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.