Expletives excluded

Easy-mode Enabled

Expert experience entailed

Editing expressly eluded

Exact equivalents…Empty

Engrossing ensnaring entertainment

Emotional enthrallment

Effortless enjoyment ensured

Enticingly enigmatic examples enclosed

Embarrassing errors erased

Emboldened empowerment effect expected

Everyone Eager?

Extremely Excited?

Evade Exits…

Enter

Example 1) An MMA fighter’s worth

Not talking about “Fabulous life of MMA fighters” or “celebrity cribs” here. What I’m talking about is the basic case of how much a win over a certain fighter earns another fighter. This is a basic part of the system, but one that is often misunderstood.

See, Fighter A doesn’t have a set value. Beating Fighter A isn’t worth 10 points or 74 points. That’s because the ratings of *BOTH* fighters determines how much a win is worth.

Theoretical Example

Let’s assume we have three fighters:

Fighter A – 1700 rated
Fighter B – 1600 rated
Fighter C – 1500 rated

In a case like this, Fighter B doesn’t have a set value they are worth. If Fighter A were to beat Fighter B they’d get 36 points.

However, if Fighter C were to beat Fighter B they would earn 64 points.

Actual Example

GSP – 2243
Mike Swick – 1932
Chris Lytle – 1887

In this case GSP would get only 14 points for beating Mike Swick. Chris Lytle, on the other hand, could gain 56 points for a win over Mike Swick.

The reason for this is the fighters’ ratings and where they currently stand. Although Mike Swick is a solid fighter, they are definitely below GSP. At the same time, Mike Swick is a bit higher than Chris Lytle is. This leads to one fighter gaining significantly more for beating them.

As you browse the site (and finish reading this rant), always keep in mind that a certain fighter doesn’t have a set value. No one fighter is worth 10 or 20 or 80 points. The ratings of *BOTH* fighters are what determines how many points are won and lost.

Before moving onto the next example, anyone else really want to see Chris Lytle Vs Mike Swick?

Example 2) The Elo giveth and the Elo Taketh away

The other side of victory…is defeat. Let’s take a quick second to look at how points are lost in the system. Much like how the rating of both fighters determines how many points are won, it also determines how many points are lost.

Theoretical example

Again, three fighters:

Fighter A – 1800
Fighter B – 1900
Fighter C – 2000

If Fighter B were to lose to fighter A they would lose 64 points.

A loss to Fighter C would only cost Fighter B 36 points.

Actual Example

Andrei Arlovski had a rating of 2051 when he faced Fedor. Fedor had a rating of 2268. The loss to Fedor cost Andrei 22 points.

Following that loss Andrei had a rating of 2029 and he faced Brett Rogers (who had a rating of 1828 at the time). The loss to Rogers cost Andrei 76 points.

That is over three times as many points lost. Why? Because the first loss was against a *MUCH* higher rated fighter. Some people (and sites!) actually moved Andrei *UP* in their rankings despite the loss.

Rogers though was a much lower ranked fighter. Despite being an up and comer he hadn’t really beat many high ranked opponents and Andrei was clearly the favorite in the fight. Since Andrei loss to a lower rated opponent, he lost even more points.

Example 3) Risk Vs Reward

Anyone who frequents this site (thank you!) has undoubtedly seen me discuss risk vs reward. I mention it here as example three because Risk Vs Reward is really Example 1 + Example 2 (that’s a math joke, it’s OK to laugh).

Theoretical Example

Three fighters walk into an arena…

Fighter A – 1800
Fighter B – 2200
Fighter C – 1800

If we look at the possible matchups and incorporate Examples 1 and 2 we see:

Fighter A Vs Fighter B
Fighter can *WIN* 91 points or *LOSE* 9 points
That means Fighter B can *LOSE* 91 points or *WIN* 9 points

That is just terrible. Basically Fighter B is risking *TEN TIMES* as many points as they can possible gain.

