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.