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.
- 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.
