For those who don't know...fellow Axer named Felix has been doing an independant ranking of heavyweight kickboxers for a while now.
Go here to check out his profile and his recent rankings.
Ok, I have been thinking about this for a while. There has always been something about Felix's ranking system that didn't make sense before. I understood his theory about the rankings being objective...however there was always something wrong with the equation. I think I've figured it out.
The most simple approach that can be applied to the rankings is to treat each rank like it was a title. This is very much like a "ladder" format of competition that is used for electronic gaming over the internet. If you're #8 and you compete against and beat #7 then you take the #7 spot. This has worked well for years for internet gaming.
However, there are rules to "ladders". Some of which determine how quickly you'll lose your spot if you don't compete often enough. The most important rule (to this topic) being that you can only challenge within a certain number above your ranking. In other words, if you're #8, you can only challenge the 2 or 3 above you. It won't allow you to challenge the #1 spot if you're #8.
But we all know that fighting doesn't work like that. In fighting sports, boxing or K-1 for example, oftentimes the #1 guy faces somebody who is ranked 20th or the #3 guy faces somebody that isn't even ranked. This is what makes ring sports different than the "ladder" format of game play. This is why each ranking cannot be treated like a title...because titles are things that should be worked for. People should deserve a title shot because they went up through the ranks. This certainly doesn't happen in K-1. This throws a monkey wrench into the accomplishment of some underdog beating the #1 guy.
This is where subjectivity comes back into the mix. The rules that you choose to determine the rankings are subjective as far as how accurately you may think they reflect a fighter's recent accomplishments.
If I were to make a suggestion to the rules of the objective rankings...it would be something like this...
If FighterA beats FighterB, instead of FighterB taking FighterA's slot, FighterB's ranking raises depending on their rankings relative to each other and also relative to the #1 position. Relatively should make a difference in how a fight result affects the rankings. Rules for this can be setup which allows the rankings to change without any subjectivity involved.
I'll use some examples to make my point clear. First...Goodridge vs Bernardo. I don't know the actual rankings of Goodridge or Bernardo but I'll use some sample rankings to explain my point.
First fight: Goodridge vs Bernardo 1
Goodridge is ranked at 30
Bernardo is ranked at 10
Goodridge beats Bernardo
**The rules state that someone in the top 10 can only drop a maximum of 5 rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
Bernardo's ranking drops 5 spaces to 15
**The rules state that someone outside of the top 10 who beats someone within the top 10 can only raise to the middle point between their rankings.
Goodridge raises 10 spaces to 20
Now they are only 5 apart. Goodridge made a major accomplishment by raising his own rank but also dropping Bernardo's rank in the process.
Second fight: Goodridge vs Bernardo 2
Goodridge is ranked at 20
Bernardo is ranked at 15
Bernardo beats Goodridge
**The rules state that if a fighter beats someone ranked lower than them, both of their ranks stay put**
Bernardo's rank stays
Goodridge's rank stays
I'll go through the scenario again with different rankings...
First fight: Goodridge vs Bernardo 1
Goodridge is ranked at 15
Bernardo is ranked at 2
Goodridge beats Bernardo
**The rules state that someone in the top 10 can only drop a maximum of 5 rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
Bernardo's ranking drops 5 spaces to the 7th spot
**The rules state that someone outside of the top 10 who beats someone within the top 10 can only raise to the middle point between their rankings.
Goodridge raises 7 spaces to the 8th spot
Now they are only 1 apart. Goodridge made a major accomplishment by raising his own rank but also dropping Bernardo's rank in the process.
Second fight: Goodridge vs Bernardo 2
Goodridge is ranked at 8
Bernardo is ranked at 7
Bernardo beats Goodridge
rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
**The rules state that if a fighter beats someone ranked lower than them, both of their ranks stay put**
Bernardo's rank stays
Goodridge's rank stays
Ok, ONE MORE scenario. This time starting with closer ranks.
