Mock Ranking System

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Mock Ranking System
Next Page »
richieb19
1/9/08 8:29:16PM
As some of you know, after years of frustration over sites and people who try and pass off their "top ranked" fighters as some sort of official source I decided to do something, so I've been working towards an forumla to determine rank without bias. I put all PRIDE fighters from all events on an excel list and was planning to rank them all, however it's taking longer than I thought... and could lead to a huge failure anyways... so instead (for now) I'll just post the formula and how the entire system works with a few examples. It's important to note that this most likely would not work right now as an official source since the sport still isn't fully unified, and differences in weight and rules would make it difficult if not impossible. Anyways enjoy!

The ranking system I propose is based on points. Every fighter begins his career with 1 point, and can never go lower than such. Here is the formula to determine how many points are gained/lost after a fight:

a=b[(c/d+c)/10]

a = total points gained/lost
b = manner of victory (1.0 for KO/SUB, 0.85 for TKO/TSUB/DQ/FFT, 0.7 for UD, 0.5 for MD/TUD, 0.3 for SD/TMD, 0.1 for TSD)
c = loser points
d = winner points

There are also additional points granted for title and tournament wins, I haven't really scratched the surface on this yet due to vast differences in the quality of MMA organizations (they would have to be placed in tiers).

So here's some exampls for you folks (the amount of points each fighter holds is arbitrary):

Rameau Thierry Sokoudjou (8pts) def Antonio Rogerio Nogueira (40pts) via KO

a=b[(c/d+c)/10]
a=1.0{[(40/8)+(40)]/10}
a=1.0[(5+40)/10]
a=4.5pts

Rameau Thierry Sokoudjou (12.5pts), Antonio Rogerio Nogueira (34.5pts)

------

Rameau Thierry Sokoudjou (12.5pts) def Ricardo Arona (57pts) via KO

a=b[(c+d)/10]
a=1.0{[(57/12.5)+(57)]/10}
a=1.0[(4.56+57)/10]
a=6.156pts

Rameau Thierry Sokoudjou (18.656), Ricardo Arona (50.844pts)

-----

Fedor Emelianenko (93pts) def Zuluzhino (5pts) via KO

a=b[(c+d)/10]
a=1.0{[(5/93)+(5)]/10}
a=1.0[(0.054+5)/10]
a=0.505pts

Fedor Emelianenko (93.505pts), Zuluzhino (4.495pts)

-----

Chuck Liddell (96 pts) def Wanderlei Silva (98pts) via UD

a=b[(c+d)10]
a=0.6{[(98/96)+(98)]/10}
a=0.6[(1.021+98)/10]
a=5.941pts

Chuck Liddell (101.941pts), Wanderlei Silva (92.059pts)
tuvok500
1/9/08 8:52:15PM
i understand what you are trying to do, i am sure it took you a lot of time !!

but i am preatty sure that with your formula, the top 5 fighters in the ranking would be Dan Severn who is still fighting but nowhere close to the top level,

Jeremy Horn, with is 79 victory he will be very hight but we all know that he is not a real treath to any UFC belts.

ravis fulton is like 182-49, i don't know the guy, i am sure he is not even close to the caliber of the top 10 UFC or even WEC but anyways

etc.. etc..

i think to have to real actual level of competetiveness of a fighter, you should try to give them 10% of the score to their overall record before their last 3 fights and 90% of the score to their last 3 fights, that ways, the ranking would be very close to their actual level as a fighter without completely removing what they did before.

with your formula, GSP would have kept the belt even if he lost the fight to Serra.
and Serra ( the champ ) would have been ranked not higher than the 10 spot max .

but good work anyways man , impressive !!



richieb19
1/9/08 9:09:12PM

Posted by tuvok500

i understand what you are trying to do, i am sure it took you a lot of time !!

but i am preatty sure that with your formula, the top 5 fighters in the ranking would be Dan Severn who is still fighting but nowhere close to the top level,

Jeremy Horn, with is 79 victory he will be very hight but we all know that he is not a real treath to any UFC belts.

ravis fulton is like 182-49, i don't know the guy, i am sure he is not even close to the caliber of the top 10 UFC or even WEC but anyways

etc.. etc..

i think to have to real actual level of competetiveness of a fighter, you should try to give them 10% of the score to their overall record before their last 3 fights and 90% of the score to their last 3 fights, that ways, the ranking would be very close to their actual level as a fighter without completely removing what they did before.

with your formula, GSP would have kept the belt even if he lost the fight to Serra.
and Serra ( the champ ) would have been ranked not higher than the 10 spot max .

but good work anyways man , impressive !!


No, Severn, Fulton and Horn would not be on the top, because the points given based upon the competition... They would be gaining like 0.001 points per fight. Also there are points lossed aswell, and Fulton's ratio is around 3:1 or so... and as far as Serra goes, even with the belt it's obvious that he isn't the top of the food chain... Shogun was "ranked" higher than Silva when he had the belt...

