source: http://www.mma-elo.com
Current:
1 Georges St. Pierre 2338
2 Anderson Silva 2314
3 Jake Shields 2182
4 Jon Fitch 2177
5 Shinya Aoki 2168
6 Gilbert Melendez 2159
7 Quinton Jackson 2150
8 Nick Diaz 2146
9 Fedor Emelianenko 2141
10 Jose Aldo 2139
The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
I was going to bitch about this list but I kind of like how Diaz is above Fedor. nice.
Aoki on there at 5 above Melendez who beat him, and no Penn? Haven't read the wiki on how this shithole system works, but seriously?
no shogun?
What a meaningless arbitrary system. 
Broady - What a meaningless arbitrary system.
Actually it could be the perfect system. But I've thought about Elo ratings and the possible application to MMA for years. Elo is fatally flawed for MMA simply because fighters don't fight enough matches.
Plus you'd need to introduce a variable to account for ageing and time out of the ring. So I think you need to have the ratings decay over time.
Broady - What a meaningless arbitrary system.I don't think you know what arbitrary means.
There is a good way to do this but it has to better take into account the infrequency with which the matches occur.
A typical chess player will play between 30 - 100 rated games in any given year. A fighter could fight anywhere from 1 - 4 times per year and hence the data available will be fewer.
A poor performance in one tournament in Chess won't throw your whole rating off dramatically but if you lose once in MMA the effect on the rankings can be exaggerated.
It would be a good system to adopt in the grappling scene as a way to discourage sandbagging though.
If you win a tournament in the "beginner" division your ELO would reflect that and the next tournament you enter they could check your rating and say "Sorry, you'll have to go the division up - your rating is too high"
Also what can be really good about this system is that it is a more accurate reflection of a combatants true “level” and can (but not necessarily in this case as there are bugs to work out of the MMA system) provide accurate ranking.
If fighter A beats fighter B it might not be prudent to put fighter A higher in the rankings (which many people automatically assume for some reason). If the overall quality of the opponents fighter B has fought is greater and he has performed better against similar opposition he should be ranked higher than A who defeated only him. Your rank as a fighter isn’t or shouldn’t be based JUST on your last opponent, it should be based on your overall performance, potential, and skill level.
Another thing to take into consideration is that in Chess there are no decisions. It’s win, lose or draw. In MMA it’s win by finish, win by decision, lose by finish, lose by decision and draw by decision. Perhaps victories by finish could be mathematically rated higher as compared to decisions? Maybe not – perhaps longevity of career means more…
Soooooo many variables.
Also - I think someone needs to look up the word "Arbitrary" in the dictionary.
Lol@ anyone taking that scoring system seriously.
crunchysavior - Aoki on there at 5 above Melendez who beat him, and no Penn?Penn's losses to Edgar lost him 112 points. Without factoring how it would've affected his Hughes and Fitch fights, those extra 112 points would have him in third place.
Interesting to note though is that Penn is #1 for Strength of Schedule:
Rank Name Strength of Schedule
1 B.J. Penn 1905
2 Georges St. Pierre 1894
3 Gray Maynard 1845
4 Lyoto Machida 1829
5 Dan Henderson 1827
6 Frankie Edgar 1807
7 Anderson Silva 1805
8 Gilbert Melendez 1794
9 Shinya Aoki 1789
10 Chael Sonnen 1781
11 Josh Barnett 1774
12 Fedor Emelianenko 1772
13 Antonio Silva 1766
14 Jon Fitch 1765
15 Nick Diaz 1748
16 Quinton Jackson 1735
17 Jim Miller 1735
18 Eddie Alvarez 1733
19 Jake Shields 1727
20 Yushin Okami 1727
21 Alistair Overeem 1705
22 Dominick Cruz 1699
23 Carlos Condit 1690
24 Jose Aldo 1688
25 Hector Lombard 1640
OriginalTUFer - Yeah, rb brings up a point I've made for quite some time:They address this under Potential issues with the system on their About Ranking System page.
Say there are only 10 MW's
MW A is 8-0
MW J is 2-6
J submits A in the 1st round
Who should be ranked higher?
"Lol@ anyone taking that scoring system seriously"
It's been used for nearly 6 decades in Chess and has provided a great deal of information on the relative strength of the players. Finding a way to adopt a more objective rating system to contests between two people is both an interesting subject and a good goal.
Lol @ people who dismiss something they have absolutely no idea about let alone anything to positively contribute to.
Actually... not lol... iwfy (I weep for you)
Cheers,
RB
Re: Aoki being ranked higher than Melendez:
After they fought, Melendez's ranking went up to 2114 and Aoki's went down to 2074. Aoki's subsequent 5-fight winning streak earned him a total of 94 points while Melendez's lone win since fighting Aoki gained him only 45 points, giving Aoki a 9-point lead over Melendez.
OriginalTUFer - Yeah, rb brings up a point I've made for quite some time:
Say there are only 10 MW's
MW A is 8-0
MW J is 2-6
J submits A in the 1st round
Who should be ranked higher?<br type="_moz" />
Most ELO type point systems will make fighter A lose a ton of points for losing to such a low ranked fighter. Fighter J will gain a ton of points for beating such a good fighter.
It all depeonds on how much of a point lead fighter A had on fighter J. If it is less than the sum of the two point changes for both fighters, then J will be ahead of fighter A.
In most cases, a 2-6 guy would not move past an 8-0 guy just by beating him once. But that really depeonds on their initial point totals.
If the 8-0 guy was 8-0 vs really low point fighters and the 2-6 guy had all of his fights vs really high point fighters, then their actual ELO score would not be that far apart, and J could pass A in ranking.
OriginalTUFer - I was saying there are only 10 MW's. Try have both faced the same level of competition. Any system or person that puts J above A has no business around rankings, IMO.From what I've read on that site, J would more than probably still be rated lower than A.
Nick Diaz at #8 on a P4P list means the system ain't working
PR -
...
Plus you'd need to introduce a variable to account for ageing and time out of the ring. So I think you need to have the ratings decay over time.
Yep.
Watching the last 4 or 5 years backwards makes the most sense in any rankings.
Not watching how different matchups went, not entertaining "so and so would beat so and so", those lead nowhere; just watching the last 4 or 5 years and how a fighter (fighters) did overall during that time.
Have you checked out fightmatrix rankings? They rock.
NorthFromHere - Nick Diaz at #8 on a P4P list means the system ain't workingAgreed
Good thing it doesn't call itself a P4P ranking...