If MMA had ELO like chess,

Aerandria said:
I believe that all time list is their homebrew rating system, which is much more complicated/tweaked than straight Elo. I believe all ratings on that site use said homebrew unless you specifically choose to view Elo, and not all lists have that option.

In a traditional Elo system it should be effectively impossible for anyone to ever have a rating in the tens of thousands.
Click to expand...
You are correct. They actually explain the difference on the FAQ page:

What are the differences in the Elo rating systems in use?

“Standard” Elo (ELO K-170)

The goal in the “standard” version is to keep the system as simple as possible, with prediction rates as high as possible for the entire database. A basic, straightforward mathematical system.

  • Starter rating is 1000.
  • K-Factor is 170.
  • Uses the standard “algorithm of 400” Elo equation.
  • Draws have a match impact of 0.5 for each fighter. Wins have a match impact of 1.0 for the winner, 0.0 for the loser.


“Modified” Elo

The goal in the “modified” version is to build on the standard version — make enhancements to better handle common scenarios, but not become complex enough to where this system can’t be easily explained. Priority for prediction rates are for fights in which both fighters are beyond their third pro fight. A basic, straightforward mathematical system, with minimal, yet practical tweaks.

  • Starter rating is 1000.
  • K-Factor is 275 for fighters in their first three fights, 155 for everyone else.
  • Uses the standard “algorithm of 400” Elo equation.
  • Fighter that holds a continent-level home advantage is given a 15-point adjustment in the core formula. Ratings must be treated as “neutral ground”.
  • Draws have a match impact of 0.5 for each fighter. Split decisions have a 0.667 for the winner, 0.333 for the loser. Majority decisions have a 0.833 for the winner, 0.167 for the loser. Other wins have a match impact of 1.0 for the winner, 0.0 for the loser.
  • Disqualifications and 1-round technical draws are ignored.


Glicko-1

The goal in introducing Glicko is to stay as pure to the Glicko system as possible. Prediction rates optimized for fighters with 5 or more pro fights. A slightly advanced mathematical system with tweaks that are equally practical and analytical.

  • Starter rating is 1500. As a result, the displayed ratings have been reduced by 500 points to better match the Elo output.
  • Starter/maximum RD (rating deviation) is 230.
  • Inactivity never affects rating, but can affect RD. Inactivity equal to or less than 180 days does not affect RD. Days beyond 180 utilizes a C value of 87 to increase RD up to a maximum of 230. No contests and disqualifications are completely ignored and do not “reset” inactivity.
  • A “rating period” for inactivity is a day, while a “rating period” for rating calculation is a fight.
  • Draws have a match value of 0.5 for each fighter. Split decisions have a 0.55 value for the winner, 0.45 for the loser. Majority decisions have a 0.61 for the winner, 0.39 for the loser. Unanimous decisions have a 0.91 for the winner, 0.09 for the loser. Other wins have a match value of 1.0 for the winner, 0.0 for the loser.


WHR

“Whole History Ratings” is an Elo-based system that depends on multiple iterations to produce rating output. The standard Elo/Glicko systems update ratings incrementally, run one time and go directly from start-> finish, whereas WHR uses information gathered in previous iterations to build what essentially equates to a multi-dimensional moving average where the pre- AND post-bout results of a fighter’s opponent, or their opponents and on and on, can have an impact. Prediction rates optimized for recent UFC fights. A moderately advanced mathematical system with purely analytical tweaks.

  • Starter rating is 0 and can go positive or negative. After the rating runs are complete, ratings are converted to an Elo-like output and 1000 is added for display purposes so that the top fighter’s rating falls roughly in line with Elo/Glicko systems.
  • The w^2 value = 42.
  • Iterations conclude once the convergence drops below 0.00001. This takes roughly 70 iterations.
  • Draws have a match value of 0.5 for each fighter.
  • If valid scorecards are not available, or fights are less than 3 rounds – Split decisions have a 0.55 value for the winner, 0.45 for the loser. Majority decisions have a 0.61 for the winner, 0.39 for the loser. Unanimous decisions have a 0.91 for the winner, 0.09 for the loser. Other wins have a match value of 1.0 for the winner, 0.0 for the loser.
  • If valid scorecards are available, equation used for match value for the winner is 0.5 + (((3.0 / Round) * (WinnerScores – LoserScores)) * 0.035). Unanimous decisions receive an additional 0.19. Loser receives the remainder.
  • A non-stoppage win cannot be given less than 0.51 or more than 0.99 value.
  • No contests, 1-round technical draws and disqualifications are ignored.
 


Chess match crappola, dudes in a room making fights, algorithms -- all unnecessary and too convoluted for the fight game.

Run a random seeding tournament and let the beatings sort out the Champion. All others (UFC matchmaking) are blatant forms of manipulation by greedy puppeteers and the politics of money.
 