It isn't to determine who would beat who, it's only a measure of ones accomplishment in the sport.


tuvok500
1/9/08 9:16:32PM
ah ok, it is like a overall ranking of all time, not really to determine who is the real next number 1 contender in each class for 2008 !!

richieb19
1/9/08 9:19:33PM

Posted by tuvok500

ah ok, it is like a overall ranking of all time, not really to determine who is the next number 1 contender in each class !!


No, it is to determine #1 per class. Retired fighters are obviously not counted, and as time goes on, the points will get higher, so the fighters of yesterday will almost certainly not be near the top. However as I said, number 1 doesn't mean you'll win, it just means you've proven your worth in MMA. There's a reason I used Sokoudjou in 2 examples. Even after 2 huge wins, he should'nt be top 10, however as a fan it's important to note that it could easily reoccur, and that he will soon be at the top if he continues.
tuvok500
1/9/08 9:52:12PM

Posted by richieb19


Posted by tuvok500

ah ok, it is like a overall ranking of all time, not really to determine who is the next number 1 contender in each class !!


No, it is to determine #1 per class. Retired fighters are obviously not counted, and as time goes on, the points will get higher, so the fighters of yesterday will almost certainly not be near the top. However as I said, number 1 doesn't mean you'll win, it just means you've proven your worth in MMA. There's a reason I used Sokoudjou in 2 examples. Even after 2 huge wins, he should'nt be top 10, however as a fan it's important to note that it could easily reoccur, and that he will soon be at the top if he continues.



Well, as you probably know i rank the guys according to their last fights, same as the real ranking of the organization like the UFC, because let's say that the 10th in the LHW fight the 3th in the ranking and he win, with your formula the guy in 10th will go up but probably not higher that the guy he just beated, wich is a non sence because he have beated him in a real fight, it is not a 4 of 7 or a 16 fights schedule and the guy with the best overall win / lose % is on top at the end.

it is the guy who in the present have beated the champ who is now on top, sometime you have the real best guy of the division but sometimes you have a guy who would normally be #5 but because in a fight each fighters are fighting for the same reward, you can have a guy moving up faster than normal but it is just a greatest performance by him, or a lucky day but the result is the same, he beated the other guy, so he is now ahead of him in the ranking !!

cmill21
1/9/08 10:04:48PM
I like it Richie. Good luck convincing some people that it shoulden't be a 'you win one fight you are better then everyone he's beaten' way of doing things. I don't care how people rank people but I don't agree with anyone who gives someone like Serra the #1 spot simply because he has one win in his entire career.
richieb19
1/9/08 10:05:14PM

Posted by tuvok500

Well, as you probably know i rank the guys according to their last fights, same as the real ranking of the organization like the UFC, because let's say that the 10th in the LHW fight the 3th in the ranking and he win, with your formula the guy in 10th will go up but probably not higher that the guy he just beated, wich is a non sence because he have beated him in a real fight, it is not a 4 of 7 or a 16 fights schedule and the guy with the best overall win / lose % is on top at the end.

it is the guy who in the present have beated the champ who is now on top, sometime you have the real best guy of the division but sometimes you have a guy who would normally be #5 but because in a fight each fighters are fighting for the same reward, you can have a guy moving up faster than normal but it is just a greatest performance by him, or a lucky day but the result is the same, he beated the other guy, so he is now ahead of him in the ranking !!


No, the 10th place guy will most likely not surpass the 3rd place guy, but it would be swicthed around a bit most likely, as it should be. Putting people above someone else because of one win is ridiculous, most sites put stock in GG and Kongo and had them ranked high due to their wins over CroCop, but realistically what else have they done? Name me one other sport where if you beat someone you basically take his spot? I don't know if you follow Tennis at all, but Roger Federer is hands down the best player by leaps and bounds, but he does lose the occasional match... this doesn't mean he drops down, or that the winner suddenly becomes a top player because otherwise who has he beat, and also how often does Federer lose, and look who he beats consistantly...

Everybody has different views on rankings, and that's fine... it's why I came up with this. Even if this made it big and the rankings aren't what you felt they should be, it shouldn't stop you from betting on someone with a lower seed or being a fan of someone like Sokoudjou...

