Topic:Felix's Rankings
I started this to prevent further hi-jacking of Sue's thread ("NZ Rankings).
Felix, you have missed my point. I think that people's big problem with Jason's ranking is not that it doesn't correctly make a judgement of his future performance, but rather that it doesn't accurately reflect his performance to date. You must surely admit from both an intuitive and logical standpoint that there is a problem with the system when Jason can make it to the final of the K-1 Melbourne and still be rated lower than every fighter he defeated to get there-with the exception of tsuyoshi and Mike Angove (who I see isn't on the list - Felix you stirrer!). K-1 fighters, at least those working their way up through the qualifiers, are disadvantaged by the rules you have set. Most of their fights are going to be tournament fights by virtue of nature of the K-1. The top 8 will fight one-offs against other top rated fighters during the year (and therefore contribute/detract from their ranking) but the up-and-comers will obviously concentrate all of their efforts on the tournaments and the people they fight in the first round of a tournament are usually going to be lower or close to their own rank. I think you actully need a separate list for K-1 fighters where you count semi finals and finals to reflect the nature of that competition. To measure K-1 specialists against an instrument that is designed to rank according to the results of one-off fights is unfair. It's a different game. Also, fighters with high rankings who don't fight K-1 are artificially 'protected' as they are unlikely to face K-1's elite.
Felix, you have missed my point. I think that people's big problem with Jason's ranking is not that it doesn't correctly make a judgement of his future performance, but rather that it doesn't accurately reflect his performance to date. You must surely admit from both an intuitive and logical standpoint that there is a problem with the system when Jason can make it to the final of the K-1 Melbourne and still be rated lower than every fighter he defeated to get there-with the exception of tsuyoshi and Mike Angove (who I see isn't on the list - Felix you stirrer!). K-1 fighters, at least those working their way up through the qualifiers, are disadvantaged by the rules you have set. Most of their fights are going to be tournament fights by virtue of nature of the K-1. The top 8 will fight one-offs against other top rated fighters during the year (and therefore contribute/detract from their ranking) but the up-and-comers will obviously concentrate all of their efforts on the tournaments and the people they fight in the first round of a tournament are usually going to be lower or close to their own rank. I think you actully need a separate list for K-1 fighters where you count semi finals and finals to reflect the nature of that competition. To measure K-1 specialists against an instrument that is designed to rank according to the results of one-off fights is unfair. It's a different game. Also, fighters with high rankings who don't fight K-1 are artificially 'protected' as they are unlikely to face K-1's elite.
For further reading, and to prevent repeating the same points, here is another discussion that was made regarding Felix's ranking system.
Constructive Criticism, Felix's Rankings
I still think it's a flawed system.
A "title"-based system, where each spot is treated like a title, can only work if there is contender "subsystem" to make sure the proper people fight each other. A title-holder should only compete against the top contenders to the title.
An example of what I'm talking about is the "ladder" system, which is often used in online game competition. Each spot is treated like a title, but they are only allowed to compete against people within 2 spots of their position. Also, if you are challenged for your position by someone within 2 spots, then you cannot decline it or you lose your position.
If you don't require each fighter to fight only the contenders for their spot, then there are potential problems when doing a ranking list. This is the case with K-1, where anyone can beat anyone.
Given this situation, their placement should be based upon a combination of their recent results, not just the results of one fight.
In Felix's system, and because of the lack of Contender-matching of each rank, one fight can make a fighter jump 100 slots. It should require a number of wins to jump that many positions.
To put it simply, I basically just think the formula for determining the rankins needs to consider more variables. The system Felix uses is far too simplistic to give an overview of what each fighter has accomplished to date. That is what a ranking system is supposed to do.
Constructive Criticism, Felix's Rankings
I still think it's a flawed system.
A "title"-based system, where each spot is treated like a title, can only work if there is contender "subsystem" to make sure the proper people fight each other. A title-holder should only compete against the top contenders to the title.
An example of what I'm talking about is the "ladder" system, which is often used in online game competition. Each spot is treated like a title, but they are only allowed to compete against people within 2 spots of their position. Also, if you are challenged for your position by someone within 2 spots, then you cannot decline it or you lose your position.
If you don't require each fighter to fight only the contenders for their spot, then there are potential problems when doing a ranking list. This is the case with K-1, where anyone can beat anyone.
Given this situation, their placement should be based upon a combination of their recent results, not just the results of one fight.
In Felix's system, and because of the lack of Contender-matching of each rank, one fight can make a fighter jump 100 slots. It should require a number of wins to jump that many positions.
To put it simply, I basically just think the formula for determining the rankins needs to consider more variables. The system Felix uses is far too simplistic to give an overview of what each fighter has accomplished to date. That is what a ranking system is supposed to do.
To clear something up...
My suggestion still results in an objective rankings list. The only thing that is subjective about the ranking list (including Felix's current one) is the formula used to make the calculations. It is Felix's opinion that the current rules that his list abides by offers a good representation of the fighter's recent acheivements (aka, rank) as compared to other fighters. This makes Felix's current system just as subjective as the one that I'm suggestion. It's merely subjective where the formula is concerned. After a proper formula is determined, the activity on the ranking list is done objectively.
My suggestion still results in an objective rankings list. The only thing that is subjective about the ranking list (including Felix's current one) is the formula used to make the calculations. It is Felix's opinion that the current rules that his list abides by offers a good representation of the fighter's recent acheivements (aka, rank) as compared to other fighters. This makes Felix's current system just as subjective as the one that I'm suggestion. It's merely subjective where the formula is concerned. After a proper formula is determined, the activity on the ranking list is done objectively.
There is a women's boxing page that does computerized rankings.
This may give some insight on this matter.
here you can see a comparison of the rankings done by the organizations and by the computerized ranking system.
It's very interesting. The three organizations all have subjective rankings, but they all seem to be incredibly similar in their results, at least as far as the top 2-3 fighters of each weight division.
Here you can read an explanation and overview of why computerized Rankings were chosen by this particular website.
In that article, she explains the pros and cons to having a computerized ranking system.
I haven't looked into it deeply, but I'm curious to know what formula she uses.
This may give some insight on this matter.
here you can see a comparison of the rankings done by the organizations and by the computerized ranking system.
It's very interesting. The three organizations all have subjective rankings, but they all seem to be incredibly similar in their results, at least as far as the top 2-3 fighters of each weight division.
Here you can read an explanation and overview of why computerized Rankings were chosen by this particular website.
In that article, she explains the pros and cons to having a computerized ranking system.
I haven't looked into it deeply, but I'm curious to know what formula she uses.
I'd forgotten all about our last trip on this merry-go-round. Interesting to note that when we last discussed Jason he was ranked #114 after winning the K-1 NZ. Now after getting to the final of the K-1 Melbourne he's #119. Like I said, I think the intention is laudable but I think that at the end of the day people will only take it seriously if it is within the realm of their own perception. You could come up with a statistically accurate, objective, 100% logical rating system of basketball players but if it ranked mugsy bogues as the #1 NBA player of all time instead of Michael Jordan people would laugh at it. If it ranked Wilt Chamberlain #1 and Jordan #2 people would probably say " I dont agree but it's possible". I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Oceania who would accept Jason as being 50 whatever places behind Auckland Auimatagi (as just one example).
Felix
You have Bob Sapp at No 11 with only about half a dozen K-1 fights to his name "if that".
&
Ignashov at No 14
&
Aerts at No 26
With 10 times as many fights at K-1 level
And you think your ratings are correct?????
Jason Suttie should be way higher than you have him.
& sure jason probibilly does'nt care, But we as jasons fans would like to see him where he deserves to be.
At least the highest Kiwi on your ratings, Excluding Ray Sefo of course.
You have Bob Sapp at No 11 with only about half a dozen K-1 fights to his name "if that".
&
Ignashov at No 14
&
Aerts at No 26
With 10 times as many fights at K-1 level
And you think your ratings are correct?????
Jason Suttie should be way higher than you have him.
& sure jason probibilly does'nt care, But we as jasons fans would like to see him where he deserves to be.
