MMAPlayground.com hall of fame

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » MMAPlayground.com hall of fame
mrsmiley
12/9/07 9:00:59PM
Well i brought this up in my PRIDE hall of fame thread,and figured I would bring it back to the spotlight because everyone thought it was a great idea.Much like we chose our top ten,why don't we make the mmaplayground hall of fame?Consisting of 10 fighters from any org.We tally the votes and post it?Could any of the mods make this happen?
cmill21
12/9/07 9:18:54PM
I'd like to see more then 10. I would like to see it done like all actual HOF's where there are ballots with like 10 people on the ballot that we all get PM'd and we all vote for 5 of them, and it keeps going like that.
ncordless
12/9/07 10:18:02PM
Interesting idea. Here are a couple of obstacles I see:

1. How do we make the Hall of Fame different than a Fan Favorite? Do we set some kind of standard as to how long the fighter has been fighting or retired? Can anybody vote, like an all-star game? Or do we set requirements for the voters? I suppose just using the system used for the rankings and giving the voting different weight might work. However, you could still see a bandwagon getting someone in by sheer numbers.

2. How are the fighters nominated? I myself would probably trust the mods on this one, but is that the best way?

I love the idea, though. MMA is going to get to the point soon where a MMA Hall of Fame without direct ties to any promoter or training school.
cmill21
12/9/07 11:06:42PM
I would make the standard 500 post for voters, simply because as you post you learn more and more, and 500 seems to be where most leave the casual and become legitimate fans of mma. I would trust the mods with the nominations. As for the bandwagoning, yeah thats a legitimate threat but I would hope people would not dismiss peoples accomplishments just because they didn't fight in the UFC or they didn't do well all the way through their career, remember Randy Couture has lost a fight before, it happens to everyone.
ncordless
12/9/07 11:22:35PM

Posted by cmill21

I would make the standard 500 post for voters, simply because as you post you learn more and more, and 500 seems to be where most leave the casual and become legitimate fans of mma. I would trust the mods with the nominations. As for the bandwagoning, yeah thats a legitimate threat but I would hope people would not dismiss peoples accomplishments just because they didn't fight in the UFC or they didn't do well all the way through their career, remember Randy Couture has lost a fight before, it happens to everyone.



I am not worried about people not liking someone because they lost. I'd say the bigger threat to integrity would be a fan club or something getting someone like Houston (not dogging him but there was a pretty rabid fanbase) in the HofF.

As far as making a post count requirement... won't that just hurt the quality of the forums as people post a ton of's to get the chance to vote in the Hall of Fame?
grappler0000
12/10/07 8:05:45AM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by cmill21

I would make the standard 500 post for voters, simply because as you post you learn more and more, and 500 seems to be where most leave the casual and become legitimate fans of mma. I would trust the mods with the nominations. As for the bandwagoning, yeah thats a legitimate threat but I would hope people would not dismiss peoples accomplishments just because they didn't fight in the UFC or they didn't do well all the way through their career, remember Randy Couture has lost a fight before, it happens to everyone.



I am not worried about people not liking someone because they lost. I'd say the bigger threat to integrity would be a fan club or something getting someone like Houston (not dogging him but there was a pretty rabid fanbase) in the HofF.

As far as making a post count requirement... won't that just hurt the quality of the forums as people post a ton of's to get the chance to vote in the Hall of Fame?



There could be multiple criteria....like maybe a minimum timeframe (i.e. member for at least 3 months), minimum posts (i.e. 500+ posts), minimum props (i.e. 30+ props), and a minimum number of fantasy picks (i.e. 40+ fight picks). It doesn't necessarily need to be those numbers or that exact criteria, but you get the picture. Maybe even a minimum fantasy pick percentage of 50% or higher to ensure someone has at least core knowledge of MMA. Thoughts?
DCRage
12/10/07 8:30:40AM
One suggestion I'd make for this-maybe make it the Top 5 in each Weight Class (Under 145, 145-160, 161-170, 171-185, 186-205, 206+) and a Top 10 pound-for-pound regardless of weight class. That way we can recognize guys who might otherwise get overlooked and keep one particular weight class from dominating the rankings.
grappler0000
12/10/07 8:35:50AM

Posted by DCRage

One suggestion I'd make for this-maybe make it the Top 5 in each Weight Class (Under 145, 145-160, 161-170, 171-185, 186-205, 206+) and a Top 10 pound-for-pound regardless of weight class. That way we can recognize guys who might otherwise get overlooked and keep one particular weight class from dominating the rankings.