As far as the champ thing goes, it's another reason as to why I made this... to avoid silly matchups. I did say their would be bonus points for title and tournament wins, so Serra would have definately scored huge on his win over GSP, however GSP would most certainly still have more points. It's just the way it is, even if you feel comfortable ranking Serra higher, it doesn't change the fact that GSP has a better record, has beaten more and better opponents and is just basically a better fighter.
tuvok500
1/9/08 10:24:36PM

Posted by richieb19


Posted by tuvok500

Well, as you probably know i rank the guys according to their last fights, same as the real ranking of the organization like the UFC, because let's say that the 10th in the LHW fight the 3th in the ranking and he win, with your formula the guy in 10th will go up but probably not higher that the guy he just beated, wich is a non sence because he have beated him in a real fight, it is not a 4 of 7 or a 16 fights schedule and the guy with the best overall win / lose % is on top at the end.

it is the guy who in the present have beated the champ who is now on top, sometime you have the real best guy of the division but sometimes you have a guy who would normally be #5 but because in a fight each fighters are fighting for the same reward, you can have a guy moving up faster than normal but it is just a greatest performance by him, or a lucky day but the result is the same, he beated the other guy, so he is now ahead of him in the ranking !!


No, the 10th place guy will most likely not surpass the 3rd place guy, but it would be swicthed around a bit most likely, as it should be. Putting people above someone else because of one win is ridiculous, most sites put stock in GG and Kongo and had them ranked high due to their wins over CroCop, but realistically what else have they done? Name me one other sport where if you beat someone you basically take his spot? I don't know if you follow Tennis at all, but Roger Federer is hands down the best player by leaps and bounds, but he does lose the occasional match... this doesn't mean he drops down, or that the winner suddenly becomes a top player because otherwise who has he beat, and also how often does Federer lose, and look who he beats consistantly...

Everybody has different views on rankings, and that's fine... it's why I came up with this. Even if this made it big and the rankings aren't what you felt they should be, it shouldn't stop you from betting on someone with a lower seed or being a fan of someone like Sokoudjou...

As far as the champ thing goes, it's another reason as to why I made this... to avoid silly matchups. I did say their would be bonus points for title and tournament wins, so Serra would have definately scored huge on his win over GSP, however GSP would most certainly still have more points. It's just the way it is, even if you feel comfortable ranking Serra higher, it doesn't change the fact that GSP has a better record, has beaten more and better opponents and is just basically a better fighter.



Well in every fighting sport the guy with the belt is the guy on top.
you will never see in boxing WBA, the champ ranked # 4 because well he did beat the former champ but in fact the former champ was having more win overall and he did not really lose so he is still rank on top .
in reality, the champ is the guy to beat , he is on top and every fighters are trying to get there , but to be on top you have to be the champ it is normal.

in tennis man, they're picking ramdomly who will play against who for rd 1 and after that the winner go on and the loser go home, so if you beat federer but it is a huge upset, you will be the one who will continue to play and federer no matter if he is higher that you will go home untill the next tournament.

there is no possible comparaison between tennis and MMA because it is only at the end of the season that the champ is elected in tennis , before that there are no champ there are only a ranking of guy with points who are trying to be on top at a specific moment, the end of the season, same for the car's race etc..

in a fighting sport, the champ is elected as soon as he beat the former champ it is not the guy with the most point at the end of the season who is elected champ for the year to come !!




richieb19
1/9/08 10:30:12PM

Posted by tuvok500


Posted by richieb19


Posted by tuvok500

Well, as you probably know i rank the guys according to their last fights, same as the real ranking of the organization like the UFC, because let's say that the 10th in the LHW fight the 3th in the ranking and he win, with your formula the guy in 10th will go up but probably not higher that the guy he just beated, wich is a non sence because he have beated him in a real fight, it is not a 4 of 7 or a 16 fights schedule and the guy with the best overall win / lose % is on top at the end.

it is the guy who in the present have beated the champ who is now on top, sometime you have the real best guy of the division but sometimes you have a guy who would normally be #5 but because in a fight each fighters are fighting for the same reward, you can have a guy moving up faster than normal but it is just a greatest performance by him, or a lucky day but the result is the same, he beated the other guy, so he is now ahead of him in the ranking !!


No, the 10th place guy will most likely not surpass the 3rd place guy, but it would be swicthed around a bit most likely, as it should be. Putting people above someone else because of one win is ridiculous, most sites put stock in GG and Kongo and had them ranked high due to their wins over CroCop, but realistically what else have they done? Name me one other sport where if you beat someone you basically take his spot? I don't know if you follow Tennis at all, but Roger Federer is hands down the best player by leaps and bounds, but he does lose the occasional match... this doesn't mean he drops down, or that the winner suddenly becomes a top player because otherwise who has he beat, and also how often does Federer lose, and look who he beats consistantly...

Everybody has different views on rankings, and that's fine... it's why I came up with this. Even if this made it big and the rankings aren't what you felt they should be, it shouldn't stop you from betting on someone with a lower seed or being a fan of someone like Sokoudjou...