Last edited:
G10 said:
This. Even though I like the idea of an Elo for MMA, the sport of MMA relies on a lot of subjectivity.
Click to expand...
"
Oscar Madison said:


Chess match crappola, dudes in a room making fights, algorithms -- all unnecessary and too convoluted for the fight game.

Run a random seeding tournament and let the beatings sort out the Champion. All others (UFC matchmaking) are blatant forms of manipulation by greedy puppeteers and the politics of money.
Click to expand...

"All other are blatant forms of manipulation by greedy puppeteers and the politics of money."
Once you get to the professional level and even before that always seems to be the story. As much as I love chess I don't think that system is good for MMA. The subjectivity of MMA makes it interesting from a spectator point of view. It's why we get to argue/disagree on here.
 
Oscar Madison said:


Chess match crappola, dudes in a room making fights, algorithms -- all unnecessary and too convoluted for the fight game.

Run a random seeding tournament and let the beatings sort out the Champion. All others (UFC matchmaking) are blatant forms of manipulation by greedy puppeteers and the politics of money.
Click to expand...

lol. random seeding tournament? that's the solution? lol.
 
If it did… the ufc would still have brain dead mismatching … like they already do with their numbered rank system with is similar to having an elo system
 
Elo ranking systems are for sports that don't have promotions that nit pick competitors.

Anyone outside the UFC is unjustifiably punished, since the best fighters in the UFC are perceived incorrectly to be fighting all the best fighters. Yet as we've seen time and time again, that's just not the case.

But because non-UFC fighters can't amass enough wins over supposedly top ranked opposition, not only can they not climb to the top, neither can any opponent that beats them.

UFC is too big and powerful to give a serious chance to anyone outside to be ranked #1. It's been that way since Pride died.
 
According to this site, based on ELO, this random Japanese fighter has the highest one, Mamed Khalidov would be 6th all time LOL. ELO doesn't really work

 
ELO can not work well for MMA. Not enough fights and - even more importantly - not enough common opponents.

But it’s a great tool. It gives great information. It doesn’t spit out THE RIGHT answers, just some interesting mathematical results that are often different than poll style rankings.

Combined with more standard poll type rankings (which are highly fallible as well just in different ways), some truths naturally rise to the surface like swollen logs in the toilet.

Im a big fan of ELO, and as such, am very aware of its limitations. Which really is the difference between a fan and a fanboy.

TLDR: It’s “a” tool with gives “some info” not “the” tool which gives “only accurate answers”.
 
Get To Da Choppa said:
Does this MMA ELO take into account and penalize picogram pulsing? Because if not, Jon Jones would have Magnus Carlsen level ELO. Despite him being a shitty person and a cheat, he arguably has the best wins out of all the GOAT candidates
<JonesLaugh>
Click to expand...
that's the one thing he has INarguably.
 
Legit shocked at how many people actually know what the fuck this is and didn't immediately think of Electric Light Orchestra.

Still waiting for someone to explain what it actually stands for, though someone earlier said it is named after a dude.
 
Brom Bones said:
Legit shocked at how many people actually know what the fuck this is and didn't immediately think of Electric Light Orchestra.

Still waiting for someone to explain what it actually stands for, though someone earlier said it is named after a dude.
Click to expand...
Here you go:
"The difference in the ratings between two players serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%. A player's Elo rating is represented by a number which may change depending on the outcome of rated games played. After every game, the winning player takes points from the losing one. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game. If the higher-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the lower-rated player. However, if the lower-rated player scores an upset win, many rating points will be transferred. The lower-rated player will also gain a few points from the higher rated player in the event of a draw. This means that this rating system is self-correcting."
 
ditchbanger said:
ELO is also used in Backgammon. I used to be hardcore into it and could maintain close to 2200 elo.
Click to expand...

That is very impressive.

For those who don't know, that is world-class level.

EDIT: But since it only goes to 2100 for backgammon, you are sherdogging us.
 
Absolutely not. Why would it only go to 2100 if you keep winning there is no limit I have seen some players in the 2300 range but I did play a lot of very tough world-class players it took a lot of time and years to get to that. 2200 elo is not easy to do. Spent countless hours playing I'm practicing with snowie and jellyfish programs.
 
Get To Da Choppa said:
Does this MMA ELO take into account and penalize picogram pulsing? Because if not, Jon Jones would have Magnus Carlsen level ELO. Despite him being a shitty person and a cheat, he arguably has the best wins out of all the GOAT candidates
<JonesLaugh>
Click to expand...

Using software to enhance your score isn’t allowed. Jon’s nowhere near Carlsen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,262,569
Messages
57,171,714
Members
175,562
Latest member
RogerMS

Share this page

Back
Top