All Time Rankings - with numbers and formulas

I appreciate the work TS, I really do. That said, people need to realize that these mathematically based systems are as essentially subjective as any fan's opinion. Every algorithm you use, every weighted variable, the stipulations of which equations to use and why, what you decide to include and leave out is all subjective. Creating a mathematical system doesn't mean the end result is objective.
 
I like it and think it is extremely accurate.. I think their should also be some stipulations for fighters that went on skids at the end of their careers like chuck and mirko.. Where those losses mean less etc. but maybe you already did that
 
Magnum1978 said:
Plus in the case of Silva you'd get guys like Cote, Leites, Maia, etc 'ranked' highly at the time as the division was weak but in reality they were not much in the term of comp. This skews the results if a Cote was top #3-5
Click to expand...

We're back to this ridiculousness about Maia not being top comp again? After he moved to a supposedly tougher weight class and racked up pretty much the same amount of top wins, and ended up being ranked higher at WW then he ever was at MW?

Second, no, none of those three were ranked top 3-5 when Anderson fought them, so I would imagine they are counted pretty much the same as guys like Hardy and Matt Serra.

And unlike Matt Serra, they had top ten wins. Matt Serra has never beaten and top ten fighter in his life that wasn't named GSP, yet since GSP beat him in the rematch, he gets credit for beating a #1 fighter, even though the only reason he was even ranked in the first place, let alone number one is because GSP lost to him. Hows that for skew?
 
SerrabyTKO said:
We're back to this ridiculousness about Maia not being top comp again? After he moved to a supposedly tougher weight class and racked up pretty much the same amount of top wins, and ended up being ranked higher at WW then he ever was at MW?
Click to expand...
I think Maia's a decent fighter but and I can imagine him warranting a top 5 MW at the time Anderson fought him but I think that's more representative of the weaker state of the MW division between 2007 and 2010.. it was just struggling for contenders at that stage. According to fight matrix at the time of the Silva fight he was ranked #2 at MW!? (April 2009). Maia's ranking popped up at WW because he dominated the declining Fitch and won the DHK fight when DHK got injured... now he's rankings settled. A good fighter, but certainly not a long term elite guy or perennial 'top 5'. I think a win over a perennial top 5 guy should be worth more than a 'blip' top 5 guy I guess is what I'm trying to convey.

Second, no, none of those three were ranked top 3-5 when Anderson fought them, so I would imagine they are counted pretty much the same as guys like Hardy and Matt Serra.

And unlike Matt Serra, they had top ten wins. Matt Serra has never beaten and top ten fighter in his life that wasn't named GSP, yet since GSP beat him in the rematch, he gets credit for beating a #1 fighter, even though the only reason he was even ranked in the first place, let alone number one is because GSP lost to him. Hows that for skew?
Click to expand...

Lutter was the equivalent of Matt Serra, he wasn't mentioned as both got their shots from winning the TUF reality show.
 
Last edited:
Greco_Wiz said:
I appreciate the work TS, I really do. That said, people need to realize that these mathematically based systems are as essentially subjective as any fan's opinion. Every algorithm you use, every weighted variable, the stipulations of which equations to use and why, what you decide to include and leave out is all subjective. Creating a mathematical system doesn't mean the end result is objective.
Click to expand...

In that sense, everything that anybody ever did would be subjective.

Let's start with the definition of objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

I am working on MMA rankings for 7 years now and I learned how not to use my personal preference.
If I wanted to promote some fighters that I prefer, I would need to change my algorithms all the time.
Sometimes when I discuss numbers and formulas with other people on the team, we completely remove names from the data.
Fedor is maybe my favorite fighter, but I am not trying to push him to be #1 or even #2.

My goal is to have 95% of people agree with 95% of my content.
And once algorithm is in place, it will not be changed even if it is no longer favoring "my favorite fighters".
 
MonstaAJ said:
So if gsp were to come back and win the belt again, would that put him over Anderson?
Click to expand...

tenniswhiz said:
So wins over fighters with good wins matter a lot.
Is there any deduction for losses?
Click to expand...

phatron said:
I don't think fighters should be accruing points when injured.

Those numbers make it seem like cain defended the title for over 4 years straight but he's only fought 5 times since 2011.
Click to expand...

Ianstaine said:
I like it and think it is extremely accurate.. I think their should also be some stipulations for fighters that went on skids at the end of their careers like chuck and mirko.. Where those losses mean less etc. but maybe you already did that
Click to expand...

It looks like I need to explain dynamics of the ATT Score.
I will prepare some example to show you how different fighters were getting points in the past and give some predictions for future.
Do you guys have any preference? Any fighter that you would like to see, or how some recent fights impacted ATT scores?
 
I just think that metric you're using based on 1/4's the fighter held the belt should be based on # of fights because several fighters (Cruz, gsp, Cain) have been injured for extended periods while they held the belt.
 
zec1234 said:
My goal is to have 95% of people agree with 95% of my content.
And once algorithm is in place, it will not be changed even if it is no longer favoring "my favorite fighters".
Click to expand...

That's a very difficult objective, given GOAT is so subjective however if you purely went on opinions, then certainly the top 3 would be anderson, fedor and GSP and different in calculation would be quite close. Jones would also be rocketing up people's lists which might change the vote if taken today.

I think though from sherdog fan polls, at least historically until recently, Fedor is generally regarded as #1 with somewhere from ~50% of the vote, Anderson #2 with 30-35% and GSP next.

If you are trying to align to even that generalised and much debated view, then you might need a reshuffle in the algorithms... Event then, there is so much that cannot be captured in just numbers and attributes alone.

Also, do you calculate p4p (if so, how) and is that used in the overall calculation?
 
Magnum1978 said:
I think Maia's a decent fighter but and I can imagine him warranting a top 5 MW at the time Anderson fought him but I think that's more representative of the weaker state of the MW division between 2007 and 2010.. it was just struggling for contenders at that stage. According to fight matrix at the time of the Silva fight he was ranked #2 at MW!? (April 2009). Maia's ranking popped up at WW because he dominated the declining Fitch and won the DHK fight when DHK got injured... now he's rankings settled. A good fighter, but certainly not a long term elite guy or perennial 'top 5'. I think a win over a perennial top 5 guy should be worth more than a 'blip' top 5 guy I guess is what I'm trying to convey.
Click to expand...

Fightmatrix is consistently wrong. You think Maia was number two ahead of the likes of Hendo, Marquardt and Vitor? Most rankings had Maia from 8-6. There may have been some outliers that had him higher, but on the whole he was outside the top 5. He was also a late injury replacement. Regardless, even if he was top 5 at MW, he still got to #5 at WW.

A quick look found this one.
4 months before his fight with Anderson was announced.



Literally all of the rest of that is completely subjective on your part. If we're adding in subjective shit, why does GSP get credit for beating Nick Diaz who was coming off a loss and a retirement? I mean he must have been sooooo rusty.


Magnum1978 said:
Lutter was the equivalent of Matt Serra, he wasn't mentioned as both got their shots from winning the TUF reality show.
Click to expand...

K cool, why did you ignore the rest of what I said about that? That seems like a lot of words that I wrote that you just totally seem to ignore. GSP still got credit for a number one win solely because he lost to a fighter that would have otherwise been unranked completely.
 
Seems right.
Traditional rankings of all-time fighters wouldn't be too different, can you demonstrate what a loss to Diaz would do to Silva?
 
I have to agree with the guys questioning the methodology that has Cain ranked so high.

You mention the number of quarters he has been top p4p and top in his division but he has fought 7 times since Jan 1 2010.

Why should a champ who has been injured for the majority of the last 5 years accumulate points when he is not really defending his belt, but is more often than not recovering from surgery?
 
SerrabyTKO said:
Fightmatrix is consistently wrong. You think Maia was number two ahead of the likes of Hendo, Marquardt and Vitor? Most rankings had Maia from 8-6. There may have been some outliers that had him higher, but on the whole he was outside the top 5. He was also a late injury replacement. Regardless, even if he was top 5 at MW, he still got to #5 at WW.

A quick look found this one.
4 months before his fight with Anderson was announced.
Click to expand...
As I said, I think even his #5 at WW was anomolous.

Literally all of the rest of that is completely subjective on your part. If we're adding in subjective shit, why does GSP get credit for beating Nick Diaz who was coming off a loss and a retirement? I mean he must have been sooooo rusty.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I don't rate GSP's win of Diaz that highly - but then again Anderson got Hendo after he had a loss (at LHW) too and almost 2 years from his last MW fight (which he also lost!). And Anderson also got Vitor who hadn't fought at MW for over 2 years (and first ever in the UFC) since beating Lindland.

Yet these guys were highly ranked and considered some of Anderson's best wins (if not the best)

Hence why rankings are altogether a poor metric to use IMO and straight 'numbers' don't tell the whole story, or can even be used as a solid factor for basing calculations on. You need an algorithm to calculate the rankings (factoring in the intangibles which is nigh on impossible) and THEN calculate from those, the all time best. A very difficult task.

K cool, why did you ignore the rest of what I said about that? That seems like a lot of words that I wrote that you just totally seem to ignore. GSP still got credit for a number one win solely because he lost to a fighter that would have otherwise been unranked completely.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you wrote regarding Serra, in that context, rematching Matt Serra, he never should have been #1 - that's an anomalous situation. Hence my thoughts on be 'perrenial' top fighter rather than a 'blip'

I'd consider Hardy and Serra as top WW fighters 'blips'
 
Straight analytical numbers will never work, nor will GOAT conversations EVER.

Who was available for the fighter. Were their multiple leagues?
What was the level of competition?
How do you decide that?
Where do preexisting injuries play in?
Does weight as compared to opponent weight factor in?
What about the weight of opponents vs their own previous opponents?
Do we consider height/weight ratios and then consider injuries leading in?
What about consistency of fighting vs the quality of opponents? How are we quantifying that?

I could go on.

There is no GOAT. There are GOATs. There is a GOAT cloud. A fluffy cloud of GOATs.
 
Holy shit, you put a lot of work into this. Haven't read through all your formula and stats yet. Just skimmed through.

Nonetheless, mad respects for the amount time and work you put into this.
 
Any all-time ranking like this where Travis Fulton appears near the top is the result of a seriously flawed formula.
 
GOAT is subjective, but it should be entertaining to see the butthurt from Anderson being ranked #1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,082
Messages
55,466,432
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top