As far as the champ thing goes, it's another reason as to why I made this... to avoid silly matchups. I did say their would be bonus points for title and tournament wins, so Serra would have definately scored huge on his win over GSP, however GSP would most certainly still have more points. It's just the way it is, even if you feel comfortable ranking Serra higher, it doesn't change the fact that GSP has a better record, has beaten more and better opponents and is just basically a better fighter.



Well in every fighting sport the guy with the belt is the guy on top.
you will never see in boxing WBA, the champ ranked # 4 because well he did beat the former champ but in fact the former champ was having more win overall and he did not really lose so he is still rank on top .
in reality, the champ is the guy to beat , he is on top and every fighters are trying to get there , but to be on top you have to be the champ it is normal.

in tennis man, they're picking ramdomly who will play against who for rd 1 and after that the winner go on and the loser go home, so if you beat federer but it is a huge upset, you will be the one who will continue to play and federer no matter if he is higher that you will go home untill the next tournament.

there is no possible comparaison between tennis and MMA because it is only at the end of the season that the champ is elected in tennis , before that there are no champ there are only a ranking of guy with points who are trying to be on top at a specific moment, the end of the season, same for the car's race etc..

in a fighting sport, the champ is elected as soon as he beat the former champ it is not the guy with the most point at the end of the season who is elected champ for the year to come !!



Tennis was just a measure of ranking, nothing more. As for boxing, there are 4 major orgs, so even if you are the champ you're probably not #1... Same with MMA, why should UFC champ mean "the champ"? The whole reason behind this like I said isn't to say who would win, but who is better overall... Even with a difference of about 20 points or so, the underdog would probably move ahead in a title fight, unfortunately Serra was way.... way.... way behind...

Also, it's funny to see how you are so adament about having Serra over GSP, however the feeling is not shared by everyone. Yet another reason to have a mathematical non-biased system to rank seeds.
tuvok500
1/9/08 10:47:12PM

Posted by richieb19


Posted by tuvok500


Posted by richieb19


Posted by tuvok500

Well, as you probably know i rank the guys according to their last fights, same as the real ranking of the organization like the UFC, because let's say that the 10th in the LHW fight the 3th in the ranking and he win, with your formula the guy in 10th will go up but probably not higher that the guy he just beated, wich is a non sence because he have beated him in a real fight, it is not a 4 of 7 or a 16 fights schedule and the guy with the best overall win / lose % is on top at the end.

it is the guy who in the present have beated the champ who is now on top, sometime you have the real best guy of the division but sometimes you have a guy who would normally be #5 but because in a fight each fighters are fighting for the same reward, you can have a guy moving up faster than normal but it is just a greatest performance by him, or a lucky day but the result is the same, he beated the other guy, so he is now ahead of him in the ranking !!


No, the 10th place guy will most likely not surpass the 3rd place guy, but it would be swicthed around a bit most likely, as it should be. Putting people above someone else because of one win is ridiculous, most sites put stock in GG and Kongo and had them ranked high due to their wins over CroCop, but realistically what else have they done? Name me one other sport where if you beat someone you basically take his spot? I don't know if you follow Tennis at all, but Roger Federer is hands down the best player by leaps and bounds, but he does lose the occasional match... this doesn't mean he drops down, or that the winner suddenly becomes a top player because otherwise who has he beat, and also how often does Federer lose, and look who he beats consistantly...

Everybody has different views on rankings, and that's fine... it's why I came up with this. Even if this made it big and the rankings aren't what you felt they should be, it shouldn't stop you from betting on someone with a lower seed or being a fan of someone like Sokoudjou...

As far as the champ thing goes, it's another reason as to why I made this... to avoid silly matchups. I did say their would be bonus points for title and tournament wins, so Serra would have definately scored huge on his win over GSP, however GSP would most certainly still have more points. It's just the way it is, even if you feel comfortable ranking Serra higher, it doesn't change the fact that GSP has a better record, has beaten more and better opponents and is just basically a better fighter.



Well in every fighting sport the guy with the belt is the guy on top.
you will never see in boxing WBA, the champ ranked # 4 because well he did beat the former champ but in fact the former champ was having more win overall and he did not really lose so he is still rank on top .
in reality, the champ is the guy to beat , he is on top and every fighters are trying to get there , but to be on top you have to be the champ it is normal.

in tennis man, they're picking ramdomly who will play against who for rd 1 and after that the winner go on and the loser go home, so if you beat federer but it is a huge upset, you will be the one who will continue to play and federer no matter if he is higher that you will go home untill the next tournament.

there is no possible comparaison between tennis and MMA because it is only at the end of the season that the champ is elected in tennis , before that there are no champ there are only a ranking of guy with points who are trying to be on top at a specific moment, the end of the season, same for the car's race etc..

in a fighting sport, the champ is elected as soon as he beat the former champ it is not the guy with the most point at the end of the season who is elected champ for the year to come !!



