who will determine by majority vote whether that fighter retains his belt. If the voters elect to strip a Champion for inactivity, he becomes officially Inactive. A Champion who has been deemed Inactive cannot be a Contender, and thus he will be excluded from that division's rankings. An inactive fighter also may not be considered for Pound for Pound rankings.

[Lampley]

DIVISION IDENTITY


Because fighters change divisions, return, and hover above with so much regularity and under a wide variety of circumstances, common logic should dictate to which division a fighter belongs.

In case of ambiguity or in situations where there is a dispute, the matter should be taken to vote, either during a monthly vote or as a Special Vote.

For Champions, the 365-day rule applies.

In situations where a fighter gains enough votes to be ranked for two different divisions, he will be ranked in the division where he ranks highest -- and in the even t of a tie, his most recent division will count -- and not listed in the other division. In that other division, the next-highest vote getter will move into the rankings and the rankings themselves will adjust accordingly.

Naturally, the idea is to prevent such a phenomenon from occurring by virtue either of discussion among voters about a fighter's division, or settled by a vote.


THE VOTERS


COMPOSITION

The ESB divisional and pound for pound rankings will be voted upon by a select group of posters from the ESB online community. Those who have been voted onto the committee each will have one vote, equal to the vote of every other committee member.

There will be no fixed number of committee members, and membership presumably will grow over time. Voters will vote each period on the fate of board applicants, and they also will have the option of barring any members who fail to participate or who display unethical behavior.


INITIAL SELECTION

Initially, all ESB posters will be eligible to nominate 24 committee members, spread between the General Forum and Classic Forum. Posters can nominate just one poster, just one time, during this initial nomination period. An Official Nomination Thread will be posted on the General Forum and on the Classic Forum. At the end of the initial voting period, nominations will be tallied.

On the General Forum thread, the top 18 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board. On the Classic Forum thread, the top 6 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board.

Those who win the nominations must accept their bid within a reasonable timeframe, or else they forfeit their spot.


ADDING A VOTER

After the initial period, voters can be added only by other voters. All posters at ESB who have contributed at least 1,000 posts and have been registered for at least three months are eligible, and they may announced their candidacy in the Official ESB Rankings Applicant Thread that will be started at the beginning of each month. Candidates have through Friday night -- for our purposes, that's 8:00am Saturday morning EST -- to make themselves eligible for vote by the committee members.

On that same thread, posters may argue their cases, and all ESB posters are welcome to either endorse or reject that nominee's candidacy.

Further, a poster must nominate himself for inclusion. No one may nominate that poster in his stead.

On the first Sunday of the month, committee members then will vote whether to accept each candidate. In order to be added to the committee, a nominee must achieve 66.67% affirmative votes. If accepted, that candidate becomes eligible to vote the following month.

If a candidate is rejected, the poster may not reapply to the committee for six months. This will cut down on nomination spamming, and hopefully will encourage candidates to consider thoughtfully whether they've contributed enough to the ESB community to warrant inclusion on the board.

The process for voting on the fate of members is one of anonymous vote. Voters select 'Yes' or 'No' and send their selections to TWO pre-assigned people -- voters or non-voters -- who agree to total confidentiality.

One of those posters then posts the results to the board, and the other is assumed to agree with the tally unless he speaks to the contrary.


EXPELLING A VOTER

At its discretion, the voters may bar one of their peers. If any two members of the group formally ask that a member be expelled, a vote will take place on voting Sunday. If the board votes to dismiss the member at a 66.67% rate, that member immediately and permanently is removed from the board and the poster's rankings will not count for that month.

However, if an expelled member would like to reapply, he may wait six months and then do so. The expelled member then will be subject to the same 66.67% rule that applies to the general population.


ROLL CALL

Because certain activities of the Committee -- including Special Votes -- include minimum levels of voter participation, it may be necessary at some point to de-list inactive members. If voters feel this is necessary, they may post a Roll Call to the board.

If a Roll Call has been announced, the thread must stay open for at least one month, and it's the initiator's responsibility to make sure the thread remains active and visible.

After that time, members who do not respond may be removed from the Committee.


THE CONSTITUTION


RATIFICATION

This Constitution was drafted in order to provide a framework for ESB Official Rankings.

After the initial 24 voters are selected, they will partake in a special vote to ratify this Constitution. Ratification requires an 80% acceptance among members, and if it fails to pass, any lingering issues should be addressed immediately. Voting on rankings cannot begin until the Constitution has been affirmed.


CHANGES

The Constitution may be altered on voting Sunday by special vote, included on each poster's Rankings ballot. To bring a proposed amendment to vote, a member of the committee may post a Special Vote.

To pass, a proposed amendment must receive an 80% approval from members, with at least 50% participation.

[Lampley]

Let me know what you guys think, and I'll get to the Official Nomination threads. I think we should maybe hold those for 10 days, then take that last week to set up any further particulars prior to our first vote.

[kg0208]

Let me know what you guys think, and I'll get to the Official Nomination threads. I think we should maybe hold those for 10 days, then take that last week to set up any further particulars prior to our first vote.
I think you are certainly ready to go ahead with nominations. If they are held for 10 days, that will leave everyone a week or so to compile their lists and give data once voted in.

[Lampley]

OK, I'm going to continue taking feedback for the next six hours, then start the nomination process unless we need more time to hammer out lingering issues.

Thanks for the continued help, kg.

[Guru_Too_You]

OK, I'm going to continue taking feedback for the next six hours, then start the nomination process unless we need more time to hammer out lingering issues.

Thanks for the continued help, kg.

Looks pretty good to me Lampley. Your work needs to be commended.

Good stuff.

[kg0208]

OK, I'm going to continue taking feedback for the next six hours, then start the nomination process unless we need more time to hammer out lingering issues.

Thanks for the continued help, kg.

:good

[C Money]

Let me know what you guys think, and I'll get to the Official Nomination threads. I think we should maybe hold those for 10 days, then take that last week to set up any further particulars prior to our first vote.

Sounds like a go:good

[kg0208]

So how are we gonna do this? Not sure if the nomination thread should be stickied as much as bumped periodically.

People seem to have missed this one because they rarely look up here. We can refer them to this thread for the constitution though.

[Lampley]

So how are we gonna do this? Not sure if the nomination thread should be stickied as much as bumped periodically.

People seem to have missed this one because they rarely look up here. We can refer them to this thread for the constitution though.

I agree that bumping the Nomination thread probably is best. I'm working on that now.

Made one final change to the Constitution: To join the committee, posters must have made 1,000 posts and have been registered for three months. This should help eliminate any post padding.

[kg0208]

I agree that bumping the Nomination thread probably is best. I'm working on that now.

Made one final change to the Constitution: To join the committee, posters must have made 1,000 posts and have been registered for three months. This should help eliminate any post padding.

Sounds good.

[MSTR]

Excellent from top to bottom IMO. Very concise.

For your questions.

If a fighter is inactive, I believe he should be removed from the list. It will be up to the voters what to do and where to rank him upon his return to the ring, with the exception that he cannot be ranked as Champion of that division since he was stripped.

This will prevent people listing Vitali Klitshco as champion ( I have seen some who think he deserves to still be Ring champion since he never lost it in the ring...that is absurd)

I also propose that we rank only 5 fighters at anything 112 and below. I seriously doubt that the committee members will know enough about those lower weight classes to rank 10. I may be wrong on this, but we shall see.
I agree that at the lower weight classes we should only really be ranking 5 fighters. What is the point if we are simply analysing results or boxing media, and not actual fight footage.

[MSTR]

I think 8 from the classic forum is double what is needed. We are judging current boxers and fights here. I have no doubt there are some great boxing minds who use that particular forum, but they should really be particpating more in the general forum to be considered IMO, considering the subject matter consists of issues that would be discussed in the general forum.

[MSTR]

Also, as mentioned by myself in the nominations thread, we should really have people representing different parts of the globe to an extent. Particularly when you are conisdering top ten contenders. Most times contenders are only fighting on domestic or regional levels, and will only be seen by country men or posters who reside in that particular region. This would help ensure we have an element of objectivity on the commitee, as well as possbily making the rankings more accurate, as most times fighters will have actually been seen in action, not just read or heard about!

[MSTR]

Another very important issue is what criteria are we going to use when making our rankings (as raised by Amsterdam). How are we going to make our ranking system different to every other websites system, and ensure that they are as accurate as possible. I believe that the best way to do this, is make ability a much bigger factor then most other systems (ring ect). Resume can only tell you so much. Whilst I still believe it is the best way to truely calculate a fighters ability against elite competition, surely we can think OUTSIDE the square and do something different here. Perhaps once the comittee is formed, it could be a point that is voted upon, as it is surely something that will require clarification.

[kg0208]

Also, as mentioned by myself in the nominations thread, we should really have people representing different parts of the globe to an extent. Particularly when you are conisdering top ten contenders. Most times contenders are only fighting on domestic or regional levels, and will only be seen by country men or posters who reside in that particular region. This would help ensure we have an element of objectivity on the commitee, as well as possbily making the rankings more accurate, as most times fighters will have actually been seen in action, not just read or heard about!

We mentioned the regional issue earlier. However, it was deemed that it would cause more problems than it would solve. I can't remember the reasons, but I am sure you can find it.

[MSTR]

We mentioned the regional issue earlier. However, it was deemed that it would cause more problems than it would solve. I can't remember the reasons, but I am sure you can find it.
Sorry I couldn't see it there on first look? Was it on this thread for sure?

[kg0208]

Sorry I couldn't see it there on first look? Was it on this thread for sure?

There was a thread that preceded this one before Lampley made the constitution thread. It discussed this issue. You may have to do a search on it though. Sorry can't help more (headed out to Wal Mart otherwise I would find the link for ya)

[Lampley]

I think 8 from the classic forum is double what is needed. We are judging current boxers and fights here. I have no doubt there are some great boxing minds who use that particular forum, but they should really be particpating more in the general forum to be considered IMO, considering the subject matter consists of issues that would be discussed in the general forum.

