--- "If you just look at the stat rankings many of them are totally absurd. Jardine is the #4 LHW whereas Silva isn't even in the top 10. Rory Markham is #1 at 185, not counting Almeida who is retired. Goulet is #3 at 170 despite just getting KTFO by Ludwig who barely ever fights. The system is not the worst thing I've ever seen, but it has SERIOUS flaws."
You are ranking fighters based on you opinion of their abilities (as seen in competition) to determine where they should fit "right now" in the weight class hierarchy. OK... no problem there.
The mmaranks stat system does not do that. It is telling us something different entirely. It is not measuring who should be "ranked" higher now and for future consideration. It measures who, in fact, has better real, measurable, quantifiable accomplishments as a fighter in the recent PAST. It measures these past performances and quantifies them with a calculation. This is quanitative v. qualitative
The site does go on to simply apply these stats numerically to form an ordered list of rankings... You don't have to like that, just realize that it is clearly different than the qualitative rankings.
The best way to use this IMO is like a QB rating v. football writers saying that so-and-so is the best QB. The writers use a qualitative appraisal of the QBs, in which I am sure they included QB rating for consideration
Now, I agree that Silva is a top ten guy. He should be "ranked" as such. However, for close calls on whether he should be 3rd, 4th, or 5th, or whatever... we can look at the "rating" from the stat system and use that to help define the rankings by our opinion.
Honestly, it would be wrong to tweek the stat system to intentionally coincide with our 'opinions' of who should be ranked higher/lower.
--- "This is a serious problem. As I've pointed out before, it penalizes guys for staying busy. I have no problem with the idea of a shelf life on fights but picking an arbitrary quantity to consider is ridiculous."
6 fights in three years is pretty standard for guys at the higher levels. This is really not a problem.
--- "I think the mixing is a bad idea."
I agree... I feel that a rating (like a QB rating in football) can be a tool to help the "experts" evaluate fighters and concoct a "ranking". But ranking should be based on expert opinion and qualitative evaluation. The quantification process is something separate.
--- "A system should be entirely human or entirely computerized."
There can be both in existance that serve two different functions. That is why I dont like the collective or the fan vote.
--- "Here, the fan voting just seems to be a way to try and counteract the ridiculous rankings that their statistical system will occaisonally produce."
fan voting is senseless... while I feel that the stat system is solid for its purpose (it should not be considered for true ranking for MMA... IMO). I like it as a tool to give an additional credential to a fighter - like 8-man tournament champ, KOTC Champ, NAGA World Champ, and a rating of XXXX... and as an additional reference for consideration on how rankings could be influenced
Sorry for being long-winded, but I take the matter seriously