If we instead consider Fighter A Vs Fighter C…
Fighter A can *WIN* 50 points or *LOSE* 50 points
Fighter C can *WIN* 50 points or *LOSE* 50 points

That seems pretty balanced in terms of risk vs reward, right?

Now, obviously not every fighter can be matched up against fighters with identical ratings, but even a 40/60 split would be more reasonable than the 10/90 we saw in the case of Fighter A vs Fighter B.

Actual Example

Let’s look at Mike Swick again.

Two fights again Mike took on Dan Hardy. At the time their ratings were:

Swick – 2035
Hardy – 2048

That means Mike could win 52 points for a win, or (as wound up happening) lose 48 points. This was a number one contender type of fight and as you can see both fighters had very high ratings. This to me is an excellent example of a fight that makes “ranking sense” and has reasonable Risk Vs Reward for both fighters.

To contrast that fight, look at Mike Swick’s previous fight…

Swick – 2009
Saunders – 1829

Now I have nothing against Ben (except maybe his nickname), but it’s very obvious who had more to gain and who had more to lose in this fight. At the time of the fight Swick was becoming a consensus top 10 fighter and Saunders was a prospect with just a couple wins in the UFC after some time on the ultimate fighter.

For winning the fight Swick earned 26 points. That’s a fair number of points, but considering the situation and the 74 points he was risking I think this fight was on the other side of reasonable. Mike clearly had a *LOT* more to lose and very little to gain. Even the announcers mentioned that Saunders really had nothing to lose in the fight.

Some like to talk about “year of the upset” and how “volatile” MMA is, but that’s only because the matches get made in the first place. Just because Swick won doesn’t mean it was OK to make such a fight. MMA is a sport and the fighters are athletes. As such, both fighters should have reasonably balanced “risk” and reasonably balanced “reward”.

Example 4)Bottom Feeding

One of the false claims people often make about the system used on the site is along the lines of,

“It doesn’t matter who you beat, just beating 10 cans is better than beating 9 title holders”.

I’m going to piggyback a bit on Example 1 (I reference so you can scroll back up if needed) and show you how the system prevents such bottom feeding.

Theoretical Example

I’m going to give the fighter the benefit of the doubt here and say that they just started out and had a 1500 rating. I’m then going to play horrible match maker and continue to match them up against 1500 rated opponents.

Fight 1 – 1500 rating to start
Win earns +50 rating

Fight 2 – 1550 rating to start
Win earns +43 rating

Fight 3 – 1593 rating to start
Win earns +37 rating

Notice what is happening? When our theoretical fighter had a 1500 rating, then facing a 1500 rated opponent was reasonable and earned them good points (+50). As they win though their rating goes up, that means the rating of their opponent has to also go up in order for them to continue to accrue similar rating gains.

In this case our fighter is continuing to be matched up against 1500 rated fighters. As they beat them, their rating will increase by less and less.

*Skip ahead*

Fight 10 – 1776 rating to start
Win earns +17

See how the points have dwindled? Our fighter is now getting about 1/3 of the points they previously got. This situation will only get worse.

Since I’m not going to provide an actual example here, I’m going to say a bit more (lucky you).

When we consider this situation using Example 1 we see that the fighter is getting less and less for a victory. Now let’s also consider how devastating a loss would be.

If in fight 10 our fight instead *LOST* instead of winning they’d have:

Fight 10 – 1776 rating to start
Loss costs them -83 rating

That means with a single loss our fighter is now back down at 1693. That single loss offset almost all of the points from this fighter’s previous *FOUR* wins combined.

By continuing to face weaker competition (potentially through no fault of their own) our fighter is earning less and less and risking more and more. Even without losing the system creates a relative ceiling that they simply can’t surpass unless better matchmaking happens.

In theory you would hope a fighter that is 9-0 against 1500 rated opponents gets a bump in competition (I’d hope for it long before 9-0), but even if it doesn’t this is one way the system can pseudo correct for poor match making.

Example 5) Strength of Schedule

Strength of Schedule is a reasonably hot topic and though I’m glad to see it discussed, I can’t help but feel some don’t “quite” get it. When we talk about a fighter’s strength of schedule we are talking about the level of opposition they have faced.