Tennis was just a measure of ranking, nothing more. As for boxing, there are 4 major orgs, so even if you are the champ you're probably not #1... Same with MMA, why should UFC champ mean "the champ"? The whole reason behind this like I said isn't to say who would win, but who is better overall... Even with a difference of about 20 points or so, the underdog would probably move ahead in a title fight, unfortunately Serra was way.... way.... way behind...

Also, it's funny to see how you are so adament about having Serra over GSP, however the feeling is not shared by everyone. Yet another reason to have a mathematical non-biased system to rank seeds.



Man, i HATE Serra , i hate everything about that guy, and GSP is my favorite fighter by FAR over any other fighter, but like GSP himselt told us after destroying Hughes, " it is Serra the real champ and i will not consider myself # 1 or champ before i have beated him " !! lol
it is normal that in a fight, if you lose to a guy, the guy beated you so he is better at that moment in the present, nothing to do with you previous 30 wins in your carreer.

as for when you have many champs with different organization, the champ of the tuffest organization should be on top and after that you go down but in no way a guy who is fighting in the same organization of the #1 champ can be above him, non sence, it would be like saying that the champ of the UFC is not the champ and infact it is the # 2 guy who is the champ.

i understand that sometime the circonstance can be strange and the best guy lose for different reason but a lost is a lost and at the end the loser lost is belt and the #1 spot who come with it.

that discussion was made over and over again and nothinfg have really change.

but if you really want to not be biased, you should accept that sometime it is not the guy with the best overall record who is on top but the guy who was the best at their championship fight.

if everything is ok when GSP is the champ and # 1 in the ranking, everything should be also ok when a guy beat him and take his belt and his place on top.

the ranking will always rank the best guy on top but you have to look at it on a long scale of time, not week by week or month ny month, you have some fluctuation who are sometime painfull like Serra on top but the ranking will stabilize himself when GSP will have his shot at the title but before that the SERRA FLUCTUATION is real !!

lol
Pookie
1/9/08 10:48:09PM
I like it but its completely confusing to me lol.

one question:
how would machidas wins over bj penn and rich franklin rank. Becuase both were fighting at different weight classes then where they were/are top of the food chain.

richieb19
1/9/08 10:51:54PM

Posted by tuvok500

Man, i HATE Serra , i hate everything about that guy, and GSP is my favorite fighter by FAR over any other fighter, but like GSP himselt told us after destroying Hughes, " it is Serra the real champ and i will not consider myself # 1 or champ before i have beated him " !! lol
it is normal that in a fight, if you lose to a guy, the guy beated you so he is better at that moment in the present, nothing to do with you previous 30 wins in your carreer.

as for when you have many champs with different organization, the champ of the tuffest organization should be on top and after that you go down but in no way a guy who is fighting in the same organization of the #1 champ can be above him, non sence, it would be like saying that the champ of the UFC is not the champ and infact it is the # 2 guy who is the champ.

i understand that sometime the circonstance can be strange and the best guy lose for different reason but a lost is a lost and at the end the loser lost is belt and the #1 spot who come with it.

that discussion was made over and over again and nothinfg have really change.

but if you really want to not be biased, you should accept that sometime it is not the guy with the best overall record who is on top but the guy who was the best at their championship fight.

if everything is ok when GSP is the champ and # 1 in the ranking, everything should be also ok when a guy beat him and take his belt and his place on top.

the ranking will always rank the best guy on top but you have to look at it on a long scale of time, not week by week or month ny month, you have some fluctuation who are sometime painfull like Serra on top but the ranking will stabilizehimself with when GSP will have his shot but before that the SERRA FLUCTUATION is real !!

lol



So do you rank Serra higher than Carlos Condit in MMA? I mean Condit is the champ so he's gotta be on top right?

The way you're looking at it is that the UFC is the be all end all of MMA, and that their champions are #1. This is non-sense.
richieb19
1/9/08 10:57:11PM

Posted by Pookie

I like it but its completely confusing to me lol.

one question:
how would machidas wins over bj penn and rich franklin rank. Becuase both were fighting at different weight classes then where they were/are top of the food chain.


Thanks for asking, I forgoy to mention that. MMA would have to be unified to that weight classes are the same in every org. my suggestion is as follows:

Monsterweight: 245+
Heavyweight: 200-245
Cruiserweight: 185-200
Middleweight" 170-185
Welterweoght: 155-170
Lightweight: 145-155
Featherweight: 135-145
Bantomweight: 125-135
Flyweight: -125

Anyways... The ranking you hold in your respective weightclass is worth half in the next up or down, and a quarter if you go down or up 2...etc... catch weights would be ranked into the weightclass in which the most lbs are held with (say the catchweight is like 175, thats middleweight...) open weight adds points to all weight classes equally... or half... havent decided lol
Copenhagen
1/9/08 11:05:14PM
Sherdog has something similar to this.
They call it power ratings, and it's almost identical to what your trying to do here.

