That's why I tried to implement other titles like P4P and Iron Mike beyond just being #1-20.
Anyone have any concrete ideas on how a different system might work better? Should it be win percentage so that a 30 - 1 fighter should be above say a 90 - 5 figther? Should it be related to recent performance so that someone who is 50 - 10 but lost 8 in a row should be ranked lower than someone who's 45-15 but has won 12 in a row? I really am open to all suggestions on this.
The thing is since it's just me working the TTBO (Viper & other mods/admin don't update this forum), it would have to be something relatively constant and concrete, I'd like to stray away from anything that could go this way or that way you know? Updating and editing is enough work (as TC50 points out haha), I'd hate to have to *Censor* anyone off or deal with any controversy about who should be #1.
So do you other guys think that the current system is good enough for pointing out each fighter's skill (rankings on wins (ties going with the fighter with the least amount of losses) as well as personal titles such as P4P, IRON MIKE, BADDEST MAN ON THE PLANET, etc...)? Or do you guys have any ideas on how to govern the rankings better since we of course don't have a voting body or multiple organizations to choose who should be where?
FALCyou brought up an interesting topic, and I'm definately open to hearing what you guys have to say. This is for fun after all, so I'm not trying to be mister big shot and running it by myself I wouldn't do it if it came down to that, too much work!
Also keep in mind I can't promise any changes right away or at all even, but I never want to quit brainstorming on how to keep things fun and competative at the same time!
Blake you would have to be really ambitious to do it this way but I would suggest making the betting line relevent somehow. So people who pick the favorite everytime do not get the same points as someone who takes a heavy underdog. For instance The favorite is worth 1 point in the rankings, 5-1 or less is worth 2 points, and more than 5-1 is worth 3. Same thing for a loss. Picking a favorite who is 1-5 and loses is minus 3 points from your score, 1-5 or less is 2 points. This has nothing to do with wins and losses just overall rankings. Kind of like a boxrec ranking.
BlakeSchneider World Champion
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio
That would definately be neat to implement but at the moment that'd honestly be a bit of an overload for me haha
I do know that I like how we have records rather than points, keeps it boxing related and it's neat looking at your record like yeah I have xx knockouts! Maybe I'm just being a big kid but I like it.
Do you guys think that the individual titles are not enough (Pound For Pound Champ, Iron Mike Tyson, The Baddest Man On The Planet)?
A few ideas could be to add a couple more titles (that are relavant to actual boxing titles), or I could even maybe make a few rankings in addition to the most wins? I could have the rankings we have now, then maybe a separate column to show best win streak, current win ratio rankings, KO percentage rankings, ect? It'd be more work on my part but I'd consider it if you guys would enjoy seeing it added.
TTBO record: 201-68 ; 144 KOs TTBO rank: FORMER 4-time LINEAR CHAMPION
Current streak of title defenses is 0. Highest streak of title defenses is 2.
Extra titles: IRON MIKE
Posted:
Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:38 am
look blakey , leave it how it is, because why should a guy with less fights and less wins be above someone with more wins and more Knockouts , i know in boxing it wouldnt be like that , but this is a game remember, and people who take more chances should deserve to be above...... or everyone will start picking to carefully
The thing is you could run it as if it were us fighting and then it would have to go on recent form, the guys who only do the obvious fights are gonna have a better win ratio, a bit like Baldomir with his record but on recent form hes up there, or someone protected getting easy wins.
You would have to look at the odds for each fighter in each fight, the higher the odds the more the win means, it would mean alot more work for yourself Blake, checking the wins against the odds.
This is the best way of running it I think but obviously a head ache for yourself.
It does bug me a little that I take a chance on picking fighters that I think are genuinly gonna win by looking at their form, how active theyve been how much theyve weighed in recent fights compared to the up coming fight, their style and height, have they been dropped or stopped, it all counts when picking. Then you have the ocasional participant who picks the betting favourite and low and behold they have a good record.
I do enjoy the contest but the only real fair way is to take in to acount the odds for each fighter
TTBO record: 263-89 ; 176 KOs TTBO rank: FORMER 5-time LINEAR CHAMPION
Current streak of title defenses is 0. Highest streak of title defenses is 4.
Extra titles: THE BADDEST MAN ON THE PLANET
Posted:
Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:44 pm
BlakeSchneider wrote:
Yeah you bring up a good point, man.
That's why I tried to implement other titles like P4P and Iron Mike beyond just being #1-20.
Anyone have any concrete ideas on how a different system might work better? Should it be win percentage so that a 30 - 1 fighter should be above say a 90 - 5 figther? Should it be related to recent performance so that someone who is 50 - 10 but lost 8 in a row should be ranked lower than someone who's 45-15 but has won 12 in a row? I really am open to all suggestions on this.
The thing is since it's just me working the TTBO (Viper & other mods/admin don't update this forum), it would have to be something relatively constant and concrete, I'd like to stray away from anything that could go this way or that way you know? Updating and editing is enough work (as TC50 points out haha), I'd hate to have to *Censor* anyone off or deal with any controversy about who should be #1.
So do you other guys think that the current system is good enough for pointing out each fighter's skill (rankings on wins (ties going with the fighter with the least amount of losses) as well as personal titles such as P4P, IRON MIKE, BADDEST MAN ON THE PLANET, etc...)? Or do you guys have any ideas on how to govern the rankings better since we of course don't have a voting body or multiple organizations to choose who should be where?