At least the highest Kiwi on your ratings, Excluding Ray Sefo of course.
ahhh. bob the beast sapp.
he beat the #1 fighter in the world at the time, ernesto hoost. then he defended that same title against hoost. he lost it to mirko and fell 5 ranks to #6. he then got disqualified and fell another five ranks to #11.
i didn't give remy the #6 rank because there are special rules for disqualifications. the guilty party whether higher or lower ranked drops five ranks. i created this rule to punish the guilty party every time and to avoid a trap like abidi did against botha. if botha were higher ranked, abidi still would get the rank by playing dead.
can someone give me details about the aukland vs. jason fight? were both fighters fresh? when was it?
mike angrove mentioned the croatia vs. nzl series, those fights do indeed count. i thought i did update the rankings with the exception of ron sefo. i'll check the master list at home.
as for ron sefo, was his fight a majority draw on the judges scorecards? i heard the it was and the ref declared the fight a minority decision for the croatian.
he beat the #1 fighter in the world at the time, ernesto hoost. then he defended that same title against hoost. he lost it to mirko and fell 5 ranks to #6. he then got disqualified and fell another five ranks to #11.
i didn't give remy the #6 rank because there are special rules for disqualifications. the guilty party whether higher or lower ranked drops five ranks. i created this rule to punish the guilty party every time and to avoid a trap like abidi did against botha. if botha were higher ranked, abidi still would get the rank by playing dead.
can someone give me details about the aukland vs. jason fight? were both fighters fresh? when was it?
mike angrove mentioned the croatia vs. nzl series, those fights do indeed count. i thought i did update the rankings with the exception of ron sefo. i'll check the master list at home.
as for ron sefo, was his fight a majority draw on the judges scorecards? i heard the it was and the ref declared the fight a minority decision for the croatian.
One question for Felix
Jason has beaten Auckland in a One off WMTC world title match - how come Jason doesn't get that rank ?
I have also beaten Hiriwa and have only lost to Jason and Peter Graham - but I don't even have a rank (HAHA shamless self promotion)are these rankings only applied to K-1 match ups?
Hape and Mita aren't fighting anymore to my knowledge so how come they are still ranked
Andrew Peck loast a fight in Croatia to Daniel Marhold but I don't see Marhold ranked and that was an event held under the K-1 banner? (Mind you Andrew was beating the bejesus out of him until he threw the hail mary Hay maker!!!)
again, i would like details please.
when did jason beat aucland?
when did angrove beat terangi?
didn't mita fight this year against dan america?
is hape officially retired or just inactive? [yes i know who he is coaching.]
Jason has beaten Auckland in a One off WMTC world title match - how come Jason doesn't get that rank ?
I have also beaten Hiriwa and have only lost to Jason and Peter Graham - but I don't even have a rank (HAHA shamless self promotion)are these rankings only applied to K-1 match ups?
Hape and Mita aren't fighting anymore to my knowledge so how come they are still ranked
Andrew Peck loast a fight in Croatia to Daniel Marhold but I don't see Marhold ranked and that was an event held under the K-1 banner? (Mind you Andrew was beating the bejesus out of him until he threw the hail mary Hay maker!!!)
again, i would like details please.
when did jason beat aucland?
when did angrove beat terangi?
didn't mita fight this year against dan america?
is hape officially retired or just inactive? [yes i know who he is coaching.]
A "title"-based system, where each spot is treated like a title, can only work if there is contender "subsystem" to make sure the proper people fight each other. A title-holder should only compete against the top contenders to the title.
An example of what I'm talking about is the "ladder" system, which is often used in online game competition. Each spot is treated like a title, but they are only allowed to compete against people within 2 spots of their position. Also, if you are challenged for your position by someone within 2 spots, then you cannot decline it or you lose your position.
the reality of it is that i have no control over who will fight whom. i never will. what i do is track activity and record the results. match making is a completely different department.
i don't want to take all the responsibility of a governing organization. their rankings aren't that good anyway.
An example of what I'm talking about is the "ladder" system, which is often used in online game competition. Each spot is treated like a title, but they are only allowed to compete against people within 2 spots of their position. Also, if you are challenged for your position by someone within 2 spots, then you cannot decline it or you lose your position.
the reality of it is that i have no control over who will fight whom. i never will. what i do is track activity and record the results. match making is a completely different department.
i don't want to take all the responsibility of a governing organization. their rankings aren't that good anyway.
etk crew
Posted: 2003-10-29 01:41:59
Posted: 2003-10-29 01:41:59
Angove Vs Tee man, Dec 15th 2000 5 round point win for Angove in Auck
Suttie Vs Auckland july 2001 5 round point win for Jase for Wmta world title in Christchurch
Suttie Vs Auckland july 2001 5 round point win for Jase for Wmta world title in Christchurch
i'm afraid the angrove fight won't be counted. the list started at the end of 2000. officially dec 31st. anything after that is okay though.
the 5 round suttie match will definately count. auckland hasn't made any big jumps since then so i think it is fair to give jason what he deserves. if auckland had since jumped into the top 10, i wouldn't carry jason up to meet him.
the 5 round suttie match will definately count. auckland hasn't made any big jumps since then so i think it is fair to give jason what he deserves. if auckland had since jumped into the top 10, i wouldn't carry jason up to meet him.
Ahhhh help!!!! Felix rankings again!
Well to give Felix props we have another thing to fight about. LOL
Well to give Felix props we have another thing to fight about. LOL
always lots of fun, isn't it?
type "rankings" into the ax search engine and see how many times we've done this. LOL.
you'll notice a definite evolution.
1--- felix. you suck. die die die die.
2--- felix. you are wrong and a moron.
3--- i admire your effort but you are still wrong and still a moron.
4--- all you need is a few changes and you won't be such a moron anymore. wouldn't that be nice.
5--- felix. you suck. die die die die die.
so there was a small relapse at the end there but i still think i'm making progress.
type "rankings" into the ax search engine and see how many times we've done this. LOL.
you'll notice a definite evolution.
1--- felix. you suck. die die die die.
2--- felix. you are wrong and a moron.
3--- i admire your effort but you are still wrong and still a moron.
4--- all you need is a few changes and you won't be such a moron anymore. wouldn't that be nice.
5--- felix. you suck. die die die die die.
so there was a small relapse at the end there but i still think i'm making progress.
Felix your rankings are cool.
that is either a 7 or an 8. if you are sarcastic, that would be a 7.
according to the x-men movie, sometimes evolution leaps forward.
according to the x-men movie, sometimes evolution leaps forward.
Felix wrote "the reality of it is that i have no control over who will fight whom. i never will."
Felix, you did this same thing that last time that I discussed this with you. You picked one comment out of my entire post, misunderstood it, then made a counter point to that misunderstanding, and then dismissed the rest.
I am not suggesting that are, or that you should become, a matchmaker. I was explaining how the matchmaking is done and why a title-based system is flawed because of how the match-making is done.
I used the example of a "ladder" system because it is a similar ranking system to what you are using, but it has rules for matching people up to other people. That is the difference. That is why it works. If you don't have those rules, then the rankings aren't worth anything because someone in rank #200 can take the #1 rank in one match.
In other sports, the ranking system is used to decide who competes against who.
In K-1, there is no official ranking system and they don't give a damn who deserves to fight who. They sort of match up people at random.
At this point, I think we really need to focus on the fundamentals of this topic.
If the answer to #7 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the Anser to #8 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the answer to #9 is "yes" then your system is perfect, because that is exactly what it does.
Everyone's rank is determined by their last fight (singular) as oppposed to their last fights (plural).
------------
But I have further questions...
What made you choose the rule of the losing fighter dropping 5 ranks?
Why not 10 ranks? or 15?
Isn't the defining of this rule subjective?
------------
That brings me full-circle to my original suggestion that I made months ago...of redefining the rules that you use for defining your list. Rededign the formula for deciding who goes where after a fight.
------------
If you read that article that I posted about the Boxing site doing computerized rankings...she stated a limitation of the computerized rankings is the lack of detail used in the calculation. When a person watches a fight, there are multiple variables that they use to decide how far ahead that fighter has jumped in their little personal ranking list. It's never as simple as a "win" or "loss". For example, if a fighter totally dominates another fighter, that is information that is used in people's subjective rankings lists. However, when you turn the rankings into a calculation, you make it an objective ranking list...but you are leaving out details that can't be tallied with mathematics. The closest thing to that would be to use the judges scorecards, but that is a lot of work, and it's impossible to get that information.