You may be right about that, but many of the Classic posters are so well-versed in boxing history, they deserve a chance to participate.

But if they don't care to get involved, we'll shift the ratio. (And it's 18-6 now, after I caught an error on my part.)

[Lampley]

Also, as mentioned by myself in the nominations thread, we should really have people representing different parts of the globe to an extent. Particularly when you are conisdering top ten contenders. Most times contenders are only fighting on domestic or regional levels, and will only be seen by country men or posters who reside in that particular region. This would help ensure we have an element of objectivity on the commitee, as well as possbily making the rankings more accurate, as most times fighters will have actually been seen in action, not just read or heard about!

This was a No. 1 concern of mine as well. What can separate ESB rankings from others -- and this is what drew me to the potential of this project -- was the greater international presence on the boards.

My original idea was to appoint a geographically balanced group of posters (this is from the original thread), but people rightly pointed out that even a well-intentioned person such as myself couldn't be trusted to do that effectively.

The good news is that, even if the original members are skewed toward America, the first wave of nominees likely will include a healthy number of non-American posters, and hopefully our sage crew of voters will approve them in time for November.

[Lampley]

Another very important issue is what criteria are we going to use when making our rankings (as raised by Amsterdam). How are we going to make our ranking system different to every other websites system, and ensure that they are as accurate as possible. I believe that the best way to do this, is make ability a much bigger factor then most other systems (ring ect). Resume can only tell you so much. Whilst I still believe it is the best way to truely calculate a fighters ability against elite competition, surely we can think OUTSIDE the square and do something different here. Perhaps once the comittee is formed, it could be a point that is voted upon, as it is surely something that will require clarification.

This is a difficult issue. I feel like voters should have the opportunity to define excellence for themselves, and the differences will shake out on their own.

Having said that, I agree that a perpetual weakness of rankings -- and this frequently is due to a lack of homework -- is that name fighters get too much credit.

Intelligent, informed voters such as we'll have hopefully will balance career achievement -- and the proven ability that accompanies that -- against the present level of fighting ability.

Hopkins makes for a good case study. He has competed and beaten touted fighters above his natural weight class, yet I think he has aged noticeably since even the two Taylor fights. There are no easy answers.

[MSTR]

This is a difficult issue. I feel like voters should have the opportunity to define excellence for themselves, and the differences will shake out on their own.

Having said that, I agree that a perpetual weakness of rankings -- and this frequently is due to a lack of homework -- is that name fighters get too much credit.

Intelligent, informed voters such as we'll have hopefully will balance career achievement -- and the proven ability that accompanies that -- against the present level of fighting ability.

Hopkins makes for a good case study. He has competed and beaten touted fighters above his natural weight class, yet I think he has aged noticeably since even the two Taylor fights. There are no easy answers.
The only worry i would have though, is making an assesment based upon Amsterdams model (60% resume, 40% ability), and then getting criticised by others because they have made their rankings using a more "conventional" (IMO a more backward) method. I think it is definitely something that needs to be defined, as if the criteria differs to much, the poll results will be extremely misleading and open to interpretation.

[Fab2333]

good work lamps, I will definately vote on the first sunday of evry month.

[kg0208]

How do you measure ability? That´s the difficulty. Has Mayweather more ability than Pac? What is ability? If you want to make ability a core point of ranking you firstly should think about what ability means.

Then once we figure out WHAT it is, how do we quantify it? We all know who looks more skilled in many cases when comparing fighters, but anyone can look skilled against average fighters. So resume has to be considered in equal measure IMO. I saw a 60% ability 40% resume model, but I like 50/50 better based on fighters with great ability not necessarily fighting the best fighters AND with more than a few of us not even agreeing on what "ability" is to begin with.

Subjective things such as ability need to be kept within balance.

[Guru_Too_You]

Then once we figure out WHAT it is, how do we quantify it? We all know who looks more skilled in many cases when comparing fighters, but anyone can look skilled against average fighters. So resume has to be considered in equal measure IMO. I saw a 60% ability 40% resume model, but I like 50/50 better based on fighters with great ability not necessarily fighting the best fighters AND with more than a few of us not even agreeing on what "ability" is to begin with.

Subjective things such as ability need to be kept within balance.

Good call KG. By using resume as much as perceived ability, individuals can keep hype in check, for most of the time products of hype come from extremely padded records. Boxrec has attempted to quantify their ratings, but have taken the subjective part completely out of the equation. Perhaps, for our ranking purposes, we could come up with a statistical analysis of a fighters resume, but only use it as an index for ratings, not the rating in itself. This would allow for some subjectivity as well as some statistical analysis in our rankings. I'm going to spend some time trying to develop a way to quantify the level of opposition in regards to opponents win percentages, future and past champions defeated, wins over sanctioned ranked fighters and wins over P4P rated fighters. Again, all of this could be enhanced once we start ranking our own fighters, for we would not have to rely on sanctioning body rankings, ring rankings or any other subjective rankings other than our own. Again, this would only be used as an index for rating resumes, not as the final rankings. It would sort of be like strength of opposition in the NCAA football rating syste, for those that are aware of the system.

[Lampley]

Good call KG. By using resume as much as perceived ability, individuals can keep hype in check, for most of the time products of hype come from extremely padded records. Boxrec has attempted to quantify their ratings, but have taken the subjective part completely out of the equation. Perhaps, for our ranking purposes, we could come up with a statistical analysis of a fighters resume, but only use it as an index for ratings, not the rating in itself. This would allow for some subjectivity as well as some statistical analysis in our rankings. I'm going to spend some time trying to develop a way to quantify the level of opposition in regards to opponents win percentages, future and past champions defeated, wins over sanctioned ranked fighters and wins over P4P rated fighters. Again, all of this could be enhanced once we start ranking our own fighters, for we would not have to rely on sanctioning body rankings, ring rankings or any other subjective rankings other than our own. Again, this would only be used as an index for rating resumes, not as the final rankings. It would sort of be like strength of opposition in the NCAA football rating syste, for those that are aware of the system.

Very interesting idea. I'm very curious to see what you'll come up with. A "strength of schedule" index could be very helpful, especially when trying to rank the lower half of the top 10 in the more obscure divisions. Keep us posted.

[kg0208]

Well, i would count resume and achievement more than ability, something like 70:30. Achievements and rsume are based on facts while ability is based on subjective oppinion, so rankings based mainly on achievements and resume are much more objective and so more correct.

Well even resume is subjective. Names on resumes sometimes are better than the fighters. Wright is a big name, but I give Hopkins little credit for beating him, while others go on about how he beat a top P4P fighter.

[Guru_Too_You]

Well even resume is subjective. Names on resumes sometimes are better than the fighters. Wright is a big name, but I give Hopkins little credit for beating him, while others go on about how he beat a top P4P fighter.

Good point. Perhaps I will have to add in some sort of negative quantifier if an individual is fighting in a weight class or even catchweight where he hasn't proven anything. Again, the index would only be used as a factor, and everyone would know how the index is produced, so if I cant come up with some sort of statistical variance for this type of event, it could be addressed during your individual rankings.

[Thinman]

Good work guys. I just want to add that the problem with the P4P list is a big one. Very difficult to set the criteria(s) for the purpose of rating boxers.

I posted a thread regarding the same subject about two/three weeks ago but I did not have luck, no many people answered my questions.

Anyway, here is a question. How are you going to determine who is in his prime and who's not? When you take into cosideration the resume and opponents (which makes sense), you might see big names there but probably some of those boxers were past it or almost shot already.

Let me give you an example. How can you prove that Barrera was not in his prime when he lost against Pac and then a few years after he faces the same guy who beat him, who happens to be in his prime this time around, but this time MAB defeats him? What about the second fight against Eric Morales? Was EM pretty much shot? Can you prove it?

How are you going to do to measure what boxer is more past it? Is Zab pretty much done? What about Mosley? Would you guys consider a win for Cotto over Mosley more important than a draw between Pac and MAB? How do you measure Mosley quality as a boxer at the present? By looking to his victories over Vargas, a boxer who many think is totally shot?

What I am trying to say is that is going to be difficult for you guys to come up with a solution for this and other situations when it comes to P4P rankings.

IMO you guys should forget about the P4P rankings.

[Lampley]

Good work guys. I just want to add that the problem with the P4P list is a big one. Very difficult to set the criteria(s) for the purpose of rating boxers.

I posted a thread regarding the same subject about two/three weeks ago but I did not have luck, no many people answered my questions.

Anyway, here is a question. How are you going to determine who is in his prime and who's not? When you take into cosideration the resume and opponents (which makes sense), you might see big names there but probably some of those boxers were past it or almost shot already.

Let me give you an example. How can you prove that Barrera was not in his prime when he lost against Pac and then a few years after he faces the same guy who beat him, who happens to be in his prime this time around, but this time MAB defeats him? What about the second fight against Eric Morales? Was EM pretty much shot? Can you prove it?

How are you going to do to measure what boxer is more past it? Is Zab pretty much done? What about Mosley? Would you guys consider a win for Cotto over Mosley more important than a draw between Pac and MAB? How do you measure Mosley quality as a boxer at the present? By looking to his victories over Vargas, a boxer who many think is totally shot?

What I am trying to say is that is going to be difficult for you guys to come up with a solution for this and other situations when it comes to P4P rankings.

IMO you guys should forget about the P4P rankings.
That's all true, but the very nature of the rankings is to make an impossible attempt to make a series of A-B comparisons. Even within divisions, there's the issue of prime, post-prime, declined, etc.

There's really no way to define any of this stuff, so the idea is to assemble the most studied and thoughtful observers of the sport, then allow them to apply their own standards and take the average.

I think that will give ESB a far superior set of rankings to any one-man operation, and certainly the ABCs.