First fight: Goodridge vs Bernardo 1
Goodridge is ranked at 9
Bernardo is ranked at 7
Goodridge beats Bernardo
**The rules state that someone in the top 10 can only drop a maximum of 5 rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
Bernardo's ranking drops 2 spaces to the 9th spot
**The rules state that if 2 fighters fight in the top 10, the winner takes the higher ranking between the two**
Goodridge raises 2 spaces to the 7th spot
Now they basically switched spots. Goodridge made a major accomplishment by raising his own rank but also dropping Bernardo's rank in the process. Becuase they were so close in rank, Goodridge was able to take Bernardo's spot in this fluke win.
Second fight: Goodridge vs Bernardo 2
Goodridge is ranked at 7
Bernardo is ranked at 9
Bernardo beats Goodridge
**The rules state that someone in the top 10 can only drop a maximum of 5 rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
Goodridge drops 2 spaces to the 9th spot
**The rules state that if 2 fighters fight in the top 10, the winner takes the higher ranking between the two**
Bernardo's raises 2 spots to the 7th spot
Now they have reversed back to where they started.
So here were the rules that I used in those scenarios all resulting in objective ranking changes.
**The rules state that someone in the top 10 can only drop a maximum of 5 rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
**The rules state that someone outside of the top 10 who beats someone within the top 10 can only raise to the middle point between their rankings.**
**The rules state that if a fighter beats someone ranked lower than them, both of their ranks stay put**
Bernardo's ranking drops 5 spaces to the 7th spot
**The rules state that if 2 fighters fight in the top 10, the winner takes the higher ranking between the two**
Consideration for the relativity of each fighter's position in the rankings would prevent flukes from screwing up the rankings. If Goodridge had beaten Bernardo in the second match, or if Goodridge had beaten someone else higher in rank than himself, then that would prove his accomplishment was not a fluke.
These rules would require a fighter to work hard to impact the top 10 ranks.
Top 10 spots should be treated differently than spots 11-20
Top 20 spots should be treated differently than spots 21-50
I think the existing ranking rules could still apply to those outside of the top 20. That would allow fighters outside of the top 20 to approach the top 20 somewhat quickly.
I think anyone ranked over 50 shouldn't even be ranked and they should all be considered equal as far as the rankings go.
These are just example rules off the top of my head to illustrate my point. They should be adjusted and additional rules should be added to make the fight results affect the rankings in a more realistic way to reflect the recent accomplishments of a fighter.
This, of course, makes the rankings more complex to run. But it also makes them more legitimate and respected.
I noticed that Jason Suttie is ranked #114 on the list . Peter Graham is 28th who he defeated last year ,Ron Sefo , Auckland Auimatagi and Doug viney are also ranked higher but he has defeated them also .There are a few more Oceania guys on their who are ranked higher . Apart from Adam watt I'm pretty sure he has defeated most of them . Just a curious observation , not bagging the system or anything .
Good work Felix.
fightfan,
i've had that mentioned many many times. i don't count second and third fights of an evening. this way, fighters who are injured early can limp to the ring without worry that one kick will cost them a rank and drop them five places. unfortunately, jason's skill in the ring is not reflected in the rankings. i've been waiting for him to get a good match up. i still believe it is only a matter of time before he makes it to the top ten.
brian,
you've taken a bit of time to bring up these points for discussion. i think it is only fair that i read it a few more times before responding.
Oh certainly.
Hopefully my examples don't confuse things. I don't know Bernardo's or Goodridge's exact ranks. Just making up an example.
okay brian,
here are my thoughts.
let me first sum up the three senarios. i'll call them s1, s2 and s3. for simplicity i'll leave out the second fight where bernardo did the lion tamer pose. in most of your examples it simply means no change in the rankings.
s1
before B=10 G=30
after B=15 G=20
s2
before B=2 G=15
after B=7 G=8
s3
before B=7 G=9
after B=9 G=7
here are the first things i noticed about this system. some fighters moved up without beating bernardo. look at s2. all the fighters from #3 to #7 slid up to fill the empty space bernardo left. i give out ranks like this too but the winner of the fight always gets first priority. this system gives him last priority.
in fact, the title would likely come from people sliding into the number one spot instead of knocking out the champ. there is no way i could explain to any fight fans that sapp knocked out hoost so mirko is the new champ. it was tough enough to have sapp as the #1 rank.