In truth, even a mathematical system is only 99% objective. It's 1% subjective because you have to use your opinion to create the formula to use. That's what I've been getting at all of this time. The formula need to be redesigned to something that makes more sense. Make more sense how? Scroll back up to my questions on the fundamentals of a rankings list.
Felix, you did this same thing that last time that I discussed this with you. You picked one comment out of my entire post, misunderstood it, then made a counter point to that misunderstanding, and then dismissed the rest.
I am not suggesting that are, or that you should become, a matchmaker. I was explaining how the matchmaking is done and why a title-based system is flawed because of how the match-making is done.
I used the example of a "ladder" system because it is a similar ranking system to what you are using, but it has rules for matching people up to other people. That is the difference. That is why it works. If you don't have those rules, then the rankings aren't worth anything because someone in rank #200 can take the #1 rank in one match.
In other sports, the ranking system is used to decide who competes against who.
In K-1, there is no official ranking system and they don't give a damn who deserves to fight who. They sort of match up people at random.
At this point, I think we really need to focus on the fundamentals of this topic.
- 1. What is the primary goal of a ranking system?
- 2. What service does it provide to the fans
- 3. What service does it provide to the matchmakers
- 4. What service does it provide to the fighters
- 5. When someone looks at a ranking list, what information are they supposed to derive from it?
- 6. When someone is #1 on the ranking list, what does that mean exactly?
- 7. Does the #1 spot mean that fighter is the best fighter in the world at this moment in time?
- 8. Should the rank of each fighter be the result of their recent acheivements?
- 9. Or...should the rank of each fighter represent the result of only their last (singular) achievement?
If the answer to #7 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the Anser to #8 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the answer to #9 is "yes" then your system is perfect, because that is exactly what it does.
Everyone's rank is determined by their last fight (singular) as oppposed to their last fights (plural).
------------
But I have further questions...
What made you choose the rule of the losing fighter dropping 5 ranks?
Why not 10 ranks? or 15?
Isn't the defining of this rule subjective?
------------
That brings me full-circle to my original suggestion that I made months ago...of redefining the rules that you use for defining your list. Rededign the formula for deciding who goes where after a fight.
------------
If you read that article that I posted about the Boxing site doing computerized rankings...she stated a limitation of the computerized rankings is the lack of detail used in the calculation. When a person watches a fight, there are multiple variables that they use to decide how far ahead that fighter has jumped in their little personal ranking list. It's never as simple as a "win" or "loss". For example, if a fighter totally dominates another fighter, that is information that is used in people's subjective rankings lists. However, when you turn the rankings into a calculation, you make it an objective ranking list...but you are leaving out details that can't be tallied with mathematics. The closest thing to that would be to use the judges scorecards, but that is a lot of work, and it's impossible to get that information.
In truth, even a mathematical system is only 99% objective. It's 1% subjective because you have to use your opinion to create the formula to use. That's what I've been getting at all of this time. The formula need to be redesigned to something that makes more sense. Make more sense how? Scroll back up to my questions on the fundamentals of a rankings list.
Roger Deaton
Posted: 2003-10-29 08:05:43
Posted: 2003-10-29 08:05:43
Looking at his rankings, I see few things I disagree with. Though I am not familar with a lot of the fighters ranked, so I would be impressed if he was just able to keep track of all those fighters.
I think Ignashov should be in the TOP 5. Being 6-0 with 5 kos in 2003. Gary Goodridge at #15, and ahead of a guy like Carter Williams, doesn't seem right with Gary' 1-4-1 K-1 record.
Plus it is kind of hard to keep accurate rankings when guys like Skelton and Duke Roufus are inactive in kickboxing. Plus for Mirko to keep the mythical #1-ranking, he needs to stay active and not just be a mma fighter knocking-out pro wrestlers.
I think Ignashov should be in the TOP 5. Being 6-0 with 5 kos in 2003. Gary Goodridge at #15, and ahead of a guy like Carter Williams, doesn't seem right with Gary' 1-4-1 K-1 record.
Plus it is kind of hard to keep accurate rankings when guys like Skelton and Duke Roufus are inactive in kickboxing. Plus for Mirko to keep the mythical #1-ranking, he needs to stay active and not just be a mma fighter knocking-out pro wrestlers.
i'll try to answer everything you wrote brian.
Felix, you did this same thing that last time that I discussed this with you. You picked one comment out of my entire post, misunderstood it, then made a counter point to that misunderstanding, and then dismissed the rest.
that happens when i post at work between meetings and the like.
I am not suggesting that are, or that you should become, a matchmaker. I was explaining how the matchmaking is done and why a title-based system is flawed because of how the match-making is done.
correct me if i'm wrong. what you are saying is that because i can't prevent bob sapp from becoming #1 in the world that the system is flawed. is that right? are you saying that no one should be able to jump from #180 to #1 in only one fight? are you using boxing sanctioning bodies and how they decide who is ready for a title shot to show that any reasonable system should keep #180 from even eating breakfast with #1. is that right?
I used the example of a "ladder" system because it is a similar ranking system to what you are using, but it has rules for matching people up to other people. That is the difference. That is why it works. If you don't have those rules, then the rankings aren't worth anything because someone in rank #200 can take the #1 rank in one match.
rules for matching people? i'm assuming that you are speaking theoretically. BTW, how on earth could someone ranked #200 take the #1 rank in one match? wouldn't the #1 guy just make a puddle of the #200 guy in record time?
In other sports, the ranking system is used to decide who competes against who.
In K-1, there is no official ranking system and they don't give a damn who deserves to fight who. They sort of match up people at random.
they must have some kind of a ranking system though. the grand prix champ is #1 and the finalist is #2. musashi is one of the best 8 according to their system. then they consider popularity. sure remy beat sapp but he is so good for business that bonjansky can beat him every day and still wait in line behind sapp for a spot on the next event.
anyway, i'll agree with the above statement. most ranking systems do decide who will meet whom, at least in the playoffs. one difference though is that those rankings are inhouse rankings by the governing bodies. is that a relevant point for this discussion?
At this point, I think we really need to focus on the fundamentals of this topic.
sure.
1. What is the primary goal of a ranking system?
--to provide a fair tracking system for every fighter. never again will a fighter wonder what his rank will be after a fight. never again will he shake his head and say "what the hell did i even go for?"
2. What service does it provide to the fans
--fans? fans are jerks. i should know. i'm a fan and i'm a jerk. ask anyone from new zealand. this list gives them some thing to scream about, i guess.
seriously, it should give them an overview of the current activity in terms of who is beating whom.
3. What service does it provide to the matchmakers
--now? nothing. in ten years? i think matchmakers will avoid the boxing style development. a 20-0 record against bums will never mean much on my list. in boxing that and a sweet pay off is a title shot.
4. What service does it provide to the fighters
--it will give full recognition for a fluke win and full responsibility for a choke. bob sapp, gary goodridge and andrew thompson faced better fighters. i think they deserve more than skepticism. they won. hoost, bernardo and abidi were being fed guppies and choked on them.
5. When someone looks at a ranking list, what information are they supposed to derive from it?
--perhaps a few things. they can see who is beating whom. they can see who is getting the better match ups. they can get a sense of who is ranked higher than fighters he can't beat or lower than fighters he can. maybe that isn't direct information but that is the first thing a lot of people notice.
6. When someone is #1 on the ranking list, what does that mean exactly?
--from branko cicatic to mirko filipovic, one #1 has taken the rank from the previous one. hoost, hug, bernardo and aerts were great and may be interpretted as the best at those times. patick smith and bob sapp will likely be remembered as flukes who got lucky. really, it is up to the viewer.
7. Does the #1 spot mean that fighter is the best fighter in the world at this moment in time?
--it could mean that, i guess. if you think a fight is to decide who is the better fighter, then may be #1 means best in the world. when mirko stepped into the ring with sapp, i was betting on mirko, so i guess #1 doesn't mean best in the world if i have to judge. some people thought tyson would KO lewis even though lewis held the titles. if a title really means best in the world, no one would ever bet for the challenger, would he?
8. Should the rank of each fighter be the result of their recent acheivements?
yep.
9. Or...should the rank of each fighter represent the result of only their last (singular) achievement?
no.
