They really need to hone their statistical method and work towards dropping the fan voting portion entirely. Every time I mention improvements to the statistical rankings, though, I am met with a stone wall. I don't know if they're too lazy to make any significant change or if they really think the method they have right now is fine, but it's obvious to me that it needs work.
What you need to understand is, that I have been "honing" the method since UFC 3.
I've entered tens of thousands of fights since, (before there were even Sherdog or FCFighter databases), so I wouldn't chalk it up to laziness.
Maybe what you should consider, is that while you have some conceptual ideas, when put into place, you just might find that what you thought would work, doesn't work.
I understamd every point you have tried to make about where and why some tweaking might produce what you think it should. I've heard them all before. Will you beliveve me if I tell you that some of your ideas HAVE been tried, and simply didn't work?
You may find that in all your effort to "correct" one troubling scenario, that you just create another.
I have tried counting more fights, longer time periods, shorter time periods, not counting draws, counting draws, draws hurting the higher ranked guy while helping the lower guy, modifications to the point awards for split decisions....
The way the stats work now, is a result of looking at all the scenarios that have happened over the last 12 years, and honing it towards something that can be fair to fighters of all payscales.
Also keep in mind that we may want to get two different things from a stat rank. You seem to want every fight within a certain timeframe to count. I want a "What have you done lately?" aspect to be at the forefront. I despise stupid mismatches. I cringe at the thought of Fedor vs. Zuluzinho. If a very successful fighter goes on some ridiculous spree of fighting unworthy opponents, then I WANT his rank to suffer. I like that part and you don't. Therein lies a difference between us.
Now, as you can see, a "keeping busy" fight or two doesn't hurt that much. Fedor has 2 real softies on his profile in Ogawa and Zuluzinho, but he is still #1 statistically.
Now if I can start by typing in Keith Hackney over Emmanuel Yarborough 12 years ago, and the system has mathematically determined guys like Fedor, Gomi, Yamamoto, Hughes and Liddell to be at the top today, then either my computer knows how to watch PPVs, or the system is doing a pretty good job of identifying who is doing well.
Sure there are fighters in certain positions that make you raise an eyebrow. But I say that's good!
FWIW, back in the day, I was able to identify guys like Josh Barnett, Tim Sylvia, Dave Menne, etc long before many others knew who they were.
When I first started to publish my calculations on the web, I remember getting flooded with the question, "Who the hell is Tim Sylvia?".
He got a deserved chance to shine, and made good on it. So here's hoping that all the guys that currently make you scratch your head, end up getting a chance.
That's the underlying point to the stat ranks, really.... to hopefully one day provide a legitimate reference of who deserves to be competing at certain levels.
In professional tennis, statistically ranking the facts dertermines who gets into the premiere events and who doesn't.
The stats say Jason Lambert should have been tested in the UFC a while ago, while Ken Shamrock was about the last person who deserved to be fighting Tito for the title.
We should have already got the chance to see Rory Markham, Thales Leite, Jason Black, Jake Shields, Roger Huerta and others on a big stage. When given the chance, then the stat ranks can again re-calcualte and see where the chips fall.
When fighters get their chance, some will strive, (Barnett, Menne, Sylvia, St. Pierre) and keep their high standing. Some will fail, (Chalangov, Neer), and suffer an appropriate drop.
The best thing that could ever happen to this stat rank, is if promoters would adhere to it a little more closely for matchmaking purposes. Then real-life tests to its results would spark future updates. Those future updates would start to look a lot like publiic opinion after a while.
When the last time you heard someone dispute the tennis, golf or auto racing rankings? They don't because the stats are used to determine who competes against who in the future. The process repeats itself over and over, and a legit sport is born.