Link
Pookie
1/9/08 11:06:44PM
Ok makes sense,

but i have a challenge for your system!

Who should be #1 LW in the world according to it.


cmill21
1/9/08 11:09:54PM
Matt Serra: GSP:
W-GSP W-Matt Hughes
W-Chris Lytle W-Kos
L-Karo L-Serra
W-Ivan Menjivar W-Huges
W-Jeff Curran W-BJ Penn
L-Din Thomas W-Sherk
L-BJ Penn W-Trigg
W-Kelly Dullanty W-Jason Miller
W-Yves Edwards W-Strasser
L-Shonie Carter L-Hughes
W-Greg Melisi W-Jay Hieron
W-Jeff Telvi W-Karo
W-Graham Lewis W-Spratt
W-Denny
W-Galbraith
W-Bruckmann
W-Ivan Menjivar

What your saying Tuvok is that one win, only one because thats all Serra has is one friggin win, puts him on top of GSP and all of his wins. Thats rediculous you have on one hand a guy who's won against 7 top 10's and another who has beaten ONE top fighter, just because he has that one win? That makes no sense to me at all.
richieb19
1/9/08 11:10:01PM

Posted by Pookie

Ok makes sense,

but i have a challenge for your system!

Who should be #1 LW in the world according to it.



lol nice... I couldn't even begin to tell you, since all the orgs have differences, and since I don't really know when to concider the begining of MMA... to make this work, there would have to be a worldwide poll to determine where people think fighters are ranked and go from there... or just basically start from scratch...

imho though... gomi... but that means nothing...
richieb19
1/9/08 11:11:39PM

Posted by Copenhagen

Sherdog has something similar to this.
They call it power ratings, and it's almost identical to what your trying to do here.

Link

not even remotely the same... but similar to an extent in the fact that its a point based system and it's not biased... problem is that no one loses points with power rankings... so you end up having super huge numbers, they get bigger every year and people from the past get put into the shameful dust.
tuvok500
1/9/08 11:41:36PM

Posted by richieb19


Posted by tuvok500

Man, i HATE Serra , i hate everything about that guy, and GSP is my favorite fighter by FAR over any other fighter, but like GSP himselt told us after destroying Hughes, " it is Serra the real champ and i will not consider myself # 1 or champ before i have beated him " !! lol
it is normal that in a fight, if you lose to a guy, the guy beated you so he is better at that moment in the present, nothing to do with you previous 30 wins in your carreer.

as for when you have many champs with different organization, the champ of the tuffest organization should be on top and after that you go down but in no way a guy who is fighting in the same organization of the #1 champ can be above him, non sence, it would be like saying that the champ of the UFC is not the champ and infact it is the # 2 guy who is the champ.

i understand that sometime the circonstance can be strange and the best guy lose for different reason but a lost is a lost and at the end the loser lost is belt and the #1 spot who come with it.

that discussion was made over and over again and nothinfg have really change.

but if you really want to not be biased, you should accept that sometime it is not the guy with the best overall record who is on top but the guy who was the best at their championship fight.

if everything is ok when GSP is the champ and # 1 in the ranking, everything should be also ok when a guy beat him and take his belt and his place on top.

the ranking will always rank the best guy on top but you have to look at it on a long scale of time, not week by week or month ny month, you have some fluctuation who are sometime painfull like Serra on top but the ranking will stabilizehimself with when GSP will have his shot but before that the SERRA FLUCTUATION is real !!

lol



So do you rank Serra higher than Carlos Condit in MMA? I mean Condit is the champ so he's gotta be on top right?

The way you're looking at it is that the UFC is the be all end all of MMA, and that their champions are #1. This is non-sense.




i have Serra # 1 so Carlos is not on top because he his the champ of a lowest level organization , it is not the champ of the top organization followed by the champ of the second top orgabization etc.. etc.. it is the champ of the top organization and after that you go down , so GSP is second because he is better that any others but he DID lose to Serra and Serra did not fight another time to go down or confirm his top place , so can we wait a little before removing a guy who win a real championship fight FAIRLY !!.
and also, to rank a guy who is let's say in WEC at tis real place, since he did not fight against the best, you have to look at it 1 fighter at a time by moving up slowly, not comparing Serra to Condit and determine that Condit is better , because infact Condit did not fight GSP or Fitch or any top fighter to claim his # 1 spot in contrairy with Serra who have really beated GSP in the real life, it was not an imaginary fight. so you can imagine what Condit would do but by going up slowly not by starting on top and going down, because he fight in a lower level league.
and please , don't tell me that the UFC in not the top organization in the world !!
onless you are living on mars !! lol J/K

and for cmill21, a championship fight is 1 fight ONLY, you win you are the best , you lose you have to work your way up again before having another shot at the title, simple. YES , if you beat the CHAMP you become the CHAMP !!
When Fedor beated Nog he became the Champ, it was not " well you have to beat him 2 time because the guy is good ", the loser if he is really better will come back and will win back his belt and his # 1 spot very fast.
That why i am confident that GSP will beat Serra to reclaim his belt and # 1 spot. But i can live some month without having him on top because i saw their fight and GSP did lose .
if Serra would have lose to another guy after winning to GSP i would probably have GSP higher that Serra because of his last 2 wins but i would never have GSP higher that the guy who beated Serra , no matter iwho he is.