I'm not sure weight classes would even come into play...we already have a ranking system.
Boo_Radley21
12/10/07 9:12:19AM
If it was a Hall of Fame would the fighters have to be retired like in the UFC HOF or no?
madmarck
12/10/07 9:48:55AM
I dont think a HOF can only include Retired fighters. Look at Ken and Royce they are still fighting, Severn too. Not to mention Couture is a beast. There is the UFC's hallf of fame in a nutshell.

For us if it was nto retired fighters wouldnt it just be a whole lot like our fan favourites? Sure there would be a few differences. I wouldnt put Chris Horodecki in my HOF but he is in my fan favourites. But then Couture could easily fit into both brackets.

MMAplayground already has something called a HOF HERE its for members who scored high in events and stuff. So you would probabaly have to get anohter name.

If this HOF you discuss would only include retired fighters...... what makes someone retired? Oleg and Randy both retired but have recently returned......... would that strike them from the HOF?
How should we judge the HOF entrants? Should it be based on accomplsihments? IE Couture winning 5 titiles? OR on just loving fighters like Tank Abbot?

Lot of Ifs and hmmm's to think about for this question. Biggest problem is that the sport is so young most people are still fighting. So they can just as easily still fit into the Fan Favourties. Your idea is kinda broad and needs to be narrowed in a bit.
fullerene
12/10/07 9:58:48AM
Might be a good idea to borrow from the boxing hall of fame format. They have categories for modern fighters, old-time fighters and pioneers (in this case these would be guys who were involved in martial arts, boxing and wrestling before there was sanctioned MMA).

As a possible example of how this would work:

Modern
- Fedor Emelianenko
- Chuck Liddell
- Randy Couture

Old-Timers
- Masa Funaki
- Royce Gracie
- Bas Rutten

Pioneers
- Bruce Lee
- Ed "Strangler" Lewis
- Masahiko Kimura
cmill21
12/10/07 4:28:41PM
Yes you could have different catagories. Like the NHL has a builders catagory, we could have the same. I don't think people should only be retired. It should be based on accomplishments, not who people like, so guys like Forrest(sorry) shoulden't be in until they win a belt or more then one big fight, while guys like tito should be in at some point.
grappler0000
12/10/07 4:50:10PM

Posted by cmill21

Yes you could have different catagories. Like the NHL has a builders catagory, we could have the same. I don't think people should only be retired. It should be based on accomplishments, not who people like, so guys like Forrest(sorry) shoulden't be in until they win a belt or more then one big fight, while guys like tito should be in at some point.



I agree. One should have either won a major title or tournament to be considered. And I know there may be a very small number of fighters that don't fit the bill but still deserve to be considered...there could be an exception if say 60 or 75% of the mods vote for it. Once considered, the voting process would be a totally different animal of coarse.

And if not retired, maybe the criteria could be that their first pro fight was at least 10 years ago.
hippysmacker
12/10/07 4:55:52PM
I think its a bad idea. While I like the tone of our forums better than any other, i think it would be wise to consider only a small portion of those who play the game post here. The only way I think it would be credible is if something like only the top 1000 at playing the game were allowed to vote. Not only would this be elitist, which i don't like, but it presents a whole new mess of problems. If you have a camp where one guy is really great at picking ,and the others in it listen to him, that would give small " elitist" groups opinions too much weight. So in the end I would say no.
zephead
12/10/07 5:22:03PM

Posted by hippysmacker

I think its a bad idea. While I like the tone of our forums better than any other, i think it would be wise to consider only a small portion of those who play the game post here. The only way I think it would be credible is if something like only the top 1000 at playing the game were allowed to vote. Not only would this be elitist, which i don't like, but it presents a whole new mess of problems. If you have a camp where one guy is really great at picking ,and the others in it listen to him, that would give small " elitist" groups opinions too much weight. So in the end I would say no.






We can't exclude anyone from voting. I understand the sentiment behind it, but excluding members of the site from voting isn't cool.

