In almost every thread about rankings there seems to be flaming about personal bias or faulty "scoring systems", so I ask you UG how to make a system that removes opinion the people aspect and makes them uniformly fair?
My idea is a 2 step system I derived from other major sports (i.e. basketball,baseball,football,etc...) and applied it to our beloved sport.
1)look at the fighters most recent accomplishments in their last 3 fights, such as opponent quality, decisive wins, etc... and give a point value.
2)look at the fighters record over the past 2 years, and give a point value (carries less weight than number 1) to that record, quality of opponents, decicive wins,etc...
Then tally thosed points to give a score. Highest score is first, simple as that.
The idea of "strength of schedule" taken from other sports seems very applicable in MMA, and should weigh much heavier than past accomplishments.
Rough draft:S
SUB: Fedor-
Last 3 opponents and outcomes-
Werdum-Loss(submission)
Rogers-Win(K.O.)
Arlovski-Win(K.O.)
Last 2 yeqars of activity-
Above mentioned-
Sylvia-Win(submission)
4 fights in 2 years is not alot of activity, but has been against what was considered top level competition, as it should be for someone considered top level talent.
Based on this criteria of a 75% win ratio and 100% finish ratio, the scoring would be high. All wins were decisive, loss was decisive as well, which blemishes score. So say based off a 3 win/1 loss he would garner a 75 point rating.
If any point ties were had, then a "strength of schedule" (or in this case "strength of opponent" would determine who is ranked higher. his was off the top of my head, and just throwing idea out there. what says you?
On second thought addendum to scoring. You get 2 points for finishing fights, and lose 2 for getting finished. Also you get 1 point added to the top for fighting top 10 ranked fighters so the real score would be 83, not 75 as listed.
Another example:
Shane Carwin-
Last 3 opponents
Brock Lesnar-Loss(submission)
Frank Mir-Win(TKO)
Gabriel Gonzaga-(TKO)
Last 2 years
Above mentione-
Neil Wain-Win(TKO)
So the base is a 75% win ratio for 75pts.
plus 2 points for 2 top 10 fights=77 points
plus 2 points for the TKO of Mir=79 points
Minus 2 points for the submission to Brock= 77 points total.
It's impossible with the way fight promotions work, but good luck trying "menace667"...IFFF that ISSS your real name!!!!
I looked around the fightmatrix.com but saw nowhere where they explain their ranking system. Can either of you point me in the right direction?
Their system is close to how i thought it should be. I like theirs alot though, i do find some things humorous with theirs. It compiles strength of competition into a percentage, which is awesome, then supposedly ranks them accordingly. If you hover over Overeems name it rates him as the 8th best heavyweight on the planet, but his strength of competition is a whopping .315% compared to the next two fighters ranked below him whose opponenets rating are Big Nog at .666 and Josh Barnett at .675 respectively. That seems kinda weird to me.
Anyway awesome other than that little strange blemish. Thanks for pointing that out.
The Silvia/Fedor fight was well over 2 years ago.
Good suggestion. I' d be interested in finding better ranking systems as well
menace667 - In almost every thread about rankings there seems to be flaming about personal bias or faulty "scoring systems", so I ask you UG how to make a system that removes opinion the people aspect and makes them uniformly fair?
My idea is a 2 step system I derived from other major sports (i.e. basketball,baseball,football,etc...) and applied it to our beloved sport.
1)look at the fighters most recent accomplishments in their last 3 fights, such as opponent quality, decisive wins, etc... and give a point value.
2)look at the fighters record over the past 2 years, and give a point value (carries less weight than number 1) to that record, quality of opponents, decicive wins,etc...
Then tally thosed points to give a score. Highest score is first, simple as that.
The idea of "strength of schedule" taken from other sports seems very applicable in MMA, and should weigh much heavier than past accomplishments.
Rough draft:S
SUB: Fedor-
Last 3 opponents and outcomes-
Werdum-Loss(submission)
Rogers-Win(K.O.)
Arlovski-Win(K.O.)
Last 2 yeqars of activity-
Above mentioned-
Sylvia-Win(submission)
4 fights in 2 years is not alot of activity, but has been against what was considered top level competition, as it should be for someone considered top level talent.
Based on this criteria of a 75% win ratio and 100% finish ratio, the scoring would be high. All wins were decisive, loss was decisive as well, which blemishes score. So say based off a 3 win/1 loss he would garner a 75 point rating.
If any point ties were had, then a "strength of schedule" (or in this case "strength of opponent" would determine who is ranked higher. his was off the top of my head, and just throwing idea out there. what says you?
On second thought addendum to scoring. You get 2 points for finishing fights, and lose 2 for getting finished. Also you get 1 point added to the top for fighting top 10 ranked fighters so the real score would be 83, not 75 as listed.
CRITERIA FOR RANKING
i is alredee gud at figgers by aproxumating dem..sum kinda gift er abillutee i gots
...but i like your ideology & concept!
RyannVonDoom - It's hard not to be biased if not impossible.
It's actually very easy to NOT be biased.
If you truly love the sport then you don't really have bias of putting one fighter over another.
Ben Henderson is my favorite fighter...but i don't have him at #1.
I like him as a person and his skills. But as far as rankings go, he has to earn it just like anyone else.
I made the first, and only, BJ Penn fan club, way back in 2001. But i have never favored him in the rankings.
Each fighter has to EARN their ranking.
The problem is, most of you don't have a clue what a real ranking list is.
For most of you, your idea of rankings is a personal "Best Of" list.
That is NOT what TRUE World Contender Rankings are.
I have lots of friends who understand & appreciate my rankings and the system i use for it. But, unfortunately, a high percentage of the UG members are extremely unprofessional & immature TUF noobs who lack the better part of reasoning & perception capabilities.
They think they're an expert because they can say things like, "YOU DON'T HAVE FEDOR AT #1...!??? YOUR RANKINGS SUCK!"...or, "F@#K YOU! NOBODY LIKES YOU!".
It's pathetic and funny at the same time. But hey, life wouldn't be challenging without these people ;p
The only way to get an unbiased ranking system is to let random strangers watch countless hours of MMA fights until they pick the people who come out on top.
Actually, you can just use the judges from the Pham vs Garcia fight.
Don't be biased, homie.
Shano has Aoki ranked above Gil, that alone ruins any of his credibility.
Darth BLAF - The way the ug ranks fighters is.......if you've beaten ANYONE(tomato cans, has-beens, pro wrasslers, circus freaks, ect.) in your last 3 or 4 fights.....and you're NOT in the UFC.....you are a "top 10 fighter".
you also have to have big muscles
Bias will always enter, consciously or unconsciously.
Mathematical formula = problem solved of human bias.