Well, not exactly...
The rule I was thinking about goes something like this...The #1 guy wouldn't lose his rank unless he lost to someone in the top 10. That makes the #1 spot the hardest one to take because only accomplished guys could take it. Someone couldn't win it without being ranked high. Of course, the details of the rule would have to be worked out. Since Bob Sapp was practically unranked when he and Hoost fought the first time, then that means (using my rule suggestions) that he wouldn't be in the top 10 for the second fight. Therefore, Hoost would still be #1 after he he lost to Sapp the second time, which doesn't make sense.

Perhaps an adjustment to the rule would go like this...

The #1 guy wouldn't lose his rank unless he lost to someone in the top 10, or unless he lost to anyone outside of the top 10 two consecutive times.

That means that Hoost could've lost to Bob Sapp (who was outside of the top 10) and then lost again to ANYONE (outside of the top 10) and then finally have his rank lowered.

That's an example of another anti-fluke rule. However, after Hoost loses to someone outside of the top 10...TWICE...everyone would understand him losing his #1 spot. Everyone would understand the #2 guy being bumped up to the #1 spot when Hoost loses to someone outside of the top 10 twice in a row.

That is what is special about an independant ranking system that makes it different than an offical ranking system (like that of a sanctioning body). The promoter (K-1...or whoever) doesn't make the #2 guy fight the #1 guy listed on your ranking system. They have a lot of people fight who are ranked really far apart. So I think you're pretty much stuck with having to make their ranking be based upon their recent accomplishments. Ideally, K-1 wouldn't throw Hoost a sacrificial lamb...but they do. So if Hoost beats an unranked fighter, it shouldn't affect his rank. Also, If Hoost loses to an unranked fight then it should be calculated in with his recent accomplishments to determine his rank. That one aspect alone makes it unlike a title, because a fighter can't simply take someone's rank when they beat them. They have to have a string of accomplishments to move higher in the rankings.

The rankings should answer these questions...

Who deserves to be number 1 right now?
Who deserves to be number 2 right now?
Who deserves to be number 3 right now?
and so on...
The equation to determine this should consider what accomplishments you (the list owner) predefines as "deserving" and it should also consider time.

For instance, there should be a "ranking decay" ruling for every fighter who is ranked. If they don't compete often enough, they lose their rank. What is "often enough"? You'd have to figure that out.

More complicated...but more legitimate. If you wanted, for a few hundred dollars, you can pay a programmer to create a database with the rules you specify and all you would have to do is plug in new fighters and the results from all of the heavyweight bouts.