a championship fight is to determine the # 1 guy, it is a fight, and the winner is declare the champ and the new guy to beat.

nothing to do with where they were in 2004 or 2005.
at that moment in 2004-2005 those guy where ranked at their apropriate place according to their fight by fight win.

richieb19
1/9/08 11:49:46PM
The organization in which a fight takes place should not make a difference in ranking a fighter, it's all about how good the guy you're fighting is... however it is true that a belt is worth more in a higher organization. With that said, the UFC's popularity is really reeking havoc on how people rank fighters, when in fact a guy like Condit has a better record than Serra, has more finishes, has fought better quality fighters overall and is also a champion, so aside from the fact that Serra i a champ in a tier 1 org and Carlos is a champ in a tier 2 org shouldnt have Serra above him. I'm not trying to be biased, but you're basing it all on the UFC, when I'm talking about all MMA.

You can try and prove your point over and over again, it won't make me agree. You have to realize that this is exactly why I came up with this, because people disagree over things like this.
grappler0000
1/10/08 12:01:34AM

Posted by tuvok500

i have Serra # 1 so Carlos is not on top because he his the champ of a lowest level organization , it is not the champ of the top organization followed by the champ of the second top orgabization etc.. etc.. it is the champ of the top organization and after that you go down , so GSP is second because he is better that any others but he DID lose to Serra and Serra did not fight another time to go down or confirm his top place , so can we wait a little before removing a guy who win a real championship fight FAIRLY !!.




So, if Fedor and Couture fight later this year, then the winner wouldn't be ranked #1 since M-1 isn't the top org?

So, I'm assuming you had Sherk as the #1 ranked LW according to your logic. Did Sherk lose his #1 ranking when he was stripped of the belt, or will it be when a new champion is declared? And if he lost it when it was stripped, who is the new #1?

So, assuming that the Gomi/Diaz fight wasn't overturned...what would Gomi's ranking be (prior to Zuffa purchasing Pride) since it wasn't a title fight? Diaz beat the champ, but isn't the champ.

The belt shows who's champion, but ranking determines who the best fighter. While they are often related, they are not one in the same.
richieb19
1/10/08 12:04:38AM

Posted by grappler0000

So, if Fedor and Couture fight later this year, then the winner wouldn't be ranked #1 since M-1 isn't the top org?

So, I'm assuming you had Sherk as the #1 ranked LW according to your logic. Did Sherk lose his #1 ranking when he was stripped of the belt, or will it be when a new champion is declared? And if he lost it when it was stripped, who is the new #1?

So, assuming that the Gomi/Diaz fight wasn't overturned...what would Gomi's ranking be (prior to Zuffa purchasing Pride) since it wasn't a title fight? Diaz beat the champ, but isn't the champ.

The belt shows who's champion, but ranking determines who the best fighter. While they are often related, they are not one in the same.

So where do you stand on my point of view/system?
tuvok500
1/10/08 12:07:51AM
Yeah but Carlos did not beated GSP and i really thing that GSP is , no matter what organization you are talking about, the best of all and Serra did beat him for real.

we can just imagine if Catlos would have done the same of Serra , and an imaginary ranking is really not a real ranking.

that's why when a guy from pride come to the ufc , the ufc accept is record as equivalent as the ufc record, bur if a guy who is let's say # 5 in the Elite/xc ranking arrive in the ufc , i am sorry but he will not be match whit the # 4 or 6 in the ufc for sure.

and also, no matter how good you are, you will have to fight to win the belt, even if GSP go to HDNET he will not be proclaim champ without fighting the champ for real.

a champ is different that the other fighter because he his the that every others fighters are trying to fight as soon as possble.

i don't think that Fitch want to fight GSP instead of Serra because GSP is suppose to be better, Fitch want the belt and after that if he have to fight GSP he will fight him.

anyways, i rank fighter the same way as the UFC or WEC or boxing do, so i am never surprise when i see let's say Forrest being the # 2 and going to fight Rampage the champ and # 1 in LHW.
Even if in fact Liddell have a better record and Tito also and name them, he did beat the guy who was supposed to be next to fight Rampage and now and took his place. it is the reality man, i am not imaginating it . we will pick the fight for real and bet on him !!



grappler0000
1/10/08 12:09:34AM

Posted by richieb19


Posted by grappler0000

So, if Fedor and Couture fight later this year, then the winner wouldn't be ranked #1 since M-1 isn't the top org?

