Rankings

What do you guys think?

Yeah we need our own rankings no doubt.

I am too lazy and I would just copy everything from mma-elo and cause a giant shitstorm..

Good idea.

I like the ELO rankings. Are they perfect? No, he doesn't update often enough but it's 1 guy from what I understand trying to keep up with hundreds of fights and guys constantly changing weight classes. I think it's the best system though, it's based on what you have done, not who zuffa says is the best based on hype.

Other ranking systems have had, and still have Lesnar in the top 5. Many still have Carwin at around 6 even after losing multiple fights and not winning for nearly 2 years (and his only big win is Mir). It's the ranking system I use personally anyway, it at least takes the personal bias out of it.

Perhaps we could partner with that site or come up with our own mathematical system for rankings.

too complex.

either you semi follow the UFC related ranking or you dont.

the best way is to create a formula where

1st win = 1 point
2nd win = 2 points and so on

1st loss is = -1 point
2nd loss is = -2 points and so on

This way experience is accounted for and you dont have some guy sitting on a 4-0 record being regarded as GOAT while a guy on 32-4 regarded as a can.

Also to make the ranking, you dont just get any fighter thats fought bums in his whole career and on like 300-0. You get someone thats regarded as the best in each org or the best in multiple orgs. Basically someone thats already established.

Kinosis wrote:I like the ELO rankings. Are they perfect? No, he doesn't update often enough but it's 1 guy from what I understand trying to keep up with hundreds of fights and guys constantly changing weight classes. I think it's the best system though, it's based on what you have done, not who zuffa says is the best based on hype.

Other ranking systems have had, and still have Lesnar in the top 5. Many still have Carwin at around 6 even after losing multiple fights and not winning for nearly 2 years (and his only big win is Mir). It's the ranking system I use personally anyway, it at least takes the personal bias out of it.

Perhaps we could partner with that site or come up with our own mathematical system for rankings.

Its interesting that Fedor dropped so quickly after his losses, even though he has the skills and experiences.

But Brock and Carwin and even Cain pretty much remained where they were even after their losses even though they are not as experienced and have not shown as broader skill set.

Yeah that's the problem with the zuffa biased. If Fedor loses 2 fights, even after 10 years of being undefeated and years of being #1, he either drops off the list completely or is about 10. If Carwin does the same thing, having no history of being on top, he is still near the top 5. Cain just got KO'd in a minute and hadn't fought in over a year before that and he is still #2 almost everywhere. It's a complete joke.

Basically if you fight for zuffa and are in the ufc, it's almost impossible to get you off that list, no matter how often you lose and irregardless of if you have even accomplished anything. If you are a non zuffa fighter, it's nearly impossible to get on the list and if you do you better not ever lose or you are going to drop off of it (like Bigfoot, after 1 loss).

Yeah most mainstream rankings are an embarrassment. After 2 losses Carwin has no business being higher than Barnett or even Cormier. Carwin has only one top ten win and that was Frank Mir like two years ago..

If you're going to use a mathematical equation for rankings, it's going to have to be more complex than simply using +1 or -1 for a win or a loss. That's why math isn't the best way because the competition a fighter has faced is a factor, which is very subjective.

If we're going to have a TT ranking list, everyone could make their own list, and the number one spot gets 10 points, 2nd gets 9 and so on. Then we add up the points and see who is TT's number 1 fighter in the division.

If we use this, i could be involved in counting points etc.

Carwin and Mir are both top 5 on all major websites I think..

brace wrote:Carwin and Mir are both top 5 on all major websites I think..

but the major sites are full of faggots

Dapperdoo wrote:If you're going to use a mathematical equation for rankings, it's going to have to be more complex than simply using +1 or -1 for a win or a loss. That's why math isn't the best way because the competition a fighter has faced is a factor, which is very subjective.

If we're going to have a TT ranking list, everyone could make their own list, and the number one spot gets 10 points, 2nd gets 9 and so on. Then we add up the points and see who is TT's number 1 fighter in the division.

If we use this, i could be involved in counting points etc.

Like ive said its difficult to do thats why I didnt go through with it.

The adding and subtracting and all the other mathematical stuff (even if I made it more complex) would be flawed since our existing ranking now is so Zuffa friendly its not funny. For example I see Mark Hunt as being a more dangerous fighter than Brock Lesnar and have Cain and Guram as about the same rank/experience wise.

Another area of difficulty is that styes makes fights. Punching out Werdum for me doesnt mean much as compared to out grappling him and vice versa.

What about a non-historical type of ranking? Through all that stuff out. A 'who would beat who today' ranking. Like a handicapping system for horse racing or odds making. This would be cool.

Say it was like on Spike's "Deadliest Warrior" program where we could do are own version of their 'one on one' battle simulations. Top fighters from each division would compete head to head in a virtual tournament. Based on a general consensus with our rankings team we would come up with who would win our virtual tournament and where the rest of the fighters would place in the tournament which is held on a given date.

IMO - this is where all MMA rankings create so much controversy. People subconsciously are making these 'one on one' virtual matches 'today' in their head judgments be the major factor in their own take on rankings. The more scientific longer-tern historically-based rankings conflict many times conflict with these. Based thins on who is the better strike or grappler when they meet. Experience, toughness, all that styff could factor in. Experience especially. This is almost always ignored in major ranking.

Either way it would be cool to do both a longer-term historical data-type rankings along with a Deadliest Warrior-type of rankings.

Dapperdoo wrote:If you're going to use a mathematical equation for rankings, it's going to have to be more complex than simply using +1 or -1 for a win or a loss. That's why math isn't the best way because the competition a fighter has faced is a factor, which is very subjective.

If we're going to have a TT ranking list, everyone could make their own list, and the number one spot gets 10 points, 2nd gets 9 and so on. Then we add up the points and see who is TT's number 1 fighter in the division.

If we use this, i could be involved in counting points etc.

This isn't a bad idea, rankings like this would be closer to accurate as well.

Dagwood wrote:What about a non-historical type of ranking? Through all that stuff out. A 'who would beat who today' ranking. Like a handicapping system for horse racing or odds making. This would be cool.

Say it was like on Spike's "Deadliest Warrior" program where we could do are own version of their 'one on one' battle simulations. Top fighters from each division would compete head to head in a virtual tournament. Based on a general consensus with our rankings team we would come up with who would win our virtual tournament and where the rest of the fighters would place in the tournament which is held on a given date.

IMO - this is where all MMA rankings create so much controversy. People subconsciously are making these 'one on one' virtual matches 'today' in their head judgments be the major factor in their own take on rankings. The more scientific longer-tern historically-based rankings conflict many times conflict with these. Based thins on who is the better strike or grappler when they meet. Experience, toughness, all that styff could factor in. Experience especially. This is almost always ignored in major ranking.

Either way it would be cool to do both a longer-term historical data-type rankings along with a Deadliest Warrior-type of rankings.

Sounds legit. I can´t find the quote but Overeem said something like rankings should be made by bookmakers.

MMA rankings should be based on records and accomplishments, y'know, like a real sport.

I´m happy as long as Fedor is in the top 10

at this point, i dont even care for rankings anymore, I just want my favorite fighters to win and stay champions

RussianTopTeam wrote:at this point, i dont even care for rankings anymore, I just want my favorite fighters to win and stay champions

True. Gerat fighters are being ignored and forgotten.