i'll try to answer everything you wrote brian.

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.

that happens when i post at work between meetings and the like.

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.

correct me if i'm wrong. what you are saying is that because i can't prevent bob sapp from becoming #1 in the world that the system is flawed. is that right? are you saying that no one should be able to jump from #180 to #1 in only one fight? are you using boxing sanctioning bodies and how they decide who is ready for a title shot to show that any reasonable system should keep #180 from even eating breakfast with #1. is that right?

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.

rules for matching people? i'm assuming that you are speaking theoretically. BTW, how on earth could someone ranked #200 take the #1 rank in one match? wouldn't the #1 guy just make a puddle of the #200 guy in record time?

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.

they must have some kind of a ranking system though. the grand prix champ is #1 and the finalist is #2. musashi is one of the best 8 according to their system. then they consider popularity. sure remy beat sapp but he is so good for business that bonjansky can beat him every day and still wait in line behind sapp for a spot on the next event.

anyway, i'll agree with the above statement. most ranking systems do decide who will meet whom, at least in the playoffs. one difference though is that those rankings are inhouse rankings by the governing bodies. is that a relevant point for this discussion?


At this point, I think we really need to focus on the fundamentals of this topic.

sure.

1. What is the primary goal of a ranking system?

--to provide a fair tracking system for every fighter. never again will a fighter wonder what his rank will be after a fight. never again will he shake his head and say "what the hell did i even go for?"

2. What service does it provide to the fans

--fans? fans are jerks. i should know. i'm a fan and i'm a jerk. ask anyone from new zealand. this list gives them some thing to scream about, i guess.

seriously, it should give them an overview of the current activity in terms of who is beating whom.

3. What service does it provide to the matchmakers

--now? nothing. in ten years? i think matchmakers will avoid the boxing style development. a 20-0 record against bums will never mean much on my list. in boxing that and a sweet pay off is a title shot.

4. What service does it provide to the fighters

--it will give full recognition for a fluke win and full responsibility for a choke. bob sapp, gary goodridge and andrew thompson faced better fighters. i think they deserve more than skepticism. they won. hoost, bernardo and abidi were being fed guppies and choked on them.

5. When someone looks at a ranking list, what information are they supposed to derive from it?

--perhaps a few things. they can see who is beating whom. they can see who is getting the better match ups. they can get a sense of who is ranked higher than fighters he can't beat or lower than fighters he can. maybe that isn't direct information but that is the first thing a lot of people notice.

6. When someone is #1 on the ranking list, what does that mean exactly?

--from branko cicatic to mirko filipovic, one #1 has taken the rank from the previous one. hoost, hug, bernardo and aerts were great and may be interpretted as the best at those times. patick smith and bob sapp will likely be remembered as flukes who got lucky. really, it is up to the viewer.

7. Does the #1 spot mean that fighter is the best fighter in the world at this moment in time?

--it could mean that, i guess. if you think a fight is to decide who is the better fighter, then may be #1 means best in the world. when mirko stepped into the ring with sapp, i was betting on mirko, so i guess #1 doesn't mean best in the world if i have to judge. some people thought tyson would KO lewis even though lewis held the titles. if a title really means best in the world, no one would ever bet for the challenger, would he?

8. Should the rank of each fighter be the result of their recent acheivements?

yep.

9. Or...should the rank of each fighter represent the result of only their last (singular) achievement?

no.


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.

i guess i'm cornered now. let's take bob sapp again. how did he get to #11? he beat hoost, defended against hoost, lost to mirko and got DQ'd vs. remy. that is not one fight. filho? started at #3, lost to ivanovich, defeated ivanovich, defeated aerts, went inactive for one year, drew with bernardo and lost to leko. that's why he is where he is. micheal mcdonald has lost to semmy, martin, carter etc. he is not where he is because of one fight.

Everyone's rank is determined by their last fight (singular) as oppposed to their last fights (plural).

i don't think so.

------------

But I have further questions...

What made you choose the rule of the losing fighter dropping 5 ranks?
Why not 10 ranks? or 15?

it is pretty complicated.

Isn't the defining of this rule subjective?

i guess so. as long as the implementation is completely objective, i'm happy though. the very last thing i want is to rate fighters on a case-by-case basis.

------------

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.

there are two criteria that i won't budge on.
1- if fighter A beats fighter B, he gets ranked higher. sorry hoost, bernardo and abidi.
2- if fighter A only fights lowered ranked opponents he won't go up in rank. sorry aerts, suttie and roufus.




------------

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.

and i don't want that information. what she sees as a limitation, i see differently.

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.

i have worked with a few other models and this is by far the best of the lot. how important is it to make sense anyway? why is it so hard to accept the fact that weird stuff happens? why is it so hard to be fair? no one would blink an eye if jerome took hoost's rank but when sapp does it, it is the ranking that doesn't make sense.