do you really think fans could live without a list like this:
93/04/30 Branko Cikatic [CRO] K-1 Grand Prix 1993 Tournament Champion
94/03/04 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Branko Cikatic [CRO] by DEC-5
94/04/30 Patrick Smith [USA] defeated Andy Hug [SUI] by KO-1
94/09/18 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Patrick Smith [USA] by KO-1
94/10/02 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Jeff Roufus [USA] by KO-2
94/12/10 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Rob Van Esdonk [NED] by KO-4
95/03/03 Mike Bernardo [RSA] defeated Andy Hug [SUI] by TKO-3
95/05/04 Mike Bernardo [RSA] defeated Stan Longinidis [AUS] by KO-3
95/09/03 Mike Bernardo [RSA] defeated Andy Hug [SUI] by KO-2
95/12/09 Peter Aerts [NED] defeated Mike Bernardo [RSA] by TKO-1
96/03/10 Peter Aerts [NED] defeated Jean Claude Leuyer [USA] by KO-1
96/05/06 Mike Bernardo [RSA] defeated Peter Aerts [NED] by KO-1
96/09/01 Mike Bernardo [RSA] defeated Peter Aerts [NED] by DQ-1
96/12/08 Mike Bernardo [RSA] drew with Stan Longinidis [AUS] by DRAW-5
97/03/16 Mike Bernardo [RSA] defeated Masaaki Satake [JPN] by TKO-2
97/04/29 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Mike Bernardo [RSA] by TKO-4
97/06/07 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Shaun Johnson [GBR] by KO-1
97/09/07 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Stefan Leko [GER] by KO-2
97/11/09 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Jerome LeBanner [FRA] by KO-1
98/04/09 Peter Aerts [NED] defeated Ernesto Hoost [NED] by DEC-5
98/06/06 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Peter Aerts [NED] by DEC-5
98/08/07 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Mike LaBree [USA] by KO-1
98/09/27 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Mark Russell [GBR] by KO-2
98/10/28 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Masaaki Miyamoto [JPN] by KO-1
98/12/13 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Ray Sefo [NZL] by TKO-2
99/02/03 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Tsuyoshi Nakasako [JPN] by KO-2
99/04/25 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Ray Sefo [NZL] by TKO-4
99/06/05 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Stefan Leko [GER] by DEC-5
99/08/22 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Maurice Smith [USA] by DEC-5
99/10/03 Andy Hug [SUI] defeated Hiromi Amada [JPN] by TKO-1
99/12/06 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Andy Hug [SUI] by DEC-3
00/04/23 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Sam Greco [AUS] by TKO-3
00/05/28 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Rani Berbachi [FRA] by TKO-3
00/07/30 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Paris Vassilikos [GRE] by KO-3
00/12/10 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Mirko Filipovic [CRO] by DEC-4
01/03/18 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Xhavit Bajrami [SUI] by DEC-5
01/04/15 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Musashi [JPN] by DEC-5
01/06/16 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Sergei Gur [BLR] by TKO-1
01/12/08 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Stefan Leko [GER] by DEC-3
02/04/22 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Tsuyoshi Nakasasko [JPN] by TKO-1
02/05/25 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Stefan Leko [GER] by KO-1
02/08/17 Ernesto Hoost [NED] defeated Jan Nortje [RSA] by KO-3
02/08/28 Ernesto Hoost [NED] drew with Sem Schilt [NED] by DRAW-5
02/10/05 Bob Sapp [USA] defeated Ernesto Hoost [NED] by TKO-1
02/12/07 Bob Sapp [USA] defeated Ernesto Hoost [NED] by TKO-2
03/03/30 Mirko Filipovic [CRO] defeated Bob Sapp [USA] by KO-1
it was interesting that the first response to this thread was fightfan asking why suttie wasn't ranked higher than guys he beat. i think he'd accept the "no second and third fights in a night" rule more than the "he needs to prove himself more" rule.
i think you are seeking some kind of common sense in the list. you won't find it. readers of the list have to bring their own common sense. fightfan knows that suttie would take higher ranks if he got the opportunity. we all know sapp will lose ranks if anyone gets the opportunity.
as far a legitimacy goes, about 80% of the fighters defend their ranks. that would mean they should be ranked higher, wouldn't it? the other 20% are taken care of with an adjustment.