If we could come up with a small panel that we all agree on, (Like us Mods ) choose to 10 fighters to be voted on in the Ist round of votes, submit the list to the panel and they choose. Come up with the criteria for a fighter to be nominated and then go from there
cmill21
12/10/07 5:33:46PM

Posted by zephead


Posted by hippysmacker

I think its a bad idea. While I like the tone of our forums better than any other, i think it would be wise to consider only a small portion of those who play the game post here. The only way I think it would be credible is if something like only the top 1000 at playing the game were allowed to vote. Not only would this be elitist, which i don't like, but it presents a whole new mess of problems. If you have a camp where one guy is really great at picking ,and the others in it listen to him, that would give small " elitist" groups opinions too much weight. So in the end I would say no.






We can't exclude anyone from voting. I understand the sentiment behind it, but excluding members of the site from voting isn't cool.

If we could come up with a small panel that we all agree on, (Like us Mods ) choose to 10 fighters to be voted on in the Ist round of votes, submit the list to the panel and they choose. Come up with the criteria for a fighter to be nominated and then go from there



I would be willing to entrust it to you guys.
zephead
12/10/07 5:39:42PM

Posted by cmill21


Posted by zephead


Posted by hippysmacker

I think its a bad idea. While I like the tone of our forums better than any other, i think it would be wise to consider only a small portion of those who play the game post here. The only way I think it would be credible is if something like only the top 1000 at playing the game were allowed to vote. Not only would this be elitist, which i don't like, but it presents a whole new mess of problems. If you have a camp where one guy is really great at picking ,and the others in it listen to him, that would give small " elitist" groups opinions too much weight. So in the end I would say no.






We can't exclude anyone from voting. I understand the sentiment behind it, but excluding members of the site from voting isn't cool.

If we could come up with a small panel that we all agree on, (Like us Mods ) choose to 10 fighters to be voted on in the Ist round of votes, submit the list to the panel and they choose. Come up with the criteria for a fighter to be nominated and then go from there



I would be willing to entrust it to you guys.




We need to come up with the criteria for a fighter to be voted in. How many fighters on each ballot get voted in? How many ballots do we do?

I understand the points about not allowing people to vote in James Thompson or Houston Alexander. So if we come up with the right criteria, they can't be voted in. Do we vote in managers, promoters and refs? What about broadcasters?
Pitbull09
12/10/07 6:26:58PM
I say each year we get to vote one person in, that way it wont get overstacked and you know for sure that the person is worthy of the HoF. Great idea though
Lay_N_Pray
12/10/07 6:36:47PM
Well since this is just a website...it isnt the biggest deal in the world for a HOF, so if the system isnt perfect, of well.

It would be very different than Fighter Rankings, mainly because I can honestly say I forget to do it. I wouldnt have to update the HOF every week, so it would be a one shot deal.

The system would be tricky to work out. A post minimum is a good idea, but people may start to spam just to get to the minimum. Here is my idea.

Open voting for one week: During that week, create a HOF board, where every member can go on and discuss the fighter they most want in the HOF. Through talks over a specific board for a full week, people will learn more about each fighter and make a better decision.

After voting is done tally the votes and announce the winner as the pending entrant into the HOF. Over the weekend, the mods will discuss the selection and they can choose to accept it there, or open voting for one more day to see if the result changes.

Obviously a few deserve to be in right off the bat, so we would have to do this process maybe once a month, until it gets to the point where its twice a year or even once a year.

I think that is the best way to do it though. Everyone gets one vote they can cast throughout one week. Then the MODS discuss, it they like it they confirm it, if they dont, they open voting for one more day. That way it could change, or the people could overrule and keep the selection in.

I just think MODS like hippysmacker and cornish and RCG and Cmill have proven they can be rational and would make sound decisions with the peoples vote.
cmill21
12/10/07 7:24:16PM
Criteria: Have won a title(including tournaments), good ambassador(positive steroid tests should leave them off ballots, as well as arrests ect.) Record(should have a good record) and I would also like to see excitement of fighting style as part of the criteria. This is just an idea and is open to changes and suggestions from anyone.

Who's elligable: I think everyone should be elligable, Dana white, Big John, maybe not agents but I think promoters, refs, fighters, and commentators should be elligable. I think the easiest way to do that is by having different catagories.

Ballots: I think there should be ballots of 5 fighters every month, with each person have 3 votes. a ballot of 2 promoters with everyone having 1 vote, and a ref ballot with 2-3 refs with one vote per person.