[Guru_Too_You]

That's all true, but the very nature of the rankings is to make an impossible attempt to make a series of A-B comparisons. Even within divisions, there's the issue of prime, post-prime, declined, etc.

There's really no way to define any of this stuff, so the idea is to assemble the most studied and thoughtful observes of the sport, then allow them to apply their own standards and take the average.

I think that will give ESB a far superior set of rankings to any one-man operation, and certainly the ABCs.

I second that.

When two respetful, educated posters tend to debate these types of situations, the final verdict is generally somewhere in the middle, hence the need for only the best of the best being approved for the voting process. Many people are too biased in their views and refuse to budge from where they stand initially. The more viewpoints and the more debating that takes place, the more firm the stance ultimately arrived upon.

[Thinman]

That's all true, but the very nature of the rankings is to make an impossible attempt to make a series of A-B comparisons. Even within divisions, there's the issue of prime, post-prime, declined, etc.

There's really no way to define any of this stuff, so the idea is to assemble the most studied and thoughtful observes of the sport, then allow them to apply their own standards and take the average.

I think that will give ESB a far superior set of rankings to any one-man operation, and certainly the ABCs.

Yes, you can find the same situation in a partcular division, but there is a big difference and that is that belts are won in the ring and contenders fight against each other and that helps to determine the ranking itself regardless of who's past it and who's prime.

[MSTR]

Then once we figure out WHAT it is, how do we quantify it? We all know who looks more skilled in many cases when comparing fighters, but anyone can look skilled against average fighters. So resume has to be considered in equal measure IMO. I saw a 60% ability 40% resume model, but I like 50/50 better based on fighters with great ability not necessarily fighting the best fighters AND with more than a few of us not even agreeing on what "ability" is to begin with.

Subjective things such as ability need to be kept within balance.
I look at ability most times as how they perform against their relative opponents. You shouldn't have to fight an elite to be considered one of the best in the sport. If you are dominating your opponents (world class still) then that speaks volumes for a fighters ability. I think we should take into account the level of the performance just as heaviliy as who it is against. For instance, Ring rates JT's questionable decision over BHop as much better then Mikkel Kesslers brutal KO of Beyer that he came through with in unifying the titles. But in reality, is it really the better performance? Surely knocking out another title holder and world class fighter is better then scraping through against a 40 year old man?

[kg0208]

I look at ability most times as how they perform against their relative opponents. You shouldn't have to fight an elite to be considered one of the best in the sport. If you are dominating your opponents (world class still) then that speaks volumes for a fighters ability. I think we should take into account the level of the performance just as heaviliy as who it is against. For instance, Ring rates JT's questionable decision over BHop as much better then Mikkel Kesslers brutal KO of Beyer that he came through with in unifying the titles. But in reality, is it really the better performance? Surely knocking out another title holder and world class fighter is better then scraping through against a 40 year old man?

That depends on how good that 40 yr old man looked. In hindsight, perhaps that's the case. But Taylor is no longer in the rankings because of his performances, so they must have felt that way as well.

Sure we can evaluate ability in that way, but how do we know how good Beyer is? It's based on how he has looked against good competition. Beating good competition and not elite is one thing. But lets take a look at someone like Chris John, who by all accounts lost to JMM but got the decision. Outside of that win, he has nothing on his resume, even what I would consider a good fighter. So, if someone goes and KO's John, but has beaten no one else, how good is that fighter?

How good is Pavlik if he stops Taylor.....better than Kessler? Worse than Kessler? Better than Kessler if Kessler if he loses to Calzaghe, but worse if Kessler beats Calzaghe?

So many variables.

[MSTR]

That depends on how good that 40 yr old man looked. In hindsight, perhaps that's the case. But Taylor is no longer in the rankings because of his performances, so they must have felt that way as well.

Sure we can evaluate ability in that way, but how do we know how good Beyer is? It's based on how he has looked against good competition. Beating good competition and not elite is one thing. But lets take a look at someone like Chris John, who by all accounts lost to JMM but got the decision. Outside of that win, he has nothing on his resume, even what I would consider a good fighter. So, if someone goes and KO's John, but has beaten no one else, how good is that fighter?

How good is Pavlik if he stops Taylor.....better than Kessler? Worse than Kessler? Better than Kessler if Kessler if he loses to Calzaghe, but worse if Kessler beats Calzaghe?

So many variables.
Considering John showed himself to be in the same class as JMM, and has dominated almost all of his other opponents, then beating him would be a great victory. If someone were to impressively KO him it would certainly count for a lot. If Pavlik stops Taylor and did what Winky, Bernard, Ouma and Spinks couldn't in impressivley beating him then YES he is definitely ranked higher then Kessler. There are not that many variables at all. You are simply analyzing the performance and the opponent at the same time. If Kessler were to win a very close decision against JC, then Pavlik would be ranked higher, because his victory was more impressive yet still against a top opponent.

[kg0208]

Considering John showed himself to be in the same class as JMM, and has dominated almost all of his other opponents, then beating him would be a great victory. If someone were to impressively KO him it would certainly count for a lot. If Pavlik stops Taylor and did what Winky, Bernard, Ouma and Spinks couldn't in impressivley beating him then YES he is definitely ranked higher then Kessler. There are not that many variables at all. You are simply analyzing the performance and the opponent at the same time. If Kessler were to win a very close decision against JC, then Pavlik would be ranked higher, because his victory was more impressive yet still against a top opponent.

But by what you said earlier, is Taylor really that good to begin with? He is considered good because he beat a 40yr old Hopkins. So are he and Calzaghe on equal footing to start with? If not, a close victory over the better fighter may play in favor of Kessler regardless of how Pavlik wins.

[Amsterdam]

That depends on how good that 40 yr old man looked. In hindsight, perhaps that's the case. But Taylor is no longer in the rankings because of his performances, so they must have felt that way as well.

Sure we can evaluate ability in that way, but how do we know how good Beyer is? It's based on how he has looked against good competition. Beating good competition and not elite is one thing. But lets take a look at someone like Chris John, who by all accounts lost to JMM but got the decision. Outside of that win, he has nothing on his resume, even what I would consider a good fighter. So, if someone goes and KO's John, but has beaten no one else, how good is that fighter?

How good is Pavlik if he stops Taylor.....better than Kessler? Worse than Kessler? Better than Kessler if Kessler if he loses to Calzaghe, but worse if Kessler beats Calzaghe?

So many variables.

Kessler has already dominated fighters on Pavlik's level, this is a fact. Pavlik has a stylistic advantage over Taylor and that is why he will win, he is not on Kessler's level of skill and operation, not even comparable.

[Amsterdam]

But by what you said earlier, is Taylor really that good to begin with? He is considered good because he beat a 40yr old Hopkins. So are he and Calzaghe on equal footing to start with? If not, a close victory over the better fighter may play in favor of Kessler regardless of how Pavlik wins.

No, Taylor and Calzaghe are leagues apart, you have agreed with this in the past.

[MSTR]

But by what you said earlier, is Taylor really that good to begin with? He is considered good because he beat a 40yr old Hopkins. So are he and Calzaghe on equal footing to start with? If not, a close victory over the better fighter may play in favor of Kessler regardless of how Pavlik wins.
Calzaghe is the better fighter yes, but Taylor is certainly world class. If Pavlik dominates him and then goes on to KO him, it will count for more then a close decision victory for Kessler over JC. To dominate a world class fighter shows a combination of two things. The first being a bad style match up for a particular fighter. The second being one fighter being in a different class. If Pavlik can dominate Taylor then he will prove himself to be a class above him, which would really put him very high on the p4p scale, considering Taylor has definitely proved himself to be extremely competitive against some of the top guys in boxing, regardless of the results.

[kg0208]

No, Taylor and Calzaghe are leagues apart, you have agreed with this in the past.

And I do now, thus my point on competition and how good a fighter truly is.

[kg0208]

Calzaghe is the better fighter yes, but Taylor is certainly world class. If Pavlik dominates him and then goes on to KO him, it will count for more then a close decision victory for Kessler over JC. To dominate a world class fighter shows a combination of two things. The first being a bad style match up for a particular fighter. The second being one fighter being in a different class. If Pavlik can dominate Taylor then he will prove himself to be a class above him, which would really put him very high on the p4p scale, considering Taylor has definitely proved himself to be extremely competitive against some of the top guys in boxing, regardless of the results.

And while I respect that opinion, I would disagree because I believe beating Calzaghe in any way shape or form is better than beating Taylor right now (though I do rank Taylor P4P unlike Amsterdam, because he does have talent and a good resume.....I rank Calzaghe higher).

[MSTR]

Kessler has already dominated fighters on Pavlik's level, this is a fact. Pavlik has a stylistic advantage over Taylor and that is why he will win, he is not on Kessler's level of skill and operation, not even comparable.
Edison Miranda is just as good as anyone on Kesslers resume. And Miranda got KTFO and badly beaten, where as Mundine and Andrade took Kessler the distance. Although Kessler was still dominate in these fights, it was not to the same extent. If Pavlik dominates and KO's Taylor then he will have proved himself to be a better fighter at this point in time then Kessler. Thats a big IF though.

[MSTR]

And while I respect that opinion, I would disagree because I believe beating Calzaghe in any way shape or form is better than beating Taylor right now (though I do rank Taylor P4P unlike Amsterdam, because he does have talent and a good resume.....I rank Calzaghe higher).
If he beat Taylor in a close fight then Yes i would agree. But if he dominates him and KO's Taylor, then that will certainly count for more IMO. Taylor may not be GREAT, but if BHop, Winky and even Spinks couldn't do enough in the eyes of the judges to beat him, he is certainly world class.

[MSTR]

Kessler has already dominated fighters on Pavlik's level, this is a fact. Pavlik has a stylistic advantage over Taylor and that is why he will win, he is not on Kessler's level of skill and operation, not even comparable.
JC had a stylistic advantage over Lacy clearly... Should that have taken away from his win? NO. Definitely not. You can only go on the manner of the victory, and the level of the opponent. If you start trying to bring other variables into it you will make it to open to personal bias.