Felix,
First of all I totally agree with you that the K-1 needs a rating system badly and applaud your attempts - it's obvious that a lot of work has gone into it. However, even with your explanation that you don't count the 2nd or 3rd fights of a night in the equation your ranking for Jason Suttie is still hard to understand - do you only count fights in official K-1 events or do you also count fights between K-1 fighters under other rules? If it's only k-1 events then I suppose it would be a little more understandable but if you count 'outside' fights then you would have to include Jason's victory over Auckland Auimatagi under full Thai rules for one of his 6 world titles, his draw with Peter Graham (who he later defeated in the KB4) and his victory over Hiriwa Te Rangi. Doug Viney would only have victories over Dion Crouch, Chris Chrisopoulides and Oliver Tuisefia count towards his ranking because almost all of his fights were in k-1 8 man tournaments. With Jason having defeated Mike Angove, Nathan Briggs(or was it Paul, cant remember) in the first stage of k-1 8 man tournaments (+ the other guy whose name has also slipped my mind that he just beat in the nz vs croatia k-1)I still cant figure out how come Doug (or Ron Sefo for that matter) rank higher than Jason (though I'm sure that it will change after the k-1 Oceania). Your system would seem to penalise NZ fighters because the K-1 NZ and K-1 Oceania are both 8 man tournaments.
While it would be good to have every fight ever fought recorded for the rankings its pretty unpractical without a whole team of people working on it. I once looked into doing a listing using the points for a win system taken from tennis, but quickly realised what a major undertaking it would be. I take my hat off to Felix, its a good list, easy to understand, and problems such as Sapp are soon corrected.
The top 10 are pretty much what you'd expect. The only other thing that could be considered is tournment wins. Maybe the K1 champ should take at least a top 3 slot?
matman,
the k-1 is a company. companies don't need a ranking list. they don't want to officially recognize anyone. if they lose interest in a fighter like ignashov they can ditch him. if a fighter loses interest in the k-1 like filho, he is out of sight and out of mind. a list that says filho is #3 and not around would make the k-1 look a little silly.
i do count non-k-1 events in my rankings. my only tool is the internet and people on these messages boards. if suttie is collecting wins and i don't know about it, the list will take a hit to the validity. also, keep in mind that this list was started at the end of 2000 and was based on the 2000 grand prix. if jason or anyone else had a great year in, say, 1998, my list wouldn't reflect it. if you look at the history of the top 10, you'll see that peter aerts has never made in the top 10. sad but true. he fail in every attempt to crack the list.
on last thing, don't ignore the factor of time. if jason beats fighter X and then fighter X beats hoost. jason will be ranked lower than X. A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A is a senario that doesn't really exist. the real senario is A beats B THEN B beat C THEN C beats A.
glen,
i don't think i'll ever give the k-1 or any other company a guaranteed top 3 place in the rankings. hunt took #2 when he beat lebanner but if he had fought musashi that night he wouldn't have even broken into the top ten.
brian,
I think anyone ranked over 50 shouldn't even be ranked and they should all be considered equal as far as the rankings go.
i guess i'd like to see the list expand to the national level where i can give a top ten or even a top 20 for each country. so the list will not likely be cut to a small figure like 50.
Felix wrote "there is no way i could explain to any fight fans that sapp knocked out hoost so mirko is the new champ"
I can explain it. In very simple terms where all fight fans would understand it.
The rankings reflect the recent accomplishments of each fighter and determine a rank by comparing their recent accomplishments. Thus, the ranks are not titles. The number 1 ranked person is not the "Felix list champion".
The phrase that sums it up best is that the rankings would be based upon the recent "accomplishment level" of each fighter.