FALCyou brought up an interesting topic, and I'm definately open to hearing what you guys have to say. This is for fun after all, so I'm not trying to be mister big shot and running it by myself I wouldn't do it if it came down to that, too much work!
Also keep in mind I can't promise any changes right away or at all even, but I never want to quit brainstorming on how to keep things fun and competative at the same time!
Blake
You are doing a great job!!
I'm very competitive and like to win everything and am temted to go for the less tricky picks each week to try and keep the win ratio high but this is just for fun and its fun winning some of the fights I know bugger all about but am just reviewing form and articles etc.
The only thing that would be a good addition in my opinion is perhaps ratings based on % which you have eluded to already. The more fights you are involved in will obviously lead to more defeats but would strengthen your overall ratio. This would be a fair way of doing it.
Either way, not overly bothered, just happy to join in and acknowledge it must be a pain in the a$$ for you at times.
No offense my man, and I really do resepect everyone on this board...but your record at 37-14 is a good example.
In real boxing...guys who do build up their record against average compition (in this TTBO case, picking easier fights) and were 28-1 would be ranked above a game contender who has fought all the top guys, but come out on the losing end frequintley. (lets say had a record of 23-14 but lost to 4 or 5 topr guys)
In my opinion...Blake is the commisioner of this league. He sees who is betting what fights, and if he wants to reward someone for tuff compitetion and risky fights...he can. But we all know on this board the pound for pound #1 guy should be at least at #2 or #3. Blake wants to put him there in his heart too...I know it.
I say the ranking are determined by the commish...just like they are in real boxing. it's not like there is money at stake here and people are gonna be paying bribes and *Censor*. I would say we all should be fairly confident by now that he would be fair in his position.
and I really hate when people fight on Forums, so i really do mean no offesnse on this man or to call you out. You still have picked 12 more correct fight then I have...i just think rankings should be reviewed more objectively my brothers!
FALCyou wrote:
Tysoncrazy-
No offense my man, and I really do resepect everyone on this board...but your record at 37-14 is a good example.
In real boxing...guys who do build up their record against average compition (in this TTBO case, picking easier fights) and were 28-1 would be ranked above a game contender who has fought all the top guys, but come out on the losing end frequintley. (lets say had a record of 23-14 but lost to 4 or 5 topr guys)
In my opinion...Blake is the commisioner of this league. He sees who is betting what fights, and if he wants to reward someone for tuff compitetion and risky fights...he can. But we all know on this board the pound for pound #1 guy should be at least at #2 or #3. Blake wants to put him there in his heart too...I know it.
I say the ranking are determined by the commish...just like they are in real boxing. it's not like there is money at stake here and people are gonna be paying bribes and *Censor*. I would say we all should be fairly confident by now that he would be fair in his position.
TTBO record: 201-68 ; 144 KOs TTBO rank: FORMER 4-time LINEAR CHAMPION
Current streak of title defenses is 0. Highest streak of title defenses is 2.
Extra titles: IRON MIKE
Posted:
Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:18 pm
well if that happened , i really believe not many people would pick in all the fights, because if Tysonfantic who is p4p champion , has been picking in all the more straight forward matches and gets to be number one on the list, while im probably getting the same wins as him but im picking in more fights including the toss up fights , why should i get less credit, im fine wiv tysonfantic being pound for pound champion but no way should he be on the top of the list , for example this week he picked something like ALI KO/TKO , AND KLITSCHKO KO/TKO, and kept it straight forward and easy while i picked those predictions and i predicted in the toss up fights , in which i ended up loosing in , but i dont feel overal in the week why mr fantic should get more value , for picking in the more straight foraward fights
we need a rule that if your gonna make a pic for a certain week then you must choose a winner from all the contests that blake lists not just the easy ones
BlakeSchneider World Champion
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio
These are all neat ideas guys, keep sharing what you think.
And Gibbo, regarding the points system, that's a really interesting system.
And to address TC50's concern (which I think is a good one), what if we designated bouts that must be chosen upon?
Say for instance this is the current week's schedule:
Holyfield vs. Rahman
Tua vs. Joe Nobody
Pacquiao vs. Morales
Peter vs. Vana White
Hopkins vs. Jones Jr.
...we could designate certain bouts that MUST be picked upon if you choose to fight that week? For instance, I would have the Holyfield-Rahman, Pacquiao-Morales, & the Hopkins-Jones Jr. fights all must-picks, while the Tua & Peter fights would be optional fights to pick if you choose to?
Do you guys think this could help the issue of the more selective fighters?
And TysonFanatic, please don't think that this is an attempt at handicapping you and only you, but we could also run into situations totally the opposite where we might get a guy who's 75-60 and a guy who's 50-0, where obviously the guy who's 50-0 should be ranked above Mr. 75-60.
So what is everyones opinion on a points system (win/loss differential) combined with 'must pick' fights each week?
Again keep in mind we're simply brainstorming right now, so nothing's guaranteed to change in the next few weeks, but we wouldn't have this thread if there weren't a possibility to change how the rankings are configured.
I'll definately be sleeping on this thought though, it sounds nice so far.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, The files are property of there respective owners, all the rest @ 2004 - 2008 by Tysontalk.com. (Not affilated with Mike Tyson)
Points:0
I wouldn't do it if it came down to that, too much work!