If the answer to #7 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the Anser to #8 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the answer to #9 is "yes" then your system is perfect, because that is exactly what it does.
i guess i'm cornered now. let's take bob sapp again. how did he get to #11? he beat hoost, defended against hoost, lost to mirko and got DQ'd vs. remy. that is not one fight. filho? started at #3, lost to ivanovich, defeated ivanovich, defeated aerts, went inactive for one year, drew with bernardo and lost to leko. that's why he is where he is. micheal mcdonald has lost to semmy, martin, carter etc. he is not where he is because of one fight.
Everyone's rank is determined by their last fight (singular) as oppposed to their last fights (plural).
i don't think so.
------------
But I have further questions...
What made you choose the rule of the losing fighter dropping 5 ranks?
Why not 10 ranks? or 15?
it is pretty complicated.
Isn't the defining of this rule subjective?
i guess so. as long as the implementation is completely objective, i'm happy though. the very last thing i want is to rate fighters on a case-by-case basis.
------------
That brings me full-circle to my original suggestion that I made months ago...of redefining the rules that you use for defining your list. Rededign the formula for deciding who goes where after a fight.
there are two criteria that i won't budge on.
1- if fighter A beats fighter B, he gets ranked higher. sorry hoost, bernardo and abidi.
2- if fighter A only fights lowered ranked opponents he won't go up in rank. sorry aerts, suttie and roufus.
------------
If you read that article that I posted about the Boxing site doing computerized rankings...she stated a limitation of the computerized rankings is the lack of detail used in the calculation. When a person watches a fight, there are multiple variables that they use to decide how far ahead that fighter has jumped in their little personal ranking list. It's never as simple as a "win" or "loss". For example, if a fighter totally dominates another fighter, that is information that is used in people's subjective rankings lists. However, when you turn the rankings into a calculation, you make it an objective ranking list...but you are leaving out details that can't be tallied with mathematics. The closest thing to that would be to use the judges scorecards, but that is a lot of work, and it's impossible to get that information.
and i don't want that information. what she sees as a limitation, i see differently.
In truth, even a mathematical system is only 99% objective. It's 1% subjective because you have to use your opinion to create the formula to use. That's what I've been getting at all of this time. The formula need to be redesigned to something that makes more sense. Make more sense how? Scroll back up to my questions on the fundamentals of a rankings list.
i have worked with a few other models and this is by far the best of the lot. how important is it to make sense anyway? why is it so hard to accept the fact that weird stuff happens? why is it so hard to be fair? no one would blink an eye if jerome took hoost's rank but when sapp does it, it is the ranking that doesn't make sense.
Felix, you did this same thing that last time that I discussed this with you. You picked one comment out of my entire post, misunderstood it, then made a counter point to that misunderstanding, and then dismissed the rest.
that happens when i post at work between meetings and the like.
I am not suggesting that are, or that you should become, a matchmaker. I was explaining how the matchmaking is done and why a title-based system is flawed because of how the match-making is done.
correct me if i'm wrong. what you are saying is that because i can't prevent bob sapp from becoming #1 in the world that the system is flawed. is that right? are you saying that no one should be able to jump from #180 to #1 in only one fight? are you using boxing sanctioning bodies and how they decide who is ready for a title shot to show that any reasonable system should keep #180 from even eating breakfast with #1. is that right?
I used the example of a "ladder" system because it is a similar ranking system to what you are using, but it has rules for matching people up to other people. That is the difference. That is why it works. If you don't have those rules, then the rankings aren't worth anything because someone in rank #200 can take the #1 rank in one match.
rules for matching people? i'm assuming that you are speaking theoretically. BTW, how on earth could someone ranked #200 take the #1 rank in one match? wouldn't the #1 guy just make a puddle of the #200 guy in record time?
In other sports, the ranking system is used to decide who competes against who.
In K-1, there is no official ranking system and they don't give a damn who deserves to fight who. They sort of match up people at random.
they must have some kind of a ranking system though. the grand prix champ is #1 and the finalist is #2. musashi is one of the best 8 according to their system. then they consider popularity. sure remy beat sapp but he is so good for business that bonjansky can beat him every day and still wait in line behind sapp for a spot on the next event.
anyway, i'll agree with the above statement. most ranking systems do decide who will meet whom, at least in the playoffs. one difference though is that those rankings are inhouse rankings by the governing bodies. is that a relevant point for this discussion?
At this point, I think we really need to focus on the fundamentals of this topic.
sure.
1. What is the primary goal of a ranking system?
--to provide a fair tracking system for every fighter. never again will a fighter wonder what his rank will be after a fight. never again will he shake his head and say "what the hell did i even go for?"
2. What service does it provide to the fans
--fans? fans are jerks. i should know. i'm a fan and i'm a jerk. ask anyone from new zealand. this list gives them some thing to scream about, i guess.
seriously, it should give them an overview of the current activity in terms of who is beating whom.
3. What service does it provide to the matchmakers
--now? nothing. in ten years? i think matchmakers will avoid the boxing style development. a 20-0 record against bums will never mean much on my list. in boxing that and a sweet pay off is a title shot.
4. What service does it provide to the fighters
--it will give full recognition for a fluke win and full responsibility for a choke. bob sapp, gary goodridge and andrew thompson faced better fighters. i think they deserve more than skepticism. they won. hoost, bernardo and abidi were being fed guppies and choked on them.
5. When someone looks at a ranking list, what information are they supposed to derive from it?
--perhaps a few things. they can see who is beating whom. they can see who is getting the better match ups. they can get a sense of who is ranked higher than fighters he can't beat or lower than fighters he can. maybe that isn't direct information but that is the first thing a lot of people notice.
6. When someone is #1 on the ranking list, what does that mean exactly?
--from branko cicatic to mirko filipovic, one #1 has taken the rank from the previous one. hoost, hug, bernardo and aerts were great and may be interpretted as the best at those times. patick smith and bob sapp will likely be remembered as flukes who got lucky. really, it is up to the viewer.
7. Does the #1 spot mean that fighter is the best fighter in the world at this moment in time?
--it could mean that, i guess. if you think a fight is to decide who is the better fighter, then may be #1 means best in the world. when mirko stepped into the ring with sapp, i was betting on mirko, so i guess #1 doesn't mean best in the world if i have to judge. some people thought tyson would KO lewis even though lewis held the titles. if a title really means best in the world, no one would ever bet for the challenger, would he?
8. Should the rank of each fighter be the result of their recent acheivements?
yep.
9. Or...should the rank of each fighter represent the result of only their last (singular) achievement?
no.
If the answer to #7 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the Anser to #8 is "yes" then your system is flawed.
If the answer to #9 is "yes" then your system is perfect, because that is exactly what it does.
i guess i'm cornered now. let's take bob sapp again. how did he get to #11? he beat hoost, defended against hoost, lost to mirko and got DQ'd vs. remy. that is not one fight. filho? started at #3, lost to ivanovich, defeated ivanovich, defeated aerts, went inactive for one year, drew with bernardo and lost to leko. that's why he is where he is. micheal mcdonald has lost to semmy, martin, carter etc. he is not where he is because of one fight.
Everyone's rank is determined by their last fight (singular) as oppposed to their last fights (plural).
i don't think so.
------------
But I have further questions...
What made you choose the rule of the losing fighter dropping 5 ranks?
Why not 10 ranks? or 15?
it is pretty complicated.
Isn't the defining of this rule subjective?
i guess so. as long as the implementation is completely objective, i'm happy though. the very last thing i want is to rate fighters on a case-by-case basis.
------------
That brings me full-circle to my original suggestion that I made months ago...of redefining the rules that you use for defining your list. Rededign the formula for deciding who goes where after a fight.
there are two criteria that i won't budge on.
1- if fighter A beats fighter B, he gets ranked higher. sorry hoost, bernardo and abidi.
2- if fighter A only fights lowered ranked opponents he won't go up in rank. sorry aerts, suttie and roufus.
------------
If you read that article that I posted about the Boxing site doing computerized rankings...she stated a limitation of the computerized rankings is the lack of detail used in the calculation. When a person watches a fight, there are multiple variables that they use to decide how far ahead that fighter has jumped in their little personal ranking list. It's never as simple as a "win" or "loss". For example, if a fighter totally dominates another fighter, that is information that is used in people's subjective rankings lists. However, when you turn the rankings into a calculation, you make it an objective ranking list...but you are leaving out details that can't be tallied with mathematics. The closest thing to that would be to use the judges scorecards, but that is a lot of work, and it's impossible to get that information.
and i don't want that information. what she sees as a limitation, i see differently.