[Amsterdam]

JC had a stylistic advantage over Lacy clearly... Should that have taken away from his win? NO. Definitely not. You can only go on the manner of the victory, and the level of the opponent. If you start trying to bring other variables into it you will make it to open to personal bias.

The difference is that Pavlik makes more mistakes and has more intangible flaws than Kessler. Kessler makes very few, if any mistakes at all and is defensively extremely sound, while Pavlik is of a similiar style and his head movement and footwork is not even remotely in the region of Kessler's, nor is his jab. The workrate is about the same.

Pavlik is simply not operating on that level, neither is Jermain Taylor for that matter.

Calzaghe vs. Kessler and Taylor vs. Pavlik are leagues apart in terms of class, this is all that I meant. And Pavlik won't dominate Taylor, he will just catch up to him whenever and his pressure will make Taylor fold, leaving him open to Pavlik's best shots, it may even come early, but Pavlik is still an evidently flawed fighter.

[kg0208]

The difference is that Pavlik makes more mistakes and has more intangible flaws than Kessler. Kessler makes very few, if any mistakes at all and is defensively extremely sound, while Pavlik is of a similiar style and his head movement and footwork is not even remotely in the region of Kessler's, nor is his jab. The workrate is about the same.

Pavlik is simply not operating on that level, neither is Jermain Taylor for that matter.

Calzaghe vs. Kessler and Taylor vs. Pavlik are leagues apart in terms of class, this is all that I meant. And Pavlik won't dominate Taylor, he will just catch up to him whenever and his pressure will make Taylor fold, leaving him open to Pavlik's best shots, it may even come early, but Pavlik is still an evidently flawed fighter.

I would argue that all fighters are flawed, that is to say, they are not perfect at everything and could stand to be as good as another fighter in another area.

[Amsterdam]

Considering John showed himself to be in the same class as JMM, and has dominated almost all of his other opponents, then beating him would be a great victory. If someone were to impressively KO him it would certainly count for a lot. If Pavlik stops Taylor and did what Winky, Bernard, Ouma and Spinks couldn't in impressivley beating him then YES he is definitely ranked higher then Kessler. There are not that many variables at all. You are simply analyzing the performance and the opponent at the same time. If Kessler were to win a very close decision against JC, then Pavlik would be ranked higher, because his victory was more impressive yet still against a top opponent.

But the level of class in these 'top opponents' are not even comparable. JC is light years ahead of Taylor in terms of fighting class.

Pavlik will perhaps have the resume advantage to some for KOing Taylor, not me personally, but he could never be considered a better fighter than Kessler just off of this for the reasons that I have outlined.

Pavlik is going up against a flawed fighter who is massively overrated and has a stylistic advantage, a severe one by the way. Kessler is fighting a physical phenom and is at the severe stylistic disadvantage, it's not comparable.

[Amsterdam]

I would argue that all fighters are flawed, that is to say, they are not perfect at everything and could stand to be as good as another fighter in another area.

Yes, they are all flawed to an extent. But if Pavlik is flawed at 60%, Kessler is flawed at 15%.

Roughly.

[MSTR]

The difference is that Pavlik makes more mistakes and has more intangible flaws than Kessler. Kessler makes very few, if any mistakes at all and is defensively extremely sound, while Pavlik is of a similiar style and his head movement and footwork is not even remotely in the region of Kessler's, nor is his jab. The workrate is about the same.

Pavlik is simply not operating on that level, neither is Jermain Taylor for that matter.

Calzaghe vs. Kessler and Taylor vs. Pavlik are leagues apart in terms of class, this is all that I meant. And Pavlik won't dominate Taylor, he will just catch up to him whenever and his pressure will make Taylor fold, leaving him open to Pavlik's best shots, it may even come early, but Pavlik is still an evidently flawed fighter.
I know what you are saying here, but it just won't work. You are using your own judgement here, where as we are trying to establish a formal set of guidelines as criteria for the rankings system. In regards to this particular example, Pavliks incredible strength out weighs some of his weaknesses, making him a very hard fighter to properly evaluate. However, If I had to give my opinion Kessler is definitely the better fighter.

[MSTR]

If Pavlik could Ko Taylor impressively however, my position would probably change depending on the outcome of the JC fight.

[kg0208]

I know what you are saying here, but it just won't work. You are using your own judgement here, where as we are trying to establish a formal set of guidelines as criteria for the rankings system. In regards to this particular example, Pavliks incredible strength out weighs some of his weaknesses, making him a very hard fighter to properly evaluate. However, If I had to give my opinion Kessler is definitely the better fighter.

I think this just proves that the only formal set of guidelines we will be able to establish is that we want to vote on the best possible committee who will use logic and sense when compiling any lists.

All of our PoV's on this thread are more sensible than say "Fighter A is more exciting, so I rank him #1" or "Fighter B won 5 titles in 5 weight classes and is therefore #1 in any weight class he enters".

[Amsterdam]

I was not speaking from opinion, it is absolute fact that Pavlik makes a long list of technical flaws that Kessler does not and both are of the boxer puncher style.

It is fact that Kessler is quicker, more accurate and has better footwork and a MUCH more refined defence. This is not opinion, Pavlik eats a ton of shots, Kessler does not and his timing and accuracy is literally miles apart from Pavlik's.

You can compare video.

[MSTR]

I think this just proves that the only formal set of guidelines we will be able to establish is that we want to vote on the best possible committee who will use logic and sense when compiling any lists.

All of our PoV's on this thread are more sensible than say "Fighter A is more exciting, so I rank him #1" or "Fighter B won 5 titles in 5 weight classes and is therefore #1 in any weight class he enters".
Fair enough, although posters should have a chance to justify their decisions if other posters nominate them for eviction from the comittee then. If I were to make a choice based on percieved ability, then I would not like to be criticised by posters who are evaluating on resume alone.

[Amsterdam]

Fair enough, although posters should have a chance to justify their decisions if other posters nominate them for eviction from the comittee then. If I were to make a choice based on percieved ability, then I would not like to be criticised by posters who are evaluating on resume alone.

I am making a justification on resume/ability. If you need the cold hard truth, Pavlik is not but an inch ahead of Danny Green in ability, but he will obviously have a better resume and will be ranked accordingly.

But there is no 'opinion' in stating that Kessler is more refined, that is 'fact'.

[MSTR]

I was not speaking from opinion, it is absolute fact that Pavlik makes a long list of technical flaws that Kessler does not and both are of the boxer puncher style.

It is fact that Kessler is quicker, more accurate and has better footwork and a MUCH more refined defence. This is not opinion, Pavlik eats a ton of shots, Kessler does not and his timing and accuracy is literally miles apart from Pavlik's.

You can compare video.
Fact is something that can be 100% proven without question. There are too many variables for that to be fact. Styles, opponents, strategies ect. WHilst I agree with your assesment, it is not fact, and never will be. Kessler has less weaknesses, but Pavlik may have more offensive strengths. I actually don't believe so at this point, but if he were to KO Taylor emphatically like you believe he will, then he must.

[kg0208]

Fair enough, although posters should have a chance to justify their decisions if other posters nominate them for eviction from the comittee then. If I were to make a choice based on percieved ability, then I would not like to be criticised by posters who are evaluating on resume alone.

I think that anyone nominated by the committee for removal will have a chance to defend their position.

[MSTR]

I am making a justification on resume/ability. If you need the cold hard truth, Pavlik is not but an inch ahead of Danny Green in ability, but he will obviously have a better resume and will be ranked accordingly.

But there is no 'opinion' in stating that Kessler is more refined, that is 'fact'.
It is opinion though, because they have not fought, and "better" is SOOOO open to interpretation. Pavlik has more punching power and a better chin. Pavlik shows more tenacity and heart. There is no way it is fact. It is an opinion, an educated one, but still an opinion. Fact would be if they fought and Kessler beat him. Then Kesler would be better then Pavlik for a fact.

[MSTR]

I am making a justification on resume/ability. If you need the cold hard truth, Pavlik is not but an inch ahead of Danny Green in ability, but he will obviously have a better resume and will be ranked accordingly.

But there is no 'opinion' in stating that Kessler is more refined, that is 'fact'.
A close analogy, although Pavliks mental game, an intangible, is very hard to measure. Would Pavlik have been beaten by Beyer? I think NOT. Thats why it is still an opinion. Because a lot of aspects in a fighter simply cannot be measured.

[MSTR]

I think that anyone nominated by the committee for removal will have a chance to defend their position.
Fair enough.

[Amsterdam]

Fact is something that can be 100% proven without question. There are too many variables for that to be fact. Styles, opponents, strategies ect. WHilst I agree with your assesment, it is not fact, and never will be. Kessler has less weaknesses, but Pavlik may have more offensive strengths. I actually don't believe so at this point, but if he were to KO Taylor emphatically like you believe he will, then he must.

Pavlik can be ranked higher, that is not what I am arguing. Pavlik does not have Kessler's combinations, timing and accuracy for one, or that stiff pin point jab.

He is not superior offensively, he never will be. This is not far from fact, just KOing Taylor like I say doesn't make you better offensively than some other fighter who is more diversified in SHARPER in every respect and blatantly so.

Taylor is not even within the 160-168 equation when it comes to hard punching big men, he barely handles 154 pounders it seems. If Pavlik could not pressure well, he would lose to Taylor, he wins because of pressure.

Because he can pressure and this is what will give him his KO victory at the end of the day, does not automatically jump his offensive regard up. Librado Andrade's pressure would do the exact same number on Taylor and Librado wins by KO in the same respect, constant pressure and a workrate of hard shots.

Honestly, Pavlik and Andrade can be seen as similiar all around, both are blatantly not operating on Kessler's level.

