How could a point ranking system be made to work?

[WarDronx]

First of all, hello to everyone here. Been lurking for quite a while, had many good laughs here and decided to join in. I've seen some negative shit as well but there are always ways to avoid them and continue having some fun.

Now on to the subject: With many divisions having a blurry contender picture, i think the ranking system ( an actual, working system that is) should be in the discussion again. So, how could points in a ranking system work? I was thinking of a 5-point system, where fighters are awarded the points according to the fight result.
5p.- Win by KO/TKO/Sub
4p.- Win by UD
3p.- Win by Majority/ Split Decision
2p.- 2 points to each fighter for a Draw
1p.- A point would be awarded to the losing fighter, representing the fact that he has stayed active.
I think something like this could solve some problems when title shots, ranks and match-ups have to be decided.

Disclaimer: This is a VERY VERY vague thought, not complete in the slightest. There are many other factors or limitations and problems with this and that's what i would like all of us to try and address, even the ones that don't believe it could be implemented, like in other sports.

 

[Frank McEdgar]

 

[Sapp]

Your system doesn't account for the ranking of the opposition.

 

[mikehunt]

View attachment 313967

 

[WarDronx]

Your system doesn't account for the ranking of the opposition.

The losing fighter would get 1 point, representing the fact that he was at least active in the division. Could be a motive to not stay out too long.

 

[ThEiCeMaN6791]

I’m with it. Make it more like a legit sports league.

 

[FedorFanBoy]

I'm not laughing. It could work. Why not? But will they ever implement something like that? I dont think so. Active fighters should always get some sort of bonus.

 

[jeff7b9]

# of twitter follower x (highest ranked win / number of losses) + (total UFC finishes + total otn bonuses) / (how much money the UFC made on your last fight - your cut including bonuses)

Then once all stats calculated simply put in order of who has the next big fight coming up.

 

[Quebec Nick]

They can make it more like a league, but with all the cancellations, champs taking breaks... You can't drop a name just because he didn't fight in the last 6 months.

Also, it serves the UFC to have champions fighting every 6 months. They have the time to build their fights, to build up contenders. It's just that it's a risky business, if the champ drop out at the 5 th month, it'll been worthless, you have to let him heal. You can put interim belts, but the fans don't like it.

It's just the way the beast is working right now, nobody wants to fight 3-4 times a year anymore, when they enter the top 5 everybody gets super cautious about their next fight or they are sitting for the next title shot. The older guys used to fight more often, they were taking those risky fights even if they were eligible to the title fight in their mind.

 

[Sharkey]

Not sure how that would work. Like the other guy alluded to, this system would be valuing wins at the prelim level in the UFC the same as you value wins at the highest level. Also, it would likely take a pretty long time for a fighter to crack the top of the division and in position for a title shot since you're given positive value (+1 points) to each performance regardless of how bad a fighter loses. You're in danger of having top 5 rankings filled with veterans who have had little success lately, but because they had previously compiled points they are still ranked in a high position. Also, how does a new guy like Gaethje, or somebody established in another promotion like that, ever crack the top 10 when they are coming in with zero points to their name. A guy like Gaethje would have to build up his total rfrom the bottom the same way a young prospect with maybe only a handful of fights would.

 

[Egészségére!]

 

[WarDronx]

Not sure how that would work. Like the other guy alluded to, this system would be valuing wins at the prelim level in the UFC the same as you value wins at the highest level. Also, it would likely take a pretty long time for a fighter to crack the top of the division and in position for a title shot since you're given positive value (+1 points) to each performance regardless of how bad a fighter loses. You're in danger of having top 5 rankings filled with veterans who have had little success lately, but because they had previously compiled points they are still ranked in a high position. Also, how does a new guy like Gaethje, or somebody established in another promotion like that, ever crack the top 10 when they are coming in with zero points to their name. A guy like Gaethje would have to build up his total rfrom the bottom the same way a young prospect with maybe only a handful of fights would.

What if fighters fought within a small range of points only? Fighting other fighters with roughly the same amount would, over time, bring fighters of the same level close. The best ones would be able to gather the points sooner or later if they are better than their opposition. Fighters with some compiled points wouldn't be punished that hard by losing a couple of fights but others would still get the opportunity to bypass them. As for the newcomers, i can't think of something right now tbh. All of the points are up for discussion though, that was the goal.

 

[johncola]

First of all, hello to everyone here. Been lurking for quite a while, had many good laughs here and decided to join in. I've seen some negative shit as well but there are always ways to avoid them and continue having some fun.

Now on to the subject: With many divisions having a blurry contender picture, i think the ranking system ( an actual, working system that is) should be in the discussion again. So, how could points in a ranking system work? I was thinking of a 5-point system, where fighters are awarded the points according to the fight result.
5p.- Win by KO/TKO/Sub
4p.- Win by UD
3p.- Win by Majority/ Split Decision
2p.- 2 points to each fighter for a Draw
1p.- A point would be awarded to the losing fighter, representing the fact that he has stayed active.
I think something like this could solve some problems when title shots, ranks and match-ups have to be decided.

Disclaimer: This is a VERY VERY vague thought, not complete in the slightest. There are many other factors or limitations and problems with this and that's what i would like all of us to try and address, even the ones that don't believe it could be implemented, like in other sports.

It can't. Stop.

Such ideas are for sports that run on a schedule, where matches happen regularly and consistently. That's not MMA. In MMA, matches don't happen regularly or consistently. Every match is a one-off event.

Regular sports are schedule-driven. MMA and boxing are event-driven, and they have to be, for health reasons.

A "league table" doesn't work for event-driven sports, so people need to stop trying to turn rankings into one. Rankings are just an ancillary tool, to give fans a general idea of who the top fighters are. They can't be anything more than that.

The sooner fans/fighters/media realize this, the better the sport will be, as we can start making matches based on styles and how competitive they'll be, rather than those largely-unimportant numbers next to fighters' names.

 

[Taric]

You'd have to follow something as convoluted as the college football ranking system, which takes into account rank of opposition and score differential... But it still has a voting process just like MMA and people still bitch about it.

 

[Zelig]

i think we need to go back to the tournament format, every other sport on the planet does this and calls it the "playoffs".. who wouldn't love to see the ufc playoffs at the end of each year? points could help with seeding but the opponents record would have to be taken into account somehow, ko'ing CM Punk can't be scored higher than decisioning Robbie Lawler, etc.

 

[WarDronx]

It can't. Stop.

Such ideas are for sports that run on a schedule, where matches happen regularly and consistently. That's not MMA. In MMA, matches don't happen regularly or consistently. Every match is a one-off event.

Regular sports are schedule-driven. MMA and boxing are event-driven, and they have to be, for health reasons.

A "league table" doesn't work for event-driven sports, so people need to stop trying to turn rankings into one. Rankings are just an ancillary tool, to give fans a general idea of who the top fighters are. They can't be anything more than that.

The sooner fans/fighters/media realize this, the better the sport will be, as we can start making matches based on styles and how competitive they'll be, rather than those largely-unimportant numbers next to fighters' names.

Then there must be a formula that works. You have seen what happens when there is nothing concrete to base match making on. There are other individual sports that an accumulation of points results in a qualification or even the win. With some proper adjustments couldn't some sort of ranking be achievable? I am not a fan of numbers deciding the worth myself as well.

 

[Sharkey]

What if fighters fought within a small range of points only? Fighting other fighters with roughly the same amount would, over time, bring fighters of the same level close. The best ones would be able to gather the points sooner or later if they are better than their opposition. Fighters with some compiled points wouldn't be punished that hard by losing a couple of fights but others would still get the opportunity to bypass them. As for the newcomers, i can't think of something right now tbh. All of the points are up for discussion though, that was the goal.

You're likely to see an abundance of gross mismatches if you restricted point range when scheduling fights, though. Bringing up Gaethje again, if the UFC signed him under your system then he'd be going against other guys that have zero points. You'd also have a shitload of mismatches at the top of the division too with shot fighters taking on dangerous competitors with youth on their side. I mean, I'm just guessing here, but under your system it would seem guys like Diego Sanchez, Clay Guida, Jim Miller, and other like that (journeyman types with a lot of UFC fights under their belt) would all be ranked amongst the top contenders in their division just on the shear volume of fights they've had in the UFC. Quick count using your system, a guy like Diego would have about 75 points right now. Gaethje would have but 6 points. Basically it would take Gaethje more than a dozen fights (if he won them all inside the distance) before he could be ranked over Sanchez.

 

[STARKNASTY]

I like the idea of a ranking system. I think you are definitely on to something. Maybe new comers from another organization can get granted an amount based on their record and then subtract some points for being with smaller organizations. This would allow them to have some points and not start at the bottom.

 

[WarDronx]

You're likely to see an abundance of gross mismatches if you restricted point range when scheduling fights, though. Bringing up Gaethje again, if the UFC signed him under your system then he'd be going against other guys that have zero points. You'd also have a shitload of mismatches at the top of the division too with shot fighters taking on dangerous competitors with youth on their side. I mean, I'm just guessing here, but under your system it would seem guys like Diego Sanchez, Clay Guida, Jim Miller, and other like that (journeyman types with a lot of UFC fights under their belt) would all be ranked amongst the top contenders in their division just on the shear volume of fights they've had in the UFC. Quick count using your system, a guy like Diego would have about 75 points right now. Gaethje would have but 6 points. Basically it would take Gaethje more than a dozen fights (if he won them all inside the distance) before he could be ranked over Sanchez.

Mismatches could be a thing that would have to be somehow avoided, you are right here. But don't think only about the beginning. And about the Gaethje-Sanchez thing: The points awarded at the hypothetical time of implementation would be based on current status of the fighters not according to their overall career. You raise fair points again. I don't have all the answers but people that actually know about things like this could find a solution (provided they want to...).

 

[jeff7b9]

Will never work.

Not all wins are equal.

Could also lead to insane amounts of point fighting as well as awful match making, mismatches, pointless beatings and damage to veteran fighters.

It is and always will be subjective. Not everything in this world needs to be run by a computer.