In truth, even a mathematical system is only 99% objective. It's 1% subjective because you have to use your opinion to create the formula to use. That's what I've been getting at all of this time. The formula need to be redesigned to something that makes more sense. Make more sense how? Scroll back up to my questions on the fundamentals of a rankings list.
i have worked with a few other models and this is by far the best of the lot. how important is it to make sense anyway? why is it so hard to accept the fact that weird stuff happens? why is it so hard to be fair? no one would blink an eye if jerome took hoost's rank but when sapp does it, it is the ranking that doesn't make sense.
Before I wrote it It ment to be sarcastic, but believe me I am not.
K-1 does not have well mentained rankings system of contenders that would chalenge the champ, therefore I think it is as closest to K-1 style rankings as it gets.
Lets say it strait how can you bring any order and reasoning into a total chaos, what the K-1 rankings and value system of their fighters are.
We all here know who the best in the world are and no ranking in the world will change it. It did not matter that Sapp was no. 1 in yo rankings I still had him as 3rd class fighter.
Your rankings are interesting from a view of how inconsistent the performance of top fighters is. Big shuffles in top ten is what I mean.
K-1 does not have well mentained rankings system of contenders that would chalenge the champ, therefore I think it is as closest to K-1 style rankings as it gets.
Lets say it strait how can you bring any order and reasoning into a total chaos, what the K-1 rankings and value system of their fighters are.
We all here know who the best in the world are and no ranking in the world will change it. It did not matter that Sapp was no. 1 in yo rankings I still had him as 3rd class fighter.
Your rankings are interesting from a view of how inconsistent the performance of top fighters is. Big shuffles in top ten is what I mean.
i'm cool with that.
Felix
Why dont you do a ranking system where the fighters get awarded a certain No of points for each fight they fight,
Say
3 for a win, 1 for a loss,
Then give bonus points to the winner depending on wheather it was a TKO. KO.
Say 1 bonus point for TKO & 2 bonus points for KO & winners of grand prix could be awarded say 10 points.
Example: Joe Bloggs wins fight by KO, He recives 5 points & the losser recives 1 point.
This way whoever is got the highest points in the table is No1 in the rankings.
Also award the points for all fights they fight not just the first fight
This way the more active fighters will clock up the point & your rating will better reflect who the best fighters are & who should be in the top ten.
Why dont you do a ranking system where the fighters get awarded a certain No of points for each fight they fight,
Say
3 for a win, 1 for a loss,
Then give bonus points to the winner depending on wheather it was a TKO. KO.
Say 1 bonus point for TKO & 2 bonus points for KO & winners of grand prix could be awarded say 10 points.
Example: Joe Bloggs wins fight by KO, He recives 5 points & the losser recives 1 point.
This way whoever is got the highest points in the table is No1 in the rankings.
Also award the points for all fights they fight not just the first fight
This way the more active fighters will clock up the point & your rating will better reflect who the best fighters are & who should be in the top ten.
Roger Deaton
Posted: 2003-10-29 12:07:15
Posted: 2003-10-29 12:07:15
My World-class Heavyweight TOP 10 as of this date.
1) Alexey(i) Ignashov
2) Mirko Filipovic
3) Ernesto Hoost
4) Jerome LeBanner
5) Stephen Leko
6) Mark Hunt
7) Ray Sefo
8) Peter Aerts
9) Jerrel Venetiaan
10) Peter Graham
x) Carter Williams, Sapp, and Bonjasky would be three that could be argued for the number 10-spot. With Sapp, how much "weight" do you give his wins over Hoost.
1) Alexey(i) Ignashov
2) Mirko Filipovic
3) Ernesto Hoost
4) Jerome LeBanner
5) Stephen Leko
6) Mark Hunt
7) Ray Sefo
8) Peter Aerts
9) Jerrel Venetiaan
10) Peter Graham
x) Carter Williams, Sapp, and Bonjasky would be three that could be argued for the number 10-spot. With Sapp, how much "weight" do you give his wins over Hoost.
Oh Man too much to read - and too much hard work to complain about.
It's a system it has it has its flaws and at the end of the day most fighters aren't too concerned about where they stand on Felix's rankings (although I'm so dissapointed I missed out by 16 days!LOL!)
If it were determining purses or was given creedence by a major sanctioning body then it would be a concern where the inequities apply - but at this point its just a system which the fans can argue about.
I like it - its consistent and subjective - If we don't like it or would like to see some thing else why not have Brian put together an Ax ranking based on collective feedback and agreed rules....? (My guess is we we spend the next 12 months arguing about the rules anyway)
It's a system it has it has its flaws and at the end of the day most fighters aren't too concerned about where they stand on Felix's rankings (although I'm so dissapointed I missed out by 16 days!LOL!)
If it were determining purses or was given creedence by a major sanctioning body then it would be a concern where the inequities apply - but at this point its just a system which the fans can argue about.
I like it - its consistent and subjective - If we don't like it or would like to see some thing else why not have Brian put together an Ax ranking based on collective feedback and agreed rules....? (My guess is we we spend the next 12 months arguing about the rules anyway)
highlander,
that was one of my original ideas. it didn't make the final draft for a few reasons.
1. i would have to take every active fighter and get their full records.
2. it would take years for ray sefo to catch up to hoost, not to mention bob sapp at all. an old fading fighter would stay on top too long. look at roger's rankings above. hoost has 87 wins and mirko doesn't even have 87 fights.
3. in response to [2], i tried a limited number of fights but that had its own problems. last year, lebanner was picking up easy wins against goodridge and frye.
4. in response to [3], i tried a limited time period but that was unfair to guy who couldn't get k-1 fights. someone like matt skelton would slide down the rankings because ishii didn't want him on his show. how fair is that?
5. i wanted to give more points for beating hoost than for beating musashi. even if musashi went down in dazzling KO fashion.
6. i wanted a lineal champion.
7. i didn't want 2 different systems of ranking, one for #1 and another for #2-200.
a point system would make absolutely no sense, i'm afraid. if you read the comments above or on other threads, one common complaint is "fighter A beat fighter B, why is he ranked lower?"
do you remember when mirko limped to the ring to fight bernardo? there is no way in this world i will ever accept semi or final tournament rounds. both fighters must be fresh.
i was actually thinking of starting a second ranking list, purely subjective. what i would do is ask the winner of the most recent pool to give his top 10 and replace it with the next winners ranking. pool winners in a sense earn the title "expert". they predict the future better than fossum or schafer could. it would also be a good laugh.
that was one of my original ideas. it didn't make the final draft for a few reasons.
1. i would have to take every active fighter and get their full records.
2. it would take years for ray sefo to catch up to hoost, not to mention bob sapp at all. an old fading fighter would stay on top too long. look at roger's rankings above. hoost has 87 wins and mirko doesn't even have 87 fights.
3. in response to [2], i tried a limited number of fights but that had its own problems. last year, lebanner was picking up easy wins against goodridge and frye.
4. in response to [3], i tried a limited time period but that was unfair to guy who couldn't get k-1 fights. someone like matt skelton would slide down the rankings because ishii didn't want him on his show. how fair is that?
5. i wanted to give more points for beating hoost than for beating musashi. even if musashi went down in dazzling KO fashion.
6. i wanted a lineal champion.
7. i didn't want 2 different systems of ranking, one for #1 and another for #2-200.
a point system would make absolutely no sense, i'm afraid. if you read the comments above or on other threads, one common complaint is "fighter A beat fighter B, why is he ranked lower?"
do you remember when mirko limped to the ring to fight bernardo? there is no way in this world i will ever accept semi or final tournament rounds. both fighters must be fresh.
i was actually thinking of starting a second ranking list, purely subjective. what i would do is ask the winner of the most recent pool to give his top 10 and replace it with the next winners ranking. pool winners in a sense earn the title "expert". they predict the future better than fossum or schafer could. it would also be a good laugh.
Roger Deaton
Posted: 2003-10-29 21:17:18
Posted: 2003-10-29 21:17:18
I based my on fighters on the World-Class level who have been active over the past 2 years (to 3 years).
With a guy like Errol Paris- his over-all record is good, but is 4-1-1 since 2002. His only name win in that time was over Bonjasky, and he was defeated by Majer. Parris has had only one k-1 fight this year, and it was a no contest.