So, I'm assuming you had Sherk as the #1 ranked LW according to your logic. Did Sherk lose his #1 ranking when he was stripped of the belt, or will it be when a new champion is declared? And if he lost it when it was stripped, who is the new #1?

So, assuming that the Gomi/Diaz fight wasn't overturned...what would Gomi's ranking be (prior to Zuffa purchasing Pride) since it wasn't a title fight? Diaz beat the champ, but isn't the champ.

The belt shows who's champion, but ranking determines who the best fighter. While they are often related, they are not one in the same.

So where do you stand on my point of view?



I agree completely...and I actually really like the algorithm you developed. Since there is no perfect ranking system, it is at least non-biased and pretty accurate.
richieb19
1/10/08 12:12:29AM

Posted by grappler0000

I agree completely...and I actually really like the algorithm you developed. Since there is no perfect ranking system, it is at least non-biased and pretty accurate.

I went through so many different formulae, all of which had one HUGE glaring problem... this one seems to work alright. I'm no math prof though so I'm totally open to suggestions. However if everyone is ranked upon this system it's still a fair playing field for all...
tuvok500
1/10/08 12:21:23AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by tuvok500

i have Serra # 1 so Carlos is not on top because he his the champ of a lowest level organization , it is not the champ of the top organization followed by the champ of the second top orgabization etc.. etc.. it is the champ of the top organization and after that you go down , so GSP is second because he is better that any others but he DID lose to Serra and Serra did not fight another time to go down or confirm his top place , so can we wait a little before removing a guy who win a real championship fight FAIRLY !!.




So, if Fedor and Couture fight later this year, then the winner wouldn't be ranked #1 since M-1 isn't the top org?

So, I'm assuming you had Sherk as the #1 ranked LW according to your logic. Did Sherk lose his #1 ranking when he was stripped of the belt, or will it be when a new champion is declared? And if he lost it when it was stripped, who is the new #1?

So, assuming that the Gomi/Diaz fight wasn't overturned...what would Gomi's ranking be (prior to Zuffa purchasing Pride) since it wasn't a title fight? Diaz beat the champ, but isn't the champ.

The belt shows who's champion, but ranking determines who the best fighter. While they are often related, they are not one in the same.



man, Fedor's record was built in Pride not in M-1, so i am sure that you are not considering Fedor one of the best because he beat Choi !! lol

Sherk was # 1 but since he was found guilty of cheating and was stripped of his belt i have Bj on top because it is between hin and Stevenson that the real new champ will be determine.

as for Gomi and diaz, this fight was a while ago and i no longer have diaz in my top ten.
also, if a fight is overturn and declare NC, i am intelligent enough to put them where they were before the fight because in fact the rules tell us that this fight was NC so can not count in the ranking.

I am sorry but if the real top fighter in the WW is not the champ, why peoples are asking to fight the champ ?? probably because they want to be reconnize as the champ of the division and the champ of the division is the # 1 man .

that's why i told riechie that his ranking would be an overall ranking of all time but not an actual real ranking of 2008.
it can be close but it will never be right if the # 1 fighter is the champ but lose to a severe underdog .

richieb19
1/10/08 12:28:02AM
I'm sorry Tuvok, but I completely disagree with everything you've said so far. That's not to say you're wrong, because as I've mentionned there is no clear right and wrong in this whole ranking scheme... just don't agree...
tuvok500
1/10/08 12:30:53AM

Posted by richieb19

I'm sorry Tuvok, but I completely disagree with everything you've said so far. That's not to say you're wrong, because as I've mentionned there is no clear right and wrong in this whole ranking scheme... just don't agree...



no problem, i don't think bad stuff about you because we desagreed on that, it is normal to desagree sometime !!

go GSP !! # 1 in the ranking ............................but only after montreal beating !! lol

Pookie
1/10/08 12:32:05AM

Posted by tuvok500

that's why when a guy from pride come to the ufc , the ufc accept is record as equivalent as the ufc record, bur if a guy who is let's say # 5 in the Elite/xc ranking arrive in the ufc , i am sorry but he will not be match whit the # 4 or 6 in the ufc for sure...




there is a monumental flaw in your arguement

the UFC doesnt have the best fighters in every division. The #2 guy in K-1 heroes middleweight division is better than the #2 guy in the UFC's. By a long shot.

The UFC's #3 lightweight joe stevenson (in accordance to our site ranking) would stand little chance against anybody in k-1 heroes top 5.
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics