- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 931
Sounds like the panel voting should be scrapped entirely for a weighted ranking system that combines literal ranks and logical ranking:
ie, if fighter #10 beats fighter #4, he moves into that spot, and the #4 fighter moves down accordingly in comparison to how others below him fared on the same card (if applicable). Then, the next metric is applied, which is the community voting system of rankings. Outliers should be cut (ie, Poirier who's at #7 being ranked at #2 should fall into an outlier), and only meaningful rankings (those that are within the constraints of current ranks, given 2-3 spot leeway) should count in actual voting. I would weight it 70% to literal and 30% to logical ranking.
I mean, you can see how an educated fan could rank Poirier at #2 if the ideology going into the ranking is just "Who are the best fighters in the division in order by pure ability".... regardless of their actual success/lack of success against other ranked fighters leading up to that point. I'm one of Dustin's biggest fans, and I genuinely believe he could beat Ferguson if they fought tonight. At least, I'd give him a hell of a chance. Therefore, would I rank him as #3?
No, I wouldn't, but if that sort of shit isn't explained to you, then you could come up with all sorts of nonsense. Rankings should be transparent. Which is why I'd love UFC just to revert to ranking match ups and tournaments.
ie, if fighter #10 beats fighter #4, he moves into that spot, and the #4 fighter moves down accordingly in comparison to how others below him fared on the same card (if applicable). Then, the next metric is applied, which is the community voting system of rankings. Outliers should be cut (ie, Poirier who's at #7 being ranked at #2 should fall into an outlier), and only meaningful rankings (those that are within the constraints of current ranks, given 2-3 spot leeway) should count in actual voting. I would weight it 70% to literal and 30% to logical ranking.
I mean, you can see how an educated fan could rank Poirier at #2 if the ideology going into the ranking is just "Who are the best fighters in the division in order by pure ability".... regardless of their actual success/lack of success against other ranked fighters leading up to that point. I'm one of Dustin's biggest fans, and I genuinely believe he could beat Ferguson if they fought tonight. At least, I'd give him a hell of a chance. Therefore, would I rank him as #3?
No, I wouldn't, but if that sort of shit isn't explained to you, then you could come up with all sorts of nonsense. Rankings should be transparent. Which is why I'd love UFC just to revert to ranking match ups and tournaments.