I have Ignashov at #1 because he is 9-1 over the last couple of years with 5 kos. Only defeat was a decision to Leko. Win over Aerts, Bergy, Abidi, Nortje, and Bernardo. He is 2003 finalists, and is probably the favorite right now to win the World title. And then if you look at his over-all career, his few defeats have come by decisions in 3 round fights. And he even has a win over Rob Kaman.
With Mirko, maybe he is too high. 4-0 since 2002, 3kos. Wins over Sapp, Bonjasky, and Hunt. If he continues to remain inactive as kickboxer, he shouldn't be #1 or #2. What he does in mma fighting should have no impact on his standing in kickboxing rankings.
Hoost can not be any lower that #3. He is the 2002 K-1 World champ. Yes he was beaten twice by Sapp. But is 8-2 since 2002 with 6 kos. Wins over Leko, Sefo, LeBaner, Holm, and Abidi.
LeBanner, Leko, Hunt, and Sefo. Can all be argued for where they belong in the next spots. LeBanner is 8-1 7 kos last couple of years with the only loss to Hoost by ko. So he can't be higher than Hoost, and he has twice beaten Hunt in that time frame. Leko is a 2003 finalist. Has wins over Bonjasky, Ignashov, Aerts, Bernardo, and Filho over the last few years. Hunt is only 4-3 since 2002. With the defeats being to LeBanner (twice) and once to Mirko. But has beaten Leko. Sefo is a 2003 Finalist, 8-1 in recent years with name wins over Bernardo, Yvel, Aerts, and Williams. I believe the one loss was to Hoost. So I probably could have put Sefo ahead of Hunt.
With a guy like Errol Paris- his over-all record is good, but is 4-1-1 since 2002. His only name win in that time was over Bonjasky, and he was defeated by Majer. Parris has had only one k-1 fight this year, and it was a no contest.
I have Ignashov at #1 because he is 9-1 over the last couple of years with 5 kos. Only defeat was a decision to Leko. Win over Aerts, Bergy, Abidi, Nortje, and Bernardo. He is 2003 finalists, and is probably the favorite right now to win the World title. And then if you look at his over-all career, his few defeats have come by decisions in 3 round fights. And he even has a win over Rob Kaman.
With Mirko, maybe he is too high. 4-0 since 2002, 3kos. Wins over Sapp, Bonjasky, and Hunt. If he continues to remain inactive as kickboxer, he shouldn't be #1 or #2. What he does in mma fighting should have no impact on his standing in kickboxing rankings.
Hoost can not be any lower that #3. He is the 2002 K-1 World champ. Yes he was beaten twice by Sapp. But is 8-2 since 2002 with 6 kos. Wins over Leko, Sefo, LeBaner, Holm, and Abidi.
LeBanner, Leko, Hunt, and Sefo. Can all be argued for where they belong in the next spots. LeBanner is 8-1 7 kos last couple of years with the only loss to Hoost by ko. So he can't be higher than Hoost, and he has twice beaten Hunt in that time frame. Leko is a 2003 finalist. Has wins over Bonjasky, Ignashov, Aerts, Bernardo, and Filho over the last few years. Hunt is only 4-3 since 2002. With the defeats being to LeBanner (twice) and once to Mirko. But has beaten Leko. Sefo is a 2003 Finalist, 8-1 in recent years with name wins over Bernardo, Yvel, Aerts, and Williams. I believe the one loss was to Hoost. So I probably could have put Sefo ahead of Hunt.
nice ranking roger. an underacheiver like aerts at #8 is the only thing that stands out though.
FAQ
1. Why would you want to make an independent ranking?
Short answer- I'm nuts.
Longer answer- I enjoy numbers and kickboxing. These two things just came together.
2. The K-1 is a tournament sport. They don't need a ranking. They choose a champ with the Grand Prix.
First, K-1 is not a sport but a company. I treat all promotional companies equally. The K-1 event results play a major factor in the ranking because they are the biggest, not because this is a K-1 ranking.
3. Why are they so bad? I mean did you really think Bob Sapp was the best kickboxer in the world?
The truth is I bet against him every time he steps in the ring. In five fights, I have been right only twice. The man can't kick and can't box yet he was the number one kickboxer.
4. So, why was he #1 in the world if you hold him in such low regard?
For the same reason Leon Spinks, Buster Douglas and Hasim Rahman could become boxing champions. He beat the #1 fighter at the time, Ernesto Hoost.
5. But he only had 2 fights!
Yes, and he took the #1 rank with his third fight. Strange, huh?
6. Why don't you do something about it?
Like what? If a promoter wants to match Bob Sapp and Ernesto Hoost, what can I do? Tonya Harding's husband is still in jail, isn't he?
7. You know what I mean; find some way of keeping him out of the top ten.
Some way? You mean tamper with the results by imposing my opinion that the underdog got lucky and didn't earn a place on the list that any other fighter would get? Sounds like corruption to me.
8. But your list had a chump not a champ. Everyone from #2 to #20 would pound him. That makes no sense.
Well, just using the word "would" is counterfactual. Hoost would have pounded him but he didn't. The fact is that Sapp won against the #1 fighter and as a result became the #1 fighter just like every underdog champion.
9. But that doesn't make him better than LeBanner.
No, but it did make him higher ranked than LeBanner. Ironically, Jerome LeBanner had a choice at the draw for the 2002 Grand Prix, Sapp or Musashi. If he had chosen Sapp, he would probably have won and taken the #1 rank. Instead he fought the lower ranked fighter.
10. Well, what do you expect people to think when they see Sapp, Goodridge and Parris so high on your list?
Now, I expect them to freak out and call me names. In time, I expect them to recognize that the list is kept by me but decided by the fighters themselves.
11. What do you mean by "decided by the fighters"?
I mean that the two fighters step into the ring, one defending his rank against the other. They decide when to throw kicks. They decide when to throw punches. They decide when to keep their hands up. The end result is their own doing.
12. End result? Are you saying this is based solely on who wins?
Yes. If the higher ranked fighter wins, he defends his rank. If the lower ranked fighter wins, he takes the higher rank as he would a title and the fighter who failed to defend his rank then falls 5 ranks.
13. You mean a first round KO and a five round decision are worth the same?
Yes.
14. How on Earth do you justify that?
Some fighters like kicking. Others don't throw a single kick. Some are power punchers. Others will try to hit you 100 times a round. Some want to block everything. Others depend on luck or the toughness of their chins. There are lots of strategies and they are all based on matching the strengths of one fighter to the weaknesses of his opponent and the rules of the game.
15. So?
So. If you can win by decision or stoppage, neither is worth more. They are just two different paths to the same objective, winning.
16. Are you crazy?
You would think so, wouldn't you? Most fans think when you out-point your opponent, you get a win, but when you knock out your opponent, you get a super win. Sports don't work that way. In hockey a 10-0 win is worth the same as a 2-1 win, two points in the standings.
17. In hockey, the last place team can't jump to the #1 spot by beating the leading team.
There are more differences between team sports and fighting sports that should be considered before making a general statement like that.
-The NHL has a season with a defined beginning and end.
-All NHL teams all play the same number of games.
These conditions don't exist in fighting sports. That is why we use a title system.
18. In boxing the title is only for the champion. Everyone else is evaluated. What do you think of that?
I think it is confusing. In most cases, it is easier to become champion of the world than #1 contender in boxing. In a few cases, unproven fighters get in the top ten without an explanation. We can only assume large sums of cash have changed hands.
19. Why not have a point system like tennis or the IBO?
I've experimented with a few models and found none that work as well as the list I now have. They have always conflicted with my unconditional criteria.
20. Unconditional criteria? What are they?
a)If Fighter A beats Fighter B, he must be ranked higher.
b)If Fighter A only fights lower ranked opponents, he won't move up in rank.
21. What? Just because Fighter A beats Fighter B doesn't mean he is better!
Yes, it does. That's what the fight is for, to decide who is better. Now don't get me wrong. I know luck may come into play and may give an unexpected outcome. Having said that, the onus is on the higher ranked fighter to defend his rank or lose it. If he fails, he will suffer the full consequences.
22. So you'll rank some bum ahead of one or more fighters he can't beat?
We're back to that counterfactual language, "can't beat". This is the same as saying a fighter "will win" or "would win". No one knows for sure who will win or who won't win. A ranking that tries reflect that will reflect nothing more than fantasy. If hindsight is 20/20, why settle for foresight.