[Amsterdam]

A close analogy, although Pavliks mental game, an intangible, is very hard to measure. Would Pavlik have been beaten by Beyer? I think NOT. Thats why it is still an opinion. Because a lot of aspects in a fighter simply cannot be measured.

Pavlik beaten by Beyer a few years back? Very possible.

Pavlik is going to become absurdly overrated, even though he already is, when he defeats Taylor. I will be here to even things out.

I have nothing against Pavlik, but he's very average.

[MSTR]

Pavlik can be ranked higher, that is not what I am arguing. Pavlik does not have Kessler's combinations, timing and accuracy for one, or that stiff pin point jab.

He is not superior offensively, he never will be. This is not far from fact, just KOing Taylor like I say doesn't make you better offensively than some other fighter who is more diversified in SHARPER in every respect and blatantly so.

Taylor is not even within the 160-168 equation when it comes to hard punching big men, he barely handles 154 pounders it seems. If Pavlik could not pressure well, he would lose to Taylor, he wins because of pressure.

Because he can pressure and this is what will give him his KO victory at the end of the day, does not automatically jump his offensive regard up. Librado Andrade's pressure would do the exact same number on Taylor and Librado wins by KO in the same respect, constant pressure and a workrate of hard shots.

Honestly, Pavlik and Andrade can be seen as similiar all around, both are blatantly not operating on Kessler's level.
Taylor is a better fighter then Andrade though, and the version of Mundine that Kessler fought against. Kessler couldn't KO either. If Pavlik can KO both Miranda and Taylor, then it would appear that his offensive abilities are superior to kesslers.

[MSTR]

Pavlik beaten by Beyer a few years back? Very possible.

Pavlik is going to become absurdly overrated, even though he already is, when he defeats Taylor. I will be here to even things out.

I have nothing against Pavlik, but he's very average.
I don't rate Pavlik to be honest, which is why I don't particularly agree with your assesment of the JT fight. JT is world class still, if Pavlik beats him impressively then he is definitely a better fighter then I first picked. Pavlik would have beaten Beyer. Pavlik is a MUCH more aggresive fighter then Danny, and thats what would get to Beyer. Danny sits back at times and isn't active enough, where as Pavlik just walks through you.

[Amsterdam]

Taylor is a better fighter then Andrade though, and the version of Mundine that Kessler fought against. Kessler couldn't KO either. If Pavlik can KO both Miranda and Taylor, then it would appear that his offensive abilities are superior to kesslers.

Taylor is absolutely not better than Mundine, that's horseshit. And Andrade is good at what he does, pressure with a workrate, that's what Pavlik does from a boxer-puncher stylistic stand point, they are comparable, but I'd pick Andrade to bulldoze Pavlik at 168 and would be as confident as I am in Pavlik bulldozing Taylor.

This stuff is all relative.

Pavlik KOing a crude fighter in Miranda and Taylor does not show his offensive skill to be higher, it shows that his power may be higher.

And Kessler couldn't KO Mundine because Mundine is absurdly slick and hard to tag flush, Echols and Green also could not put him away, nor could Siaca, all of these guys have ample KO power.

Andrade's chin is made from titanium. There is one thing that I would garauntee you however and that is that Kessler would TKO Pavlik before 5 rounds, considering Pavlik's leaky defence and Kessler's supremely efficient offensive arsenal. Combinations would fly on him like they did against Andrade, only Andrade has the stamina and absurd chin to absord that kind of tremendous punishment.

[Amsterdam]

I don't rate Pavlik to be honest, which is why I don't particularly agree with your assesment of the JT fight. JT is world class still, if Pavlik beats him impressively then he is definitely a better fighter then I first picked. Pavlik would have beaten Beyer. Pavlik is a MUCH more aggresive fighter then Danny, and thats what would get to Beyer. Danny sits back at times and isn't active enough, where as Pavlik just walks through you.

Pavlik is more aggressive, he is an 'inch' superior to Green, but not leagues ahead, they are honestly on the same plane with Pavlik being slightly ahead.

JC and MK operate on the highest level in this general weight region of MW-LHW, they both cannot be compared to Pavlik or Taylor in terms of skill and ability because the difference is so great.

Taylor is world class, but at the end the day, he is truly only marginally world class against MW's and up, he's a very lucky and brought along fighter, anyone who can pressure and hit will walk right through him, this would include Librado Andrade and Danny Green at SMW, without a doubt.

I am just giving my impartial views here, you have to realise that my 'Taylor hate' is 90% entertainment on here.

[MSTR]

Taylor is absolutely not better than Mundine, that's horseshit. And Andrade is good at what he does, pressure with a workrate, that's what Pavlik does from a boxer-puncher stylistic stand point, they are comparable, but I'd pick Andrade to bulldoze Pavlik at 168 and would be as confident as I am in Pavlik bulldozing Taylor.

This stuff is all relative.

Pavlik KOing a crude fighter in Miranda and Taylor does not show his offensive skill to be higher, it shows that his power may be higher.

And Kessler couldn't KO Mundine because Mundine is absurdly slick and hard to tag flush, Echols and Green also could not put him away, nor could Siaca, all of these guys have ample KO power.

Andrade's chin is made from titanium. There is one thing that I would garauntee you however and that is that Kessler would TKO Pavlik before 5 rounds, considering Pavlik's leaky defence and Kessler's supremely efficient offensive arsenal. Combinations would fly on him like they did against Andrade, only Andrade has the stamina and absurd chin to absord that kind of tremendous punishment.
Kessler isn't as aggresive as Pavlik. Pavlik isn't better then Mundine, but the version of Mundine that fought Kessler wasn't his best either, and I feel he is superior to the Mundine that fought that night. He was far too cautious and tentative (Mundine). If Pavlik had of fought Mundine in that frame of mind, he wouldn't have given him room to breathe. Pavlik just stands in front of you and is prepared to get hit to get the KO. Thats what makes him a good offensive fighter. Not neccessarily technically better, but he is a more offensive minded fighter then Kessler for sure, as Kessler opts for hit and not get hit most times. Pavlik is technically better then Andrade. Andrade was VERY sloppy at times, and his stamina at times was pretty weak... Although he kept fighting, he totally ignored keeping his hands up when tired. Pavlik is better then that, and judging by his chin, I think it is a RIDICULOUS assesment to think that Kessler would stop him in 5, but that is once against just my opinion. Pavliks footwork and balance is definitely superior to Andrade...

[Amsterdam]

Kessler isn't as aggresive as Pavlik. Pavlik isn't better then Mundine, but the version of Mundine that fought Kessler wasn't his best either, and I feel he is superior to the Mundine that fought that night. He was far too cautious and tentative (Mundine). If Pavlik had of fought Mundine in that frame of mind, he wouldn't have given him room to breathe. Pavlik just stands in front of you and is prepared to get hit to get the KO. Thats what makes him a good offensive fighter. Not neccessarily technically better, but he is a more offensive minded fighter then Kessler for sure, as Kessler opts for hit and not get hit most times. Pavlik is technically better then Andrade. Andrade was VERY sloppy at times, and his stamina at times was pretty weak... Although he kept fighting, he totally ignored keeping his hands up when tired. Pavlik is better then that, and judging by his chin, I think it is a RIDICULOUS assesment to think that Kessler would stop him in 5, but that is once against just my opinion. Pavliks footwork and balance is definitely superior to Andrade...

You don't seem to get though that Kessler lands at a higher percentage, with a similiar workrate to Pavlik, the approach and style is different, but the offensive comparison is not comparable.

Kessler would be landing on Pavlik as much as he landed on Andrade, Miranda stunned Pavlik a few times, Kessler may very well hit as hard as Miranda considering he's a bigger man and delivers it more accurately, now take the combinations landing into consideration and you cannot see Pavlik falling?

Andrade also has no stamina problems, he was ridiculously fresh after the beating he took and kept coming, the Andrade from round 11 was not much different than the Andrade from round 1, that says a lot about his ability to last, which is key to a pressure fighter.

Mundine is always tenative, did Kessler not make him tentative considering his many good attributes that he could impose on Mundine?

Pavlik would have lost to Mundine IMO, the Mundine of that fight, Pavlik is quick a slow fighter when it comes down to it and he has no defence.

The only reason you'd consider placing Pavlik in such high regard for KOing Taylor is because it would have a minor element of surprise, but it's not surprise from my end because Taylor has exhibited potential chin issue's and he CANNOT handle any form of consistent pressure fighting, he literally falls apart, this will be no shock and we will have to rate it accordingly.

Back to JC vs. MK on the other hand, you're dealing with two of the most skilled fighters in the world bar none, with very very few technical flaws to speak of in their respective styles. The two bouts are not comparable.

[MSTR]

You don't seem to get though that Kessler lands at a higher percentage, with a similiar workrate to Pavlik, the approach and style is different, but the offensive comparison is not comparable.

Kessler would be landing on Pavlik as much as he landed on Andrade, Miranda stunned Pavlik a few times, Kessler may very well hit as hard as Miranda considering he's a bigger man and delivers it more accurately, now take the combinations landing into consideration and you cannot see Pavlik falling?

Andrade also has no stamina problems, he was ridiculously fresh after the beating he took and kept coming, the Andrade from round 11 was not much different than the Andrade from round 1, that says a lot about his ability to last, which is key to a pressure fighter.

Mundine is always tenative, did Kessler not make him tentative considering his many good attributes that he could impose on Mundine?

Pavlik would have lost to Mundine IMO, the Mundine of that fight, Pavlik is quick a slow fighter when it comes down to it and he has no defence.

The only reason you'd consider placing Pavlik in such high regard for KOing Taylor is because it would have a minor element of surprise, but it's not surprise from my end because Taylor has exhibited potential chin issue's and he CANNOT handle any form of consistent pressure fighting, he literally falls apart, this will be no shock and we will have to rate it accordingly.