I think strength of schedule is an intriguing stat, but many miss how big a factor it already plays in calculating a fighters base “rating”.

Theoretical Example

In example 4 we saw what happens when a fighter goes 10-0 against 10 1500 rated opponents. Now let’s contrast that against a fighter going 10-0 against 1800 rated opponents.

Fighter A – 10 wins against 1500 rated opponents
SoS – 1500
Rating – 1793

Fighter B – 10 wins against 1800 rated opponents
SoS – 1800
Rating – 2012

That means Fighter B has a 219 rating point advantage. That is a *TON*. Not to mention, Fighter B actually got so high that taking on 1800 rated opponents was a bit weak for them.

How big an advantage is it? Well, if Fighter B (instead of winning all 10) won their first 8 and then *LOST* their next two, they would have a rating of…1825.

That’s right, by taking on stronger fighters Fighter B is able to offset the losses and still come out ahead of Fighter A.

Example 6) What have you done for me lately?

Another common misconception about the site is that old fights matter the same (if not more) than more recent fights. This is quite false and I’d like to provide a few examples to illustrate this.

Theoretical Example

In this example I want to re-use Fighter B from above. Remember this fighter had 10 fights and always fought 1800 rated opponents.

Here are three scenarios…

All wins – Final rating 2012
Lost *LAST* fight – Final rating 1912
Lost *FIRST* fight – Final rating 1981

See that?

If we take “all wins” as a baseline (2012) we see that losing their last fight results in Fighter B being a full 100 points lower than they could be. By losing their *FIRST* fight though Fighter B winds up at 1981 rating which is only 31 points lower than they could be.

Why is that?

It’s because the value of a fight is based upon the ratings of *BOTH* fighters. By losing their first fight that means Fighter B had a lower rating going into their second fight. That means they *WON* more points for it.

When a fighter loses their last fight though, they haven’t had time to regain any points. This means the most recent fight has the biggest impact on a fight. Not an over-the-top–all-or-nothing-screw-sport level of impact, but still the strongest impact.

Actual Example

Now that we see how important recent fights are, let’s take a look at how important older fights are.

One of the most discussed fighters in MMA is Fedor. On this site Fedor currently has the highest all time rating (2300). Many feel this is because of his old fights and that fights from 10(ish) years ago are what makes his rating so high.

For my first example I want you to follow me back to May of 2000 as I give Fedor an even *HIGHER* rating. That’s right, a *HIGHER* rating. Instead of saying that Fedor had a 1500 rating in May and just started his career I want you to assume he’d been fighting for YEARS previous to that.

For this example let’s say that in May of 2000 (when Fedor really had his first fight) we’ll say that he was already 2000 rated. That is a 500 points rating jump that we are giving him. So now, with years of past wins having gotten Fedor to 2000 rating, we now step through his exact career.

The result?

On 2009-11-07
Rating – 2316

Yup, 16 points. We gave Fedor *YEARS* more wins, gave him over 500 more rating points and he still wound up almost exactly where he was. Why? Look back at the previous examples (all of them, you didn’t laugh enough yet and the jokes are there if you look for them).

I chose Fedor in part because he is so highly discussed, but also because his rating is the most extreme. If we use a fighter like Big Nog and do the same (give them an extra 500 rating to start) we see that their rating would only be 8 points different today if the “rest” of their career played out the exact same.

To take it from the other side, if we said Anderson lost a *TON* before his career started and that he had a 1000 rating instead of a 1500 rating at the time of his “first” fight, we’d see that his rating would only be about 18 points different today.

Since we now know that having a super high (or low) rating doesn’t carry over indefinitely, let’s look at some interesting (and potentially inflammatory) examples.

Staying with Fedor let’s say instead of starting his career in May of 2000 that he instead started it in January of 2005. Why that date? Because it’s *AFTER* his second Nog win. So let’s set Fedor to 1500 rating, and roll through his career from 2005 till now.

Result?