In short, if you feel a higher ranked fighter would lose to a lower ranked fighter, the answer to your question is "yes". However, the list itself is based on results, not expectations. If the results match fans expectations, it is merely coincidence.
23. Back to the K-1, wouldn't the Grand Prix champion get the #1 rank at the end of every year since he would either beat the reigning #1 or beat someone who eliminated him?
I only count the opening round of tournaments. Both fighters must be fresh.
24. What if A beats B, B beats C and C beats A?
This is actually impossible because it ignores the element of time. A real life possibility is A beats B, B then beats C and then C beats A. I would adjust the rankings after each fight as long as a fighter didn't fight twice in the same day.
25. What if the judges awarded the wrong guy the winner?
The decision stands and is reflected on the list. Judges judge fights, not ranking lists. If the quality of judging is substandard, it must be improved. The purpose of a ranking list is not to repair the damage caused by low quality promotions.
26. What if the fight ends in a disqualification?
This is special. The guilty party will drop 5 ranks regardless of whether or not he was ranked higher.
27. What about inactive fighters?
Throughout the year, I make a note of who has and who hasn't fought. On December 31st, I go through the list and drop the inactive fighters 5 ranks. Those who went two years without fighting drop 15. Those who went 3 years inactive fall to the bottom of the list. More than that is a bump from the list entirely.
28. How does your list compare to other lists?
I once calculated the correlation (Spearman's rho) of my list to another independent list. It came out relatively low, 45% or so. Besides the objective versus subjective approaches, he divided the weight division in two, heavy and superheavy. Under this combination of circumstances, I don't expect our lists to ever correlate at an acceptable level (85% or more) except under coincidental circumstances.
29. What about the official ranking lists such as the ISKA, IKF, WKA and WAKO?
These organizations are the reason I started my list. A fighter can win and still be ranked lower than his defeated opponent. Some fighters remain in the top ten despite horrible slumps. In short, the above organizations put no value on winning and losing. That is wrong.
30. What do fighters think of you list?
Initially, they react like most fans who are used to subjective evaluations. They are pretty quick to warm up to it though. They see that I drop my favorites when they lose and raise my least favorites when they win. They therefore conclude that I am completely unbiased in the way I manage the list. They also like the idea that a loss won't haunt them indefinitely. A fighter can have a bad day in the ring and bounce back very quickly. Two examples are Filho and Bernardo who lost to Ivanovich and Goodridge.
31. How can I help?
It is easy to follow the top 30. After that, collecting information is a little tricky. If you can post fight results on Axkickboxing or Sherdog, that would be a tremendous help.
Also, some fighters are on the list that shouldn't be. If anyone dies or loses a limb or simply retires, it would be appropriate if he were taken off the list.
Furthermore, some fighters get listed twice. This is because of Japanese katakana or various spellings using roman letters or the use of nicknames or whatever. If you can find the fighters from your part of the world and check the information, that would be appreciated.
That's about it, fight results and proofreading.
1. Why would you want to make an independent ranking?
Short answer- I'm nuts.
Longer answer- I enjoy numbers and kickboxing. These two things just came together.
2. The K-1 is a tournament sport. They don't need a ranking. They choose a champ with the Grand Prix.
First, K-1 is not a sport but a company. I treat all promotional companies equally. The K-1 event results play a major factor in the ranking because they are the biggest, not because this is a K-1 ranking.
3. Why are they so bad? I mean did you really think Bob Sapp was the best kickboxer in the world?
The truth is I bet against him every time he steps in the ring. In five fights, I have been right only twice. The man can't kick and can't box yet he was the number one kickboxer.
4. So, why was he #1 in the world if you hold him in such low regard?
For the same reason Leon Spinks, Buster Douglas and Hasim Rahman could become boxing champions. He beat the #1 fighter at the time, Ernesto Hoost.
5. But he only had 2 fights!
Yes, and he took the #1 rank with his third fight. Strange, huh?
6. Why don't you do something about it?
Like what? If a promoter wants to match Bob Sapp and Ernesto Hoost, what can I do? Tonya Harding's husband is still in jail, isn't he?
7. You know what I mean; find some way of keeping him out of the top ten.
Some way? You mean tamper with the results by imposing my opinion that the underdog got lucky and didn't earn a place on the list that any other fighter would get? Sounds like corruption to me.
8. But your list had a chump not a champ. Everyone from #2 to #20 would pound him. That makes no sense.
Well, just using the word "would" is counterfactual. Hoost would have pounded him but he didn't. The fact is that Sapp won against the #1 fighter and as a result became the #1 fighter just like every underdog champion.
9. But that doesn't make him better than LeBanner.
No, but it did make him higher ranked than LeBanner. Ironically, Jerome LeBanner had a choice at the draw for the 2002 Grand Prix, Sapp or Musashi. If he had chosen Sapp, he would probably have won and taken the #1 rank. Instead he fought the lower ranked fighter.
10. Well, what do you expect people to think when they see Sapp, Goodridge and Parris so high on your list?
Now, I expect them to freak out and call me names. In time, I expect them to recognize that the list is kept by me but decided by the fighters themselves.
11. What do you mean by "decided by the fighters"?
I mean that the two fighters step into the ring, one defending his rank against the other. They decide when to throw kicks. They decide when to throw punches. They decide when to keep their hands up. The end result is their own doing.
12. End result? Are you saying this is based solely on who wins?
Yes. If the higher ranked fighter wins, he defends his rank. If the lower ranked fighter wins, he takes the higher rank as he would a title and the fighter who failed to defend his rank then falls 5 ranks.
13. You mean a first round KO and a five round decision are worth the same?
Yes.
14. How on Earth do you justify that?
Some fighters like kicking. Others don't throw a single kick. Some are power punchers. Others will try to hit you 100 times a round. Some want to block everything. Others depend on luck or the toughness of their chins. There are lots of strategies and they are all based on matching the strengths of one fighter to the weaknesses of his opponent and the rules of the game.
15. So?
So. If you can win by decision or stoppage, neither is worth more. They are just two different paths to the same objective, winning.
16. Are you crazy?
You would think so, wouldn't you? Most fans think when you out-point your opponent, you get a win, but when you knock out your opponent, you get a super win. Sports don't work that way. In hockey a 10-0 win is worth the same as a 2-1 win, two points in the standings.
17. In hockey, the last place team can't jump to the #1 spot by beating the leading team.
There are more differences between team sports and fighting sports that should be considered before making a general statement like that.
-The NHL has a season with a defined beginning and end.
-All NHL teams all play the same number of games.
These conditions don't exist in fighting sports. That is why we use a title system.
18. In boxing the title is only for the champion. Everyone else is evaluated. What do you think of that?
I think it is confusing. In most cases, it is easier to become champion of the world than #1 contender in boxing. In a few cases, unproven fighters get in the top ten without an explanation. We can only assume large sums of cash have changed hands.
19. Why not have a point system like tennis or the IBO?
I've experimented with a few models and found none that work as well as the list I now have. They have always conflicted with my unconditional criteria.
20. Unconditional criteria? What are they?
a)If Fighter A beats Fighter B, he must be ranked higher.
b)If Fighter A only fights lower ranked opponents, he won't move up in rank.
21. What? Just because Fighter A beats Fighter B doesn't mean he is better!
Yes, it does. That's what the fight is for, to decide who is better. Now don't get me wrong. I know luck may come into play and may give an unexpected outcome. Having said that, the onus is on the higher ranked fighter to defend his rank or lose it. If he fails, he will suffer the full consequences.
22. So you'll rank some bum ahead of one or more fighters he can't beat?
We're back to that counterfactual language, "can't beat". This is the same as saying a fighter "will win" or "would win". No one knows for sure who will win or who won't win. A ranking that tries reflect that will reflect nothing more than fantasy. If hindsight is 20/20, why settle for foresight.
In short, if you feel a higher ranked fighter would lose to a lower ranked fighter, the answer to your question is "yes". However, the list itself is based on results, not expectations. If the results match fans expectations, it is merely coincidence.
23. Back to the K-1, wouldn't the Grand Prix champion get the #1 rank at the end of every year since he would either beat the reigning #1 or beat someone who eliminated him?
I only count the opening round of tournaments. Both fighters must be fresh.