Back to JC vs. MK on the other hand, you're dealing with two of the most skilled fighters in the world bar none, with very very few technical flaws to speak of in their respective styles. The two bouts are not comparable.
Enjoying the debate, but I am going to agree to disagree with you here. If Pavlik impressivley KO's Taylor then that will put him above Kessler, unless he beats Joe without contraversy, in a UD where it is clear he was the better fighter. IMO pavlik is more offensive minded because he is willing to get hit to apply his own offense. Thats the major difference between him and kessler in that regard. I am not going to reply to your other points, because it will merely further this debate, which I can't see ending any time soon. Right now, Kessler is the better more polished fighter IMO as well as yours, although to beat Taylor in such a fashion would show that I had perhaps under estimated him. Anyway, we have highjacked this thread which we probably shouldn't have, so apologies to Lampley and KG0208. Will have to wait and see how these fights play out. I am sure we will end up discussing this again some time between now and the actual fight :)

[Guru_Too_You]

:nono

Not the place for this.

[kg0208]

:nono

Not the place for this.

:deal

But at least here it's not being interrupted by trolls. They aren't aware the post is here:lol:

[Guru_Too_You]

:deal

But at least here it's not being interrupted by trolls. They aren't aware the post is here:lol:

Excellent point.

[Guru_Too_You]

A rule that's so rigid frightens me.

Here's an example why:

Roy Jones fought as a Super Middlweight in his three fights leading up to his Middlweight title shot against Bernard Hopkins.

After the Hopkins fight, he fought three times at 168 and then defended against Thomas Tate back at 160. He then left 160 for good.

The space between Hopkins and Tate was just over (by a few days) one year, so the way it stands now voters would have had the chance to strip Jones had then so chosen.

Everyone knew at the time leading up to the Hopkins fight that Roy wanted a belt at 160. They also knew he planned on defending the belt, despite his appearances at 168.

Something like that could become very messy if you make a hard rule.

Understand your concerns of rigidness. Just throwing around ideas.

In your example while the committee may have had the right to strip Jones Jr., it would have been known that Jones Jr. was to defend against Tate well before the vote.

However, it would be good to ignore it just in case their comes along a fighter that actually fights more than three times a year more often!

[Amsterdam]

:nono

Not the place for this.

He started it mate.

[Amsterdam]

Wow, i actually agree with Amsterdam on Pavlik.

The 'Amsterdam' account here at ESB is well educated on boxing, you and your kind like to spread otherwise.

[Lampley]

ESB RANKINGS: THE CONSTITUTION


PURPOSE

The ESB Official Rankings are designed to reflect the expert opinions of international boxing fans who participate in the ESB virtual community. Given the lack of credibility of the various sanctioning bodies and media publications, along with the inherent limitation of having any one person attempt to rank the world's best fighters, boxing needs a set of more accurate, representative rankings.

This Constitution was crafted to assist with this process, clarifying the rules and guidelines by which the rankings will be compiled and maintained.


RANKINGS FORMAT

The ESB Official Rankings will include Champion and Top 10 Contender rankings for the following divisions: Heavyweight (201+ pounds), Cruiserweight (200 pounds maximum), Light Heavyweight (175), Super Middleweight (168., Middleweight (160), Junior Middleweight (154), Welterweight (147), Junior Welterweight (140), Lightweight (135), Junior Lightweight (130), Featherweight (126), Junior Featherweight (122) and Bantamweight (118.

The Rankings will include Champion and Top 5 Contender Rankings for Junior Bantamweight (115), Flyweight (112), Junior Flyweight (108. and Strawweight (105).

Another constant element of ESB Official Rankings will be Pound for Pound
rankings. These Top 10 rankings will include fighters from all weight divisions based on overall merit.


VOTING SCHEDULE

Voting will take place once a month, on the first Sunday of the month. Voting will close at 12:00am at time zone UTC-12, effectively keeping voting open until 8:00am EST on Monday morning. After that time, voting is closed for the month. Voters also may submit their votes early, although obviously they set themselves up for reprimand or even expulsion if they fail to incorporate the latest results.


VOTING PROCESS

Each voter will have the opportunity to vote on any Champion contingencies (explained later), top 10 Contender rankings for all divisions, and top 10 Pound of Pound Rankings.

However, they are not required to vote on a complete list of fighters, deferring to others in the divisions in which they feel less familiar.

Each voter will post his votes publicly to the ESB Official Rankings Voting thread, which will be posted during the week prior to the first Sunday of the month. There, the ESB community will have access to his picks. Once submitted, the votes CANNOT be changed, barring a redundancy or some other clerical error.

The posts will appear as follows, with Pound for Pound listed first and then proceeding by division in descending order, with that voter's best fighter listed No. 1:

Pound for Pound

Fighter X
Fighter Y
Fighter Z. …


Heavyweight

Fighter A
Fighter B
Fighter C. …




Again, voters are not required to fill all slots on either the Pound for Pound or Divisional Rankings.
Additionally, in divisions where there is a Champion, voters will not rank the Champion and simply will list him at the top of their Divisional vote.

Example:

Super Middleweight

Champion: Fighter D

Fighter E
Fighter F
Fighter G. …

There is no Champion of the Pound of Pound rankings, only a top 10 list of fighters.


SCORING

Scoring will be based on a 100-point system. Each voter's No. 1 fighter -- for both Divisional and Pound for Pound rankings -- will receive 100 points; No. 2 will receive 90 points; No. 3 will receive 80 points; and so on, through the 10th position. Again, a Champion of a division is not included in the voting or the scoring, so the 100 points in a division ruled by a Champion goes to the No. 1 Contender.

After the voting period closes for the month, each voter's ballot will be tallied. The point totals will added for each fighter across all of the voters' ballots, and the rankings will be compiled based on which fighters have the highest point totals. This will apply for Division rankings and Pound for Pound rankings.

In cases where a voter doesn't completely fill out a division, the unfilled positions in that voter's rankings obviously will be ignored. Also, voters may not designate that a fighters get alternate numbers of points. If a voter lists four fighters in a division, the points awarded will be 100, 90, 80 and 70, respectively. A voter cannot, for example, rank four fighters in a division and then number them as 1), 2), 4) and 7) in an attempt to create separation among the four in terms of points.


ADDITIONAL BALLOT MEASURES

On the ESB Official Rankings Voting Thread, each voter will type or post his rankings onto the thread, as mentioned above.

Beneath the rankings, any other issue for vote (e.g., whether a bout is for a title, vacancy issues, expulsion of a member, changes to the Constitution) will appear on this post as well.

Note that the voting on new candidates for membership will not appear on this thread.


SPECIAL VOTES

For issues that arise with immediate importance, a Special Vote may be called by any member of the committee. A Special Vote may deal with a variety of topics, than cannot be delayed until the next month's vote.

The procedure for a Special Vote is as follows: A member calls for a Special Vote and creates a thread with a poll on ESB. The poll is to be left open for FIVE days exactly. The function for making each vote public also is to be turned on. Each voter will choose one of the options and, by majority rule, a new action is thus initiated. These threads obviously will be open to the entire ESB community, but with the exception of cases that are very close, it should be clear which side has won. In extreme cases, the thread starter is responsible to tallying votes based on the eligible voters who participated.

Note 1: For a Special Vote to take effect, at least 50% of the committee must vote. If the thread fails to garner sufficient participation, the measure in question cannot be implemented.

Note 2: A thread and its poll may not overlap with any fights or events that are pertinent to the issue at hand. The poll must end before or begin after any such events.



THE CHAMPION


REVOLUTIONARIES

In the initial round of voting, voters will decide which fighters are grandfathered into Champion positions. For this first round only, all voters must list a Champion for the divisions in which they believe one exists. Otherwise, 10 Contenders will form the rankings and the Championship will remain vacant.

To become an Official ESB Champion in the initial voting, a fighter must garner a vote of Champion from the majority (anything over 50%) of voters. If for some reason a voter chooses not to vote on a division at all, that vote will not count toward that fighter's Champion status either way. (This is highly unlikely to happen.)

If a fighter is listed as Champion by the majority of voters, he becomes the ESB Champion going forward and is subject to the ongoing rules established in the Constitution.

WINNING A BELT

A fighter, ranked or unranked, automatically becomes a Champion if he defeats the current Champion in the ring.

In cases of a vacancy, if the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 2 Contender, the winner of that contest becomes the new Champion.

If the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 3 Contender, voters will decide in the voting period immediately prior to the fight whether that fight will be waged for the championship. Note that this issue will be decided -- and settled by a majority vote -- before the fight in question takes place, not after.

For example, if No. 1 Contender Fighter A is scheduled to face No. 3 Contender Fighter B on October 17, voting on whether the bout is a Championship contest will occur on the first Sunday of October -- not before, and not after.

In special circumstances and held under the rules of a Special Vote or during a regular monthly Vote, a fighter can be named Champion based on the majority vote of the committee. This would include situations in which a No. 1 Contender has beaten a No. 2 or a No. 3 Contender, and the previous Champion either vacated the division or exited the sport.


LOSING A BELT

A Champion can lose his belt for one of three reasons: 1) Losing in the ring, 2) Vacating the division (moving in weight class, retiring, etc.), or 3) Not fighting for more than 365 days. Both No. 1 and No. 2 result in certain loss of the belt. Additionally for No. 2, if a fighter vacates a division and returns later, he does not regain Championship status and must fight for it along with the other Contenders.

No. 3 is a special case. A fighter who is inactive in his division for more than 365 days does not automatically lose his belt, but voters will have the option of stripping that fighter. This will be put to a separate vote for the voters, who will determine by majority vote whether that fighter retains his belt. If the voters elect to strip a Champion for inactivity, he becomes officially Inactive. A Champion who has been deemed Inactive cannot be a Contender, and thus he will be excluded from that division's rankings. An inactive fighter also may not be considered for Pound of Pound rankings.