So in your example of Bob Sapp beating Ernesto Hoost and removing him from the number 1 position....thus putting Mirko CroCop in the number 1 position. That works because Ernesto's "Accomplishment level" dropped from losing to an unranked fighter. Well...there's something else important to mention. In theory, using my suggestion of rankings, Mirko would've worked to get to the number 2 spot. He would've had to have multiple wins over higher ranked opponents to get there, or the guys above him would've had to lose. Their ranking is relative to one another's accomplishments. That way, when Ernesto loses to an unranked fighter, Mirko's recent accomplishment level would be ranked higher than that of Ernesto's. That's very logical to me. But Ernesto's rank doesn't drop that far...just in case his loss was a fluke. He only drops a maximum of 5 spaces because he's in the top 10. So it's sort of like...he's given the benefit of the doubt. He would need multiple losses to prove that he's washed up as a fighter and doesn't deserve to be out of the top 10.
There is more detail to my idea that I have not covered. I suggest a rule that the top 10 fights can only lose a maximum of 5 spaces. So, there would have to be a calculation to determine how they would lose 3 spaces...or 2. I think that should be relative to their opponent. If they lose to another top 10 fighter, then their rank should not drop 5 spaces...but should only drop 2 spots. If they lose to a top 20 fighter...maybe they only drop 3 spaces. If they lose to someone in the top 50, then it's 4 spots...and unranked fighters, they lose 5 spots. That's just an idea off the top of my head...but hopefully you see my point about their ranking dropping relative to who they lost to. There should be an equation to determine this.
Like I said before, this makes the rankings more complicated to run, but makes them more legitimate. Your current list makes sense in theory because the premise of it is very simple...treating each ranking as if it were a title. I also understand and agree (finally) with your point that the list to run itself based upon equations, thus making it an objective rankings list. I think the equation needs work. The value of each win and loss for each fight is always relative to where the fighters are ranked in the mind of every fight fan. So relativity should programmed into the ranking equation.
If you would like...I could come up with more examples to illustrate my suggestions in further detail. But I want to know if you're even interested in considering the idea first. That would be a lot of typing ;-)
Brian
The rankings reflect the recent accomplishments of each fighter and determine a rank by comparing their recent accomplishments. Thus, the ranks are not titles. The number 1 ranked person is not the "Felix list champion".
i think i get what you're saying. do you really think the fans of this sport will accept this approach to ranking? in boxing it would be mayhem if rahman beat lewis and tyson became #1 as a result.
if i wanted to keep a list of all the #1 ranked fighters like i have above, what would it look like.
If you would like...I could come up with more examples to illustrate my suggestions in further detail. But I want to know if you're even interested in considering the idea first. That would be a lot of typing ;-)
you know brian, the thing i like about objective rankings is that opinion won't come into play. let's say mike tyson finally got signed by the K-1 and in his first two matches he knocked out lebanner and mirko in one round each. would he be in the top ten? would the same example with gary goodridge give the same results? would both satisfy your demand for legitimacy?
besides the increased workload, the ideas you have come up with would produce a shorter list that might have one fighter lose to another and still be ranked higher. most of the fighters taking the #1 rank would not be getting it by defeating the reigning #1 guy.
i just see as many problems being created as you intend to solve.
i'd like to hear a few other views on this though. if there is enough interest i might give your equation a pilot run with a top 20.

Felix,
This guy is making his K1 debut on the July 27th Melbourne show and is fighting Stefan Leko.
Dwaine 'House of Pain' Harraway
7 feet tall, 160kg.
Just thought I'd let you know as you keep such great records.
Pic melbourne photographer Alan Kwong.
big guy.
can he fight? what are his chances against leko?
I've never seen him fight, but believe he's pretty much won all of them.
Though, I have a feeling he's very inexperienced, sub 6 or 7 fights.
I did hear he broke a guys leg with a kick once.
I'll get some more info soon.
Regarding his chances against Leko, I guess it depends if Leko gets tagged clean. Leko is super fit and should be able to stay out of his way I reckon.
Perhaps there would be a different rule specifically for the #1 spot which would make it work like a title? Just a thought.
which makes it easier to become #1 than #10. this one the reasons i started my own list, to expose a lack of logic in boxing ratings.
Well, not exactly...
The rule I was thinking about goes something like this...The #1 guy wouldn't lose his rank unless he lost to someone in the top 10. That makes the #1 spot the hardest one to take because only accomplished guys could take it. Someone couldn't win it without being ranked high. Of course, the details of the rule would have to be worked out. Since Bob Sapp was practically unranked when he and Hoost fought the first time, then that means (using my rule suggestions) that he wouldn't be in the top 10 for the second fight. Therefore, Hoost would still be #1 after he he lost to Sapp the second time, which doesn't make sense.
Perhaps an adjustment to the rule would go like this...
The #1 guy wouldn't lose his rank unless he lost to someone in the top 10, or unless he lost to anyone outside of the top 10 two consecutive times.
That means that Hoost could've lost to Bob Sapp (who was outside of the top 10) and then lost again to ANYONE (outside of the top 10) and then finally have his rank lowered.
That's an example of another anti-fluke rule. However, after Hoost loses to someone outside of the top 10...TWICE...everyone would understand him losing his #1 spot. Everyone would understand the #2 guy being bumped up to the #1 spot when Hoost loses to someone outside of the top 10 twice in a row.
That is what is special about an independant ranking system that makes it different than an offical ranking system (like that of a sanctioning body). The promoter (K-1...or whoever) doesn't make the #2 guy fight the #1 guy listed on your ranking system. They have a lot of people fight who are ranked really far apart. So I think you're pretty much stuck with having to make their ranking be based upon their recent accomplishments. Ideally, K-1 wouldn't throw Hoost a sacrificial lamb...but they do. So if Hoost beats an unranked fighter, it shouldn't affect his rank. Also, If Hoost loses to an unranked fight then it should be calculated in with his recent accomplishments to determine his rank. That one aspect alone makes it unlike a title, because a fighter can't simply take someone's rank when they beat them. They have to have a string of accomplishments to move higher in the rankings.
The rankings should answer these questions...
Who deserves to be number 1 right now?
Who deserves to be number 2 right now?
Who deserves to be number 3 right now?
and so on...
The equation to determine this should consider what accomplishments you (the list owner) predefines as "deserving" and it should also consider time.
For instance, there should be a "ranking decay" ruling for every fighter who is ranked. If they don't compete often enough, they lose their rank. What is "often enough"? You'd have to figure that out.
More complicated...but more legitimate. If you wanted, for a few hundred dollars, you can pay a programmer to create a database with the rules you specify and all you would have to do is plug in new fighters and the results from all of the heavyweight bouts.
there are a lot of philosophies concerning rankings.
1- who would win? if i think A would beat B, then A should be ranked higher. if be beats A and i still don't believe he would win the next time, i'd still have A ranked higher.
2- what have they done? hoost has had over 100 fights and mirko hasn't. he's also won the GP. i'll make him first. next would come aerts. leko beats aerts but he still has a lot to prove. aerts remains ranked higher.
3- put it on the line? if the figher needs protection he should put his gloves up not ask the ranking manager to distort the fact that he lost. bernardo got beat by goodridge. hoost got beat by sapp.
i'm definately the #3 type. you seem to be the #2 type and most other people who read lists are the #1 type. i may be the rarest of all but i don't think i'm less legitimate. i'm just answering a different question.
i've just updated the rankings.
leko was #16 then he beat bernardo who was #9.
now leko is #9 and bernardo is #14.
how would this look using the brian formula?
**The rules state that someone in the top 10 can only drop a maximum of 5 rankings...but not drop further than their opponent's ranking.**
i guess bernardo drops to #14 anyway.
**The rules state that someone outside of the top 10 who beats someone within the top 10 can only raise to the middle point between their rankings.**
does this mean leko goes to #15 or #12 or #13?
Felix,
I don't have any problems at all with the way the formula works.
Personally I think it's the only way subjectivety plays no part.
Personally I think it's the only way subjectivety plays no part.
do you mean this is the only problem you see with the list?
or
do you mean a list with no subjectivity is the only way to go?
A list with no subjectivity is the only way to go. And it perfectly suits the nature of K-1. You can be crowned king from a single nights performance.
With such a list, our personal opinions or anyones for that fact has nothing to do with where a fighter is standing up the ladder.
Perfect.
Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please turn on Javascript to post messages.