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