When that fighter then takes another bout within the division, he then becomes eligible for Division rankings from that moment forward. However, he cannot be voted the belt once he's been stripped, as he must triumph for it in the ring.

[Lampley]

DIVISION IDENTITY


Because fighters change divisions, return, and hover above with so much regularity and under a wide variety of circumstances, common logic should dictate to which division a fighter belongs.

In case of ambiguity or in situations where there is a dispute, the matter should be taken to vote, either during a monthly vote or as a Special Vote.

For Champions, the 365-day rule applies.

In situations where a fighter gains enough votes to be ranked for two different divisions, he will be ranked in the division where he ranks highest -- and in the even t of a tie, his most recent division will count -- and not listed in the other division. In that other division, the next-highest vote getter will move into the rankings and the rankings themselves will adjust accordingly.

Naturally, the idea is to prevent such a phenomenon from occurring by virtue either of discussion among voters about a fighter's division, or settled by a vote.


THE VOTERS


COMPOSITION

The ESB divisional and pound for pound rankings will be voted upon by a select group of posters from the ESB online community. Those who have been voted onto the committee each will have one vote, equal to the vote of every other committee member.

There will be no fixed number of committee members, and membership presumably will grow over time. Voters will vote each period on the fate of board applicants, and they also will have the option of barring any members who fail to participate or who display unethical behavior.


INITIAL SELECTION

Initially, all ESB posters will be eligible to nominate 24 committee members, spread between the General Forum and Classic Forum. Posters can nominate just one poster, just one time, during this initial nomination period. An Official Nomination Thread will be posted on the General Forum and on the Classic Forum. At the end of the initial voting period, nominations will be tallied.

On the General Forum thread, the top 18 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board. On the Classic Forum thread, the top 6 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board.

Those who win the nominations must accept their bid within a reasonable timeframe, or else they forfeit their spot.


ADDING A VOTER

After the initial period, voters can be added only by other voters. All posters at ESB who have contributed at least 1,000 posts at the time of their self-nomination are eligible, and they may announced their candidacy in the Official ESB Rankings Applicant Thread that will be started at the beginning of each month. Candidates have through Friday night -- for our purposes, that's 8:00am Saturday morning EST -- to make themselves eligible for vote by the committee members.

On that same thread, posters may argue their cases, and all ESB posters are welcome to either endorse or reject that nominee's candidacy.

Further, a poster must nominate himself for inclusion. No one may nominate that poster in his stead.

On the first Sunday of the month, committee members then will vote whether to accept each candidate. In order to be added to the committee, a nominee must achieve 66.67% affirmative votes from the committee. If accepted, that candidate becomes eligible to vote the following month.

If a candidate is rejected, the poster may not reapply to the committee for six months. This will cut down on nomination spamming, and hopefully will encourage candidates to consider thoughtfully whether they've contributed enough to the ESB community to warrant inclusion on the board.

The process for voting on the fate of members is one of anonymous vote. Voters select 'Yes' or 'No' and send their selections to TWO pre-assigned people -- voters or non-voters -- who agree to total confidentiality.

One of those posters then posts the results to the board, and the other is assumed to agree with the tally unless he speaks to the contrary.


EXPELLING A VOTER

At its discretion, the voters may bar one of their peers. If any two members of the group formally ask that a member be expelled, a vote will take place on voting Sunday. If the board votes to dismiss the member at a 66.67% rate, that member immediately and permanently is removed from the board and the poster's rankings will not count for that month.

However, if an expelled member would like to reapply, he may wait six months and then do so. The expelled member then will be subject to the same 66.67% rule that applies to the general population.


ROLL CALL

Because certain activities of the Committee -- including Special Votes -- include minimum levels of voter participation, it may be necessary at some point to de-list inactive members. If voters feel this is necessary, they may post a Roll Call to the board.

If a Roll Call has been announced, the thread must stay open for at least one month, and it's the initiator's responsibility to make sure the thread remains active and visible.

After that time, members who do not respond may be removed from the Committee.


THE CONSTITUTION


CHANGES

The Constitution may be altered on voting Sunday by special vote, included on each poster's Rankings ballot. To bring a proposed amendment to vote, a member of the committee may post a Special Vote.

To pass, a proposed amendment must receive an 80% approval from members, with at least 50% participation.

[Zakman]

Question. To Whom do the ratings get submitted?

[Lampley]

Question. To Whom do the ratings get submitted?
You'll post them on a thread I set up tomorrow evening, and you'll have all weekend to do it. They'll be public, which seems like the fair way to do it.

You'll also send me an email with your votes on those who have applied for the committee. That part should be private, I think.

[Zakman]

You'll post them on a thread I set up tomorrow evening, and you'll have all weekend to do it. They'll be public, which seems like the fair way to do it.

You'll also send me an email with your votes on those who have applied for the committee. That part should be private, I think.
Thanks, guy. And I agree on the votes. I am going to wait for the outcome of the Barrera/Pac and Montiel fights, as these are the only ones I think might change any of my ratings.

Are there any other fights this weekend that you think might be worth keeping an eye on for ratings impact? These are the only two I can think of.

Anyway, I've done 'em up; and, after quite a bit of research was even able to rate in some of the lower weight classes. Hopefully, they seem reasonable and reflect some semblance of reality!:D

Oh, one more thing - can you point me in the direction of the nomination thread for new voters, so I can see who has applied?

[kg0208]

Thanks, guy. And I agree on the votes. I am going to wait for the outcome of the Barrera/Pac and Montiel fights, as these are the only ones I think might change any of my ratings.

Are there any other fights this weekend that you think might be worth keeping an eye on for ratings impact? These are the only two I can think of.

Anyway, I've done 'em up; and, after quite a bit of research was even able to rate in some of the lower weight classes. Hopefully, they seem reasonable and reflect some semblance of reality!:D

Oh, one more thing - can you point me in the direction of the nomination thread for new voters, so I can see who has applied?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Lampley]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Thanks for posting that, kg. I'll also include the names on the official voting thread, so when you paste your rankings in you'll see my email and the list of nominees for admission.

[Orishaman]

All of a sudden what started as an honest approach the Alphabet Soup, ESB has become one of the entities that makes the alphabet soup....

It is hard to come to a imparcial concensus since we are all considered huggers and haters.....why are we going thru this excersice.....

[Lampley]

All of a sudden what started as an honest approach the Alphabet Soup, ESB has become one of the entities that makes the alphabet soup....

It is hard to come to a imparcial concensus since we are all considered huggers and haters.....why are we going thru this excersice.....

All of this surely is completely subjective, but the thinking is if you keep a close eye on who joins the committee -- and you retain the ability to expel those who don't measure up -- you can reach a more balanced consensus than one or two-man operations that preside over the other ranking bodies.

ESB also has the advantage of having a higher number of international posters, so we'll hopefully get a broader view of the sport.

Like everything else, we'll see how it goes. But I'm very optimistic.

[kg0208]

All of a sudden what started as an honest approach the Alphabet Soup, ESB has become one of the entities that makes the alphabet soup....

It is hard to come to a imparcial concensus since we are all considered huggers and haters.....why are we going thru this excersice.....
Lampley explained it best.

I will only add that we were hoping to get a very impartial committee and I think overall that was accomplished. This should eliminate most of the issues involving overzealous posters on either side.

[Axe]

All of this surely is completely subjective, but the thinking is if you keep a close eye on who joins the committee -- and you retain the ability to expel those who don't measure up -- you can reach a more balanced consensus than one or two-man operations that preside over the other ranking bodies.

ESB also has the advantage of having a higher number of international posters, so we'll hopefully get a broader view of the sport.

Like everything else, we'll see how it goes. But I'm very optimistic.

Well said. :good

[Lampley]

ESB RANKINGS: THE CONSTITUTION


PURPOSE

The ESB Official Rankings are designed to reflect the expert opinions of international boxing fans who participate in the ESB virtual community. Given the lack of credibility of the various sanctioning bodies and media publications, along with the inherent limitation of having any one person attempt to rank the world's best fighters, boxing needs a set of more accurate, representative rankings.

This Constitution was crafted to assist with this process, clarifying the rules and guidelines by which the rankings will be compiled and maintained.


RANKINGS FORMAT

The ESB Official Rankings will include Champion and Top 10 Contender rankings for the following divisions: Heavyweight (201+ pounds), Cruiserweight (200 pounds maximum), Light Heavyweight (175), Super Middleweight (168., Middleweight (160), Junior Middleweight (154), Welterweight (147), Junior Welterweight (140), Lightweight (135), Junior Lightweight (130), Featherweight (126), Junior Featherweight (122) and Bantamweight (118.)

The Rankings will include Champion and Top 5 Contender Rankings for Junior Bantamweight (115), Flyweight (112), Junior Flyweight (108.) and Strawweight (105).

Another constant element of ESB Official Rankings will be Pound for Pound
rankings. These Top 10 rankings will include fighters from all weight divisions based on overall merit.


VOTING SCHEDULE

Voting will take place once a month, on the first Sunday of the month and continuing through Tuesday night. Voting will close at 12:00am at time zone UTC-12, effectively keeping voting open until 8:00am EST on Wednesday morning. After that time, voting is closed for the month.


VOTING PROCESS

Each voter will have the opportunity to vote on any Champion contingencies (explained later), top 10 Contender rankings for all divisions, and top 10 Pound for Pound Rankings.

However, they are not required to vote on a complete list of fighters, deferring to others in the divisions in which they feel less familiar.

Each voter will post his votes publicly to the ESB Official Rankings Voting thread, which will be posted on or before the first Sunday of each month. There, the ESB community will have access to his picks. Once submitted, a voter still may change his selections throughout the voting period, until the close of that month's poll.