I think with these criteria's it will make it an actual prestigious thing and not just a fan favorite club with everyone who's good in it. Also if the mods don't feel like coming up with all these nominee's then we could open a HOF nominee thread and have it so the first 5 people with 10 nominations are put on the ballot(I would prefer the mods to do the nominating though)
zephead
12/10/07 8:43:55PM

Posted by cmill21

Criteria: Have won a title(including tournaments), good ambassador(positive steroid tests should leave them off ballots, as well as arrests ect.) Record(should have a good record) and I would also like to see excitement of fighting style as part of the criteria. This is just an idea and is open to changes and suggestions from anyone.

Who's elligable: I think everyone should be elligable, Dana white, Big John, maybe not agents but I think promoters, refs, fighters, and commentators should be elligable. I think the easiest way to do that is by having different catagories.

Ballots: I think there should be ballots of 5 fighters every month, with each person have 3 votes. a ballot of 2 promoters with everyone having 1 vote, and a ref ballot with 2-3 refs with one vote per person.

I think with these criteria's it will make it an actual prestigious thing and not just a fan favorite club with everyone who's good in it. Also if the mods don't feel like coming up with all these nominee's then we could open a HOF nominee thread and have it so the first 5 people with 10 nominations are put on the ballot(I would prefer the mods to do the nominating though)



Sounds good. I like your "nominee thread" idea. Give everyone a chance on the boards to vote and then send it to a committe (The MOds I guess) to actually put the fighters in our HOF
Manfred
12/10/07 8:47:14PM

Posted by cmill21

Criteria: Have won a title(including tournaments), good ambassador(positive steroid tests should leave them off ballots, as well as arrests ect.) Record(should have a good record) and I would also like to see excitement of fighting style as part of the criteria. This is just an idea and is open to changes and suggestions from anyone.



I don't agree with all of these:

Titles: One word: Saku

Ambassador: Royce still belongs IMO despite his recent disgrace and PRIDEs testing policy was a joke so they get an easier path? Doesn't seem fair.

I would like to add one more criteria. Since there aren't any true retirees yet. (The only one I can think of that's worth it is Bas) I would suggest a minimum of 10 years in the game and/or be fully retired.

I think we should start with all 4 of the UFC HOFers. They get in ours automatically. Then build from there.
ncordless
12/10/07 9:55:35PM

Posted by zephead


Posted by cmill21


Posted by zephead


Posted by hippysmacker

I think its a bad idea. While I like the tone of our forums better than any other, i think it would be wise to consider only a small portion of those who play the game post here. The only way I think it would be credible is if something like only the top 1000 at playing the game were allowed to vote. Not only would this be elitist, which i don't like, but it presents a whole new mess of problems. If you have a camp where one guy is really great at picking ,and the others in it listen to him, that would give small " elitist" groups opinions too much weight. So in the end I would say no.






We can't exclude anyone from voting. I understand the sentiment behind it, but excluding members of the site from voting isn't cool.

If we could come up with a small panel that we all agree on, (Like us Mods ) choose to 10 fighters to be voted on in the Ist round of votes, submit the list to the panel and they choose. Come up with the criteria for a fighter to be nominated and then go from there



I would be willing to entrust it to you guys.




We need to come up with the criteria for a fighter to be voted in. How many fighters on each ballot get voted in? How many ballots do we do?

I understand the points about not allowing people to vote in James Thompson or Houston Alexander. So if we come up with the right criteria, they can't be voted in. Do we vote in managers, promoters and refs? What about broadcasters?



As far as the "how many votes" question. I think if it is to mean anything you're going to need a huge majority to get in. If the mods came up with a nomination list, and everyone got 3 votes. Make the benchmark something really high like 80-90%. If 80% of playgrounders made a fighter one of their three votes, they're in. I know this is kind of backwards from the direction you were going zep, but I think you need a smaller panel for the nominations and a more democratic, larger final vote with a supermajority requirement.
cmill21
12/10/07 11:03:23PM
There are going to be a ton of variables and as for the criteria they should not be "you have to meet all of these", because not everyone will. Just things to consider when putting forth nominations.
hodge
9/13/08 5:44:40AM
I see a problem we need some way of stopping casual fans not voting for real mma legends. For example alot of people havnt heard of fighters like Sakuraba due to him not fighting in the US
Related Topics