24. What if A beats B, B beats C and C beats A?
This is actually impossible because it ignores the element of time. A real life possibility is A beats B, B then beats C and then C beats A. I would adjust the rankings after each fight as long as a fighter didn't fight twice in the same day.
25. What if the judges awarded the wrong guy the winner?
The decision stands and is reflected on the list. Judges judge fights, not ranking lists. If the quality of judging is substandard, it must be improved. The purpose of a ranking list is not to repair the damage caused by low quality promotions.
26. What if the fight ends in a disqualification?
This is special. The guilty party will drop 5 ranks regardless of whether or not he was ranked higher.
27. What about inactive fighters?
Throughout the year, I make a note of who has and who hasn't fought. On December 31st, I go through the list and drop the inactive fighters 5 ranks. Those who went two years without fighting drop 15. Those who went 3 years inactive fall to the bottom of the list. More than that is a bump from the list entirely.
28. How does your list compare to other lists?
I once calculated the correlation (Spearman's rho) of my list to another independent list. It came out relatively low, 45% or so. Besides the objective versus subjective approaches, he divided the weight division in two, heavy and superheavy. Under this combination of circumstances, I don't expect our lists to ever correlate at an acceptable level (85% or more) except under coincidental circumstances.
29. What about the official ranking lists such as the ISKA, IKF, WKA and WAKO?
These organizations are the reason I started my list. A fighter can win and still be ranked lower than his defeated opponent. Some fighters remain in the top ten despite horrible slumps. In short, the above organizations put no value on winning and losing. That is wrong.
30. What do fighters think of you list?
Initially, they react like most fans who are used to subjective evaluations. They are pretty quick to warm up to it though. They see that I drop my favorites when they lose and raise my least favorites when they win. They therefore conclude that I am completely unbiased in the way I manage the list. They also like the idea that a loss won't haunt them indefinitely. A fighter can have a bad day in the ring and bounce back very quickly. Two examples are Filho and Bernardo who lost to Ivanovich and Goodridge.
31. How can I help?
It is easy to follow the top 30. After that, collecting information is a little tricky. If you can post fight results on Axkickboxing or Sherdog, that would be a tremendous help.
Also, some fighters are on the list that shouldn't be. If anyone dies or loses a limb or simply retires, it would be appropriate if he were taken off the list.
Furthermore, some fighters get listed twice. This is because of Japanese katakana or various spellings using roman letters or the use of nicknames or whatever. If you can find the fighters from your part of the world and check the information, that would be appreciated.
That's about it, fight results and proofreading.
for those who haven't clicked on my profile, here is a list of the #1 title matches.
Date Champion - Challenger Result
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
cool, huh?
Date Champion - Challenger Result
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
cool, huh?
therefore, if Sefo was facing Mirko in the 1st round of the GP and beat him but then lost the semi he would still become the number 1 ranked heavyweight whereas if he wins the GP with the current draw he will remain number 2.
Felix, you still haven't responded to my previous comment about your system being incompatible with the way the K-1 works. (and yes I do know that your system attempts to rank all heavy weights, not just K-1 fighters - I'm just saying that you should have a separate K-1 ranking where you count all of the fights in a tournament)
Felix, you still haven't responded to my previous comment about your system being incompatible with the way the K-1 works. (and yes I do know that your system attempts to rank all heavy weights, not just K-1 fighters - I'm just saying that you should have a separate K-1 ranking where you count all of the fights in a tournament)
Felix is a fanatic as iam To muay-thai and Pressups
Like us or luv us Hate us or Dislike us !
we are STILL "Fanatics"
or Nutters ??? LOL same thing
:-p
Like us or luv us Hate us or Dislike us !
we are STILL "Fanatics"
or Nutters ??? LOL same thing
:-p
I need words!!
Amazing job Felix.....(Even do I don’t agree about the rank of your top 20 fighters, it is indeed an amazing job you have made you crazy Canadian:)
Amazing job Felix.....(Even do I don’t agree about the rank of your top 20 fighters, it is indeed an amazing job you have made you crazy Canadian:)
Felix, thank you for responding so indepth. That helps a lot.
I don't have time right now to reply. I'll have to respond later.
I don't have time right now to reply. I'll have to respond later.
matman,
i responded to your post but the computer crashed. this is a repeat. sigh.
therefore, if Sefo was facing Mirko in the 1st round of the GP and beat him but then lost the semi he would still become the number 1 ranked heavyweight whereas if he wins the GP with the current draw he will remain number 2.
yes. that is how it would work.
Felix, you still haven't responded to my previous comment about your system being incompatible with the way the K-1 works. (and yes I do know that your system attempts to rank all heavy weights, not just K-1 fighters - I'm just saying that you should have a separate K-1 ranking where you count all of the fights in a tournament)
that would help people like jason get recognition, wouldn't it? unfortunately, whenever i am requested to consider second and third fights of an evening certain visions flash before my eyes. mirko limping to the ring to lose to bernardo. lebanner knocking out aerts but in no condition to meet hoost in the next round. abidi losing to aerts and then losing to sefo in the same night.
even fights that appear to be between fresh fighters are doubtful. did filho defeat iggy or did filho and pettas defeat him together? no one can answer that question with 100% certainty. did hoost beat lebanner last year or did hoost, hunt and musashi do it together?
someone like jason is just unlucky in the draw. maybe a 5 round match against a higher ranked fighter would be good for his career and his ranking on my list. does that answer your question?
thanks oliver.
thanks sandy.
thanks brian.
i responded to your post but the computer crashed. this is a repeat. sigh.
therefore, if Sefo was facing Mirko in the 1st round of the GP and beat him but then lost the semi he would still become the number 1 ranked heavyweight whereas if he wins the GP with the current draw he will remain number 2.
yes. that is how it would work.
Felix, you still haven't responded to my previous comment about your system being incompatible with the way the K-1 works. (and yes I do know that your system attempts to rank all heavy weights, not just K-1 fighters - I'm just saying that you should have a separate K-1 ranking where you count all of the fights in a tournament)
that would help people like jason get recognition, wouldn't it? unfortunately, whenever i am requested to consider second and third fights of an evening certain visions flash before my eyes. mirko limping to the ring to lose to bernardo. lebanner knocking out aerts but in no condition to meet hoost in the next round. abidi losing to aerts and then losing to sefo in the same night.
even fights that appear to be between fresh fighters are doubtful. did filho defeat iggy or did filho and pettas defeat him together? no one can answer that question with 100% certainty. did hoost beat lebanner last year or did hoost, hunt and musashi do it together?
someone like jason is just unlucky in the draw. maybe a 5 round match against a higher ranked fighter would be good for his career and his ranking on my list. does that answer your question?
thanks oliver.
thanks sandy.
thanks brian.
Felix if you have time, maybe you can also make second ranking with a point system. The fight stats at the noviko page is pretty decent.
Or is it too much?
That way everybody will be happy. :-))))
Or is it too much?
That way everybody will be happy. :-))))
Yes Felix, I agree - weird things can and do happen in tournaments - just look at Ernesto's GP victory last year! However, doesn't that just prove my point that the K-1 is a different game and needs to be considered differently?
matman,
okay we agree that the k-1 is weird. whether or not it proves your point is still up in the air. i think i do approach tournaments differently than single matches in that only the opening matches count.
dynamo,
i did make one briefly. it didn't turn out the way i wanted. because of matchmaking lebanner could win a fight and drop in rank. it was too strange.
my idea now is to have winners of the pool give me a top ten ranking. completely subjective and based on proven experts opinions. i think it will be fun too.
okay we agree that the k-1 is weird. whether or not it proves your point is still up in the air. i think i do approach tournaments differently than single matches in that only the opening matches count.
dynamo,
i did make one briefly. it didn't turn out the way i wanted. because of matchmaking lebanner could win a fight and drop in rank. it was too strange.
my idea now is to have winners of the pool give me a top ten ranking. completely subjective and based on proven experts opinions. i think it will be fun too.
Felix, I'm in Ax Chat if you're still on-line
i'm at work. ax chat sounds tempting but i can't stay at my desk long enough to chat.
Felix who do you work for? AX? LOL
Sorry it looks like sometimes you do.
Sorry it looks like sometimes you do.
i...ummm... paint desks......
Sponsor
watch out the vapours !!!
Sponsor:
Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please turn on Javascript to post messages.
© Copyright - Brian Ritchie | Privacy Policy