The posts will appear as follows, with Pound for Pound listed first and then proceeding by division in descending order, with that voter's best fighter listed No. 1:

Pound for Pound

Fighter X
Fighter Y
Fighter Z. …


Heavyweight

Fighter A
Fighter B
Fighter C. …




Again, voters are not required to fill all slots on either the Pound for Pound or Divisional Rankings.
Additionally, in divisions where there is a Champion, voters will not rank the Champion and simply will list him at the top of their Divisional vote.

Example:

Super Middleweight

Champion: Fighter D

Fighter E
Fighter F
Fighter G. …

There is no Champion of the Pound of Pound rankings, only a top 10 list of fighters.


SCORING

Scoring will be based on a 100-point system. Each voter's No. 1 fighter -- for both Divisional and Pound for Pound rankings -- will receive 100 points; No. 2 will receive 90 points; No. 3 will receive 80 points; and so on, through the 10th position. Again, a Champion of a division is not included in the voting or the scoring, so the 100 points in a division ruled by a Champion goes to the No. 1 Contender.

After the voting period closes for the month, each voter's ballot will be tallied. The point totals will added for each fighter across all of the voters' ballots, and the rankings will be compiled based on which fighters have the highest point totals. This will apply for Division rankings and Pound for Pound rankings.

In cases where a voter doesn't completely fill out a division, the unfilled positions in that voter's rankings obviously will be ignored. Also, voters may not designate that a fighters get alternate numbers of points. If a voter lists four fighters in a division, the points awarded will be 100, 90, 80 and 70, respectively. A voter cannot, for example, rank four fighters in a division and then number them as 1), 2), 4) and 7) in an attempt to create separation among the four in terms of points.


ADDITIONAL BALLOT MEASURES

On the ESB Official Rankings Voting Thread, each voter will type or post his rankings onto the thread, as mentioned above.

Beneath the rankings, any other issue for vote (e.g., whether a bout is for a title, vacancy issues, expulsion of a member, changes to the Constitution) will appear on this post as well.

Note that the voting on new candidates for membership will not appear on this thread.


SPECIAL VOTES

For issues that arise with immediate importance, a Special Vote may be called by any member of the committee. A Special Vote may deal with a variety of topics, than cannot be delayed until the next month's vote.

The procedure for a Special Vote is as follows: A member calls for a Special Vote and creates a thread with a poll on ESB. The poll is to be left open for FIVE days exactly. The function for making each vote public also is to be turned on. Each voter will choose one of the options and, by majority rule, a new action is thus initiated. These threads obviously will be open to the entire ESB community, but with the exception of cases that are very close, it should be clear which side has won. In extreme cases, the thread starter is responsible to tallying votes based on the eligible voters who participated.

Note 1: For a Special Vote to take effect, at least 50% of the committee must vote. If the thread fails to garner sufficient participation, the measure in question cannot be implemented.

Note 2: A thread and its poll may not overlap with any fights or events that are pertinent to the issue at hand. The poll must end before or begin after any such events.



THE CHAMPION


REVOLUTIONARIES

In the initial round of voting, voters will decide which fighters are grandfathered into Champion positions. For this first round only, all voters must list a Champion for the divisions in which they believe one exists. Otherwise, 10 Contenders will form the rankings and the Championship will remain vacant.

To become an Official ESB Champion in the initial voting, a fighter must garner a vote of Champion from the majority (anything over 50%) of voters. If for some reason a voter chooses not to vote on a division at all, that vote will not count toward that fighter's Champion status either way. (This is highly unlikely to happen.)

If a fighter is listed as Champion by the majority of voters, he becomes the ESB Champion going forward and is subject to the ongoing rules established in the Constitution.

WINNING A BELT

A fighter, ranked or unranked, automatically becomes a Champion if he defeats the current Champion in the ring.

In cases of a vacancy, if the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 2 Contender, the winner of that contest becomes the new Champion.

If the No. 1 Contender faces the No. 3 Contender, voters will decide in the voting period immediately prior to the fight whether that fight will be waged for the championship. Note that this issue will be decided -- and settled by a majority vote -- before the fight in question takes place, not after.

For example, if No. 1 Contender Fighter A is scheduled to face No. 3 Contender Fighter B on October 17, voting on whether the bout is a Championship contest will occur on the first Sunday of October -- not before, and not after.

In special circumstances and held under the rules of a Special Vote or during a regular monthly Vote, a fighter can be named Champion based on the majority vote of the committee. This would include situations in which a No. 1 Contender has beaten a No. 2 or a No. 3 Contender, and the previous Champion either vacated the division or exited the sport.


LOSING A BELT

A Champion can lose his belt for one of three reasons: 1) Losing in the ring, 2) Vacating the division (moving in weight class, retiring, etc.), or 3) Not fighting for more than 365 days. Both No. 1 and No. 2 result in certain loss of the belt. Additionally for No. 2, if a fighter vacates a division -- as determined by the voting committee either formally or informall (see the Division Identity section below) and returns later, he does not regain Championship status and must fight for it along with the other Contenders.

No. 3 is a special case. A fighter who is inactive in his division for more than 365 days does not automatically lose his belt, but voters will have the option of stripping that fighter. This will be put to a separate vote for the voters, who will determine by majority vote whether that fighter retains his belt. If the voters elect to strip a Champion for inactivity, he becomes officially Inactive. A Champion who has been deemed Inactive cannot be a Contender, and thus he will be excluded from that division's rankings. An inactive fighter also may not be considered for Pound of Pound rankings.

When that fighter then takes another bout within the division, he then becomes eligible for Division rankings from that moment forward. However, he cannot be voted the belt once he's been stripped, as he must triumph for it in the ring.

[Lampley]

DIVISION IDENTITY


Because fighters change divisions, return, and hover above with so much regularity and under a wide variety of circumstances, common logic should dictate to which division a fighter belongs.

In case of ambiguity or in situations where there is a dispute, the matter should be taken to vote, either during a monthly vote or as a Special Vote.

For Champions, the 365-day rule applies.

In situations where a fighter gains enough votes to be ranked for two different divisions, he will be ranked in the division where he ranks highest -- and in the even t of a tie, his most recent division will count -- and not listed in the other division. In that other division, the next-highest vote getter will move into the rankings and the rankings themselves will adjust accordingly.

Naturally, the idea is to prevent such a phenomenon from occurring by virtue either of discussion among voters about a fighter's division, or settled by a vote.


THE VOTERS


COMPOSITION

The ESB divisional and pound for pound rankings will be voted upon by a select group of posters from the ESB online community. Those who have been voted onto the committee each will have one vote, equal to the vote of every other committee member.

There will be no fixed number of committee members, and membership presumably will grow over time. Voters will vote each period on the fate of board applicants, and they also will have the option of barring any members who fail to participate or who display unethical behavior.


INITIAL SELECTION

Initially, all ESB posters will be eligible to nominate 24 committee members, spread between the General Forum and Classic Forum. Posters can nominate just one poster, just one time, during this initial nomination period. An Official Nomination Thread will be posted on the General Forum and on the Classic Forum. At the end of the initial voting period, nominations will be tallied.

On the General Forum thread, the top 18 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board. On the Classic Forum thread, the top 6 nomination-receivers will be selected for the board.

Those who win the nominations must accept their bid within a reasonable timeframe, or else they forfeit their spot.


ADDING A VOTER

After the initial period, voters can be added only by other voters. All posters at ESB who have contributed at least 1,000 posts at the time of their self-nomination are eligible, and they may announce their candidacy in each month's Official ESB Rankings Self-Nomination Thread. Candidates have through Friday night -- for our purposes, that's 8:00am Saturday morning EST -- to make themselves eligible for vote by the committee members.

On that same thread, posters may argue their cases, and all ESB posters are welcome to either endorse or reject that nominee's candidacy.

Further, a poster must nominate himself for inclusion. No one may nominate that poster in his stead.

On the first Sunday of the month, committee members then will vote whether to accept each candidate. In order to be added to the committee, a nominee must achieve 66.67% affirmative votes from the committee. If accepted, that candidate becomes eligible to vote the following month.

If a candidate is rejected, the poster may not reapply to the committee for six months. This will cut down on nomination spamming, and hopefully will encourage candidates to consider thoughtfully whether they've contributed enough to the ESB community to warrant inclusion on the board.

The process for voting on the fate of members is one of anonymous vote. Voters select 'Yes' or 'No' and send their selections to TWO pre-assigned people -- voters or non-voters -- who agree to total confidentiality.

One of those posters then posts the results to the board, and the other is assumed to agree with the tally unless he speaks to the contrary.


EXPELLING A VOTER

At its discretion, the voters may bar one of their peers. If any two members of the group formally ask that a member be expelled, a vote will take place on voting Sunday. If the board votes to dismiss the member at a 66.67% rate, that member immediately and permanently is removed from the board and the poster's rankings will not count for that month.

However, if an expelled member would like to reapply, he may wait six months and then do so. The expelled member then will be subject to the same 66.67% rule that applies to the general population.


ROLL CALL

Because certain activities of the Committee -- including Special Votes -- include minimum levels of voter participation, it may be necessary at some point to de-list inactive members. If voters feel this is necessary, they may post a Roll Call to the board.

If a Roll Call has been announced, the thread must stay open for at least one month, and it's the initiator's responsibility to make sure the thread remains active and visible.

After that time, members who do not respond may be removed from the Committee.


THE CONSTITUTION


CHANGES

The Constitution may be altered on voting Sunday by special vote, included on each poster's Rankings ballot. To bring a proposed amendment to vote, a member of the committee may post a Special Vote.

To pass, a proposed amendment must receive an 80% approval from members, with at least 50% participation.

[Lampley]

As you can see, I reposted the Constitution with a few wording changes, along with a change in the voting schedule. This way, we'll *start* voting on Sunday but keep it open through Tuesday. That method seemed to work much better this time.

[kg0208]

i know iam going to be very active, for now let me keep studying whats up in boxing eastside forum, i need enough palls out there.

Welcome

[JaRulez]

Guys, what do you think about these rankings ([Only registered and activated users can see links])?