[TheRizzzle]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I've been developing a rankings system using WMMA5 for the past 2 yrs and its tough. I'm really impressed by what you have been able to do so far. A couple of questions/comments: - Do you never schedule ranked fighters against non ranked fighters? For example, say fighter 1 is ranked #5 and loses to an unranked fighter (fighter 2). Under the rules, fighter 2 would be ranked fifth and leap frog 5 other fighters simply because of one win. You also run the risk of lower rated fighters being leapfrogged when they have more wins than an unranked figher. Using the example above, lets say fighter 3 is ranked 7 and on a 4 fight winning streak with 2 by decision. Is it fair that fighter 2 should be higher ranked based simply on one KO win over a ranked figther? - Dropping people a number of spots based solely on how they are finished could be problematic at times. For example in my Universe, Zabit had a 7 fight win streak, got a title shot and got stopped in the first. Using the rules, he would drop to 4th simply because of the loss even though he stopped 2 of the fighters that were now ranked higher than him.

I think it largely comes down to how you view the rankings and what they are trying to accomplish. I've seen two predominant schools of thoughts here.

1) The rankings serve to show who the top fighters are in the world in numerical order.

Or the one I use as a guiding philosophy...

2) The rankings are serving as a guide for who gets the next title shot.

By subscribing to the second philosophy I justify the scenarios you present as fair because I view each fight as the higher ranked fighter defending their ranking. If I'm number five and you beat me, you're now fifth.

A couple things on that note...

My scenario engine I use has an option for a fighter to reject any fight for a set number of months unless "they get a fight against someone ranked higher than them."

What this does is force me into situations where fighters who have earned a certain spot only want to fight up so they can grab someone's spot, rather than risk giving their spot to someone else.

The other note is that I generally have three principles I look for before simply finding whatever match up is available:

1) Match winners vs. winners
2) Match losers vs. losers
3) Try to have as many 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6 type fights as possible.


By using the rankings as a title fight pecking order and matching up fighters who are coming off same results, I've found that the results are usually fair IMO.

However, those unique situations where an odd leap takes place and it does seem unfair, well that's just a good storyline and rivalry waiting to happen.

If I see where it feels unfair that someone got leapfrogged, that suddenly becomes a fight I like to make. I want to match those guys up and let the aggrieved fighter earn his spot back, or allow the aggressive riser to justify his newfound position.

It creates some natural tension among the matchups that keep it fresh. I actually love those imperfect moments the best honestly.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk