One of the more common ranking myths is that if Fighter A beats Fighter B then Fighter A *HAS* to be higher ranked than Fighter B. Although there are times where this is appropriate, there are also times where it doesn’t make sense.
First lets look at the “upset” situation:
Fighter A – 3 Wins, 0 Losses
Fighter B – 0 Wins, 3 Losses
If fighter B were to beat fighter A that would make them:
Fighter A – 3 Wins, 1 Loss
Fighter B – 1 Win, 3 Losses
At this point does it really make sense to ignore the first three wins by Fighter A and the first three losses by Fighter B?
This situation can be even worse if we imagine 3 fighters ranked as so:
1) Fighter A 3-0 (beat Fighter B once and Fighter C twice)
2) Fighter B 2-1 (beat Fighter C twice, lost to figther A once)
3) Fighter C 0-4 (Lost to fighter A twice and Fighter B twice)
Now some will say that if Fighter C were to beat Fighter A (finally lol) that the ranks should be:
1) Figther C 1-4
2) Figther A 3-1
3) Fighter B 2-1
Others might argue that it would be:
1) Fighter B 2-1
2) Figther C 1-5
3) Fighter A 3-1
In the first case fighter B got leap frogged by someone they beat twice. In the second case Fighter A is now ranked below two fighters they have a winning record against (2-1 vs Fighter C and 1-0 vs Fighter B).
One of the great things about MMA is that on any given night any fighter can win. That doesn’t mean it’s not an upset if they do and it doesn’t mean that a single win should guarantee a higher ranking.
A system that guarantees the upset winner a higher ranking penalizes the higher rated fighter. In such a case the higher rated fighter has far more to lose than they have to gain. No ranking system should actually *discourage* participants from competing.