Rating – 2071

Not quite his current 2300, but he lost 5 years of fights, including not one, but TWO Nog wins.

I picked the 2005-01-01 date mostly at random, but let’s consider a more specific date in history….

Fedor starting at 1500 rating on 2007-06-02 (date ring a bell?)
Fedor’s “current” rating would be…1814

For those that get the date, they can handle the comparison themselves. Just keep in mind that if Fedor had “started” on that date, then his first win was legit (it was Brock’s intended first opponent) he then beat back to back former UFC champions, and then beat a 10-0 contender. If those are your first four fights, that’s pretty impressive. Fedor’s activity during this time range was definitely low though.

Now, Fedor’s rating during this time isn’t the highest of all fighters (GSP’s is higher and Anderson’s is insane). It does help illustrate his recent accomplishments though. I don’t want to get off on a sub-rant, but many like to bash Fedor and say all of his “good” wins are in the past. There’s no doubt that prime crocop, some wins over nog and other fights are great. However, in his last three fights Fedor has beaten two former UFC champions (both top 5ish at the time of the fight) and a 10-0 contender (top 10ish at the time).

If you don’t consider Fedor #1 due to activity, brain damage or American arrogance, that’s OK and I can logically understand it. The people that say he isn’t “top 10″ or that Carwin has done more literally cause brain bleeds and god to smite kittens though.

Pencils down…

So, we’ve looked at “wins”, we’ve looked at “losses”. We’ve looked activity (though no specifically covered it’s there if you look for it). We’ve discussed bottom feeding, strength of schedule and all kinds of other fun things.

The system on this site is very powerful, very clean and, oh yeah, fair. Perfect? No, but also not as bad as some try to claim.

If there are any cases you’d like to see covered in more detail (other readers hope not), then let me know.

Til next time,
- Evil Envoy Extraordinary

Requirements for our new MMA Ranking System

In order to build something we should generally have an idea of the purpose. In terms of an MMA Ranking system, the purpose should seem obvious…to rank MMA fighters. Where this gets interesting is that there are several ways to rank MMA fighters.

Many sites seem to factor popularity into it heavily. Some sites like to focus on the very last fight someone ever had. For this “new” mma ranking system here is the base criteria.

1) Respect the fighters (they are professional athletes) and reflect on MMA as the sport that it truly is.
2) Be unbiased, consistent, predictable and accurate

That shall be the basis. To get away from the hype, from the subjective, from the inconsistent and in the process shift some power away from the matchmakers and over to the fighters.

Any ranking problems thus far?

Any problems thus far? Any glaring issue with either of those points? Anyone have more to add or think one of those points should be omitted from this ranking system?

Implementation of our new MMA ranking system

Since we know what we are aiming for we now set about implementing our new ranking system. Here is how the system works:

All MMA fighters start on equal footing

What this does is remove hype, popularity. Yes some MMA fighters might gain an advantage from being a BJJ Black belt or from K-1 Striking experience, but history shows that MMA is a different ballgame. As such, all mma fighters start at the same place.

Outcome determines rating changes

No getting signed to a new org and jumping 5 places, no getting into a title fight and climbing the ranks. What you actually do will determine how your mma rating and ultimately how your mma ranking changes.

Quality opponents are worth more

The better the person you beat, the more you gain, the more outmatched, the less you lose. We aren’t looking at pure mma fight records where someone 100-2 is automatically superior to someone who is 99-2.

That’s it!

Now take a seat, pull out some scrap paper, throw on the old thinking cap and let’s go through that one more time. The system we just built ignores hype, it rewards success and it factors in quality of opposition faced.

Yet again I pause and yield to questions from the audience. Who sees a glaring flaw with the above? Which of the three points mentioned above should be gone? Is there another point missing that should be included?

How the MMA Ranking system performs

We thought up the system, we adhered to our requirements and lets see what we got. Looking at the actual numbers we see our system is basically as unbiased as possible. The only cases where “human” interaction plays any part is on selection of values and those were deliberately chosen for accuracy.

The system is perfectly consistent and predictable. No more #1 losing to #5 and #5 moving to #1 while elsewhere #2 beats #1 and still sits at #2.

In terms of accuracy the MMA ranking system we’ve created above is quite strong. Overall prediction numbers are significantly better than a “fair coin toss” (roughly 33% better) and system integrity scores higher than some got in high school gym class.

Problems with our new MMA Ranking system

Pretty much nothing is perfect and obviously we can see some flaws with our results. This begs the question…are the flaws because of the system we built or some other factor? Looking back at the ground rules for our ranking system we see very few stipulations and almost nothing anyone has a problem with.

When we take a look at the actual ranking system basics and the design we see more sound thought and few issues. Turning to the results we see numbers that show high accuracy and remain true to our unbiased and consistent requirements previously set forth.

Puzzling…if the system is built on sound philosophies, and the numbers prove accurate, why is it we see some “glaring” issues in the results?

A possible answer

Someone much funnier than me and dearly missed once said, “Garbage in, Garbage out!”. They were talking about politics, but the theory can be applied in many places. In this case I’m talking about matchmaking. Let’s consider this situation…

An MMA Fighter is ranked too high/too low

Let’s build this from the ground up…

We know all MMA fighters in this ranking system start at the same ranking. That means there is no chance the fighter started off higher than someone that should be ranked below them.

We know fighters only get points when they win. This means the fighter had to have won some fights. Additionally we know fighters lose points when they lose matches, so that means in order for a fighter to be higher in rank they had to have gained more points than they lost.

We also know that quality of opponent matters. To the extreme that in some cases an MMA fighter will literally get zero points for beating an opponent. As above, we also know the system will take significantly more points from a fighter that loses to a much weaker fighter.

We also know the system has no idea who a fighter actually is. Our system is as unbiased as possible and pays no attention to name, or popularity.

What this leaves us with is a situation where the root cause of our problem is matchmaking. The good news is we can identify it, the bad news is that the solution is better matchmaking.

Think about a case where one Fighter is “too high” and another fighter is “too low”. If the matchmaker paired them against each other and the “proper” fighter won, then the MMA rating for the “too high” fighter would drop significantly and the MMA rating for the “too low” fighter would raise significantly.

This is just a simple case of the ranking system being able to self-correct itself. Now obviously we might not get the perfect matchup, and we might not get it right away, but whenever and however it happens, the adjustment will still happen. Eventually that “too high” fighter will lose and when they do they’ll drop even more rating for it. At the same time, the “too low” fighter is bound to turn it around and when they do, they’ll gain even more rating for it.

The honest truth

Here’s the deal. The MMA Ranking System on this site is very good. I don’t say it because I built it. As a matter of fact, if I hadn’t built it I’d probably be more positive towards the site and the ranking system. I say it because it’s true. The system has very sincere and respectful goals in mind and despite the few “eyesoars” that some like to focus on it does a fantastic job.

I’m someone who is incapable of being happy, so you can rest assured I’ll keep trying to make it better. What would be great though is if people could focus on what exactly the system sets out to do and how well it actually performs.

I’m really not one to point fingers, but re-read the above points. That is all the system sets out to do and that is all it does. When you realize how accurate the system actually is it becomes clear the problems many have actually lie elsewhere.

If you hate the site, you hate the site. That’s fine, stay away and if readership goes to 0 I can go back to building boats in bottles. I’m ok with that. All I’d really like though is some honest discussion. If there is really a problem with the few very specific points above then lets hear it. The above MMA ranking system is not perfect, but it’s also not as flawed as some insist on saying. Just stop and think about the points mentioned above and consider these situations:

- The Seahawks get to play the Raiders 12 times this year. The Seahawks go 12-4 and make it into the playoffs over the 49ers who go 11-5 (with 8 games each against the Steelers and Giants). Do we blame the NFL Playoff system because it said the 12-4 team goes or do we maybe look at the matchmaker that setup the schedules?

- The commissioner of baseball declares that NY is a major market and as such at least one NY team will *ALWAYS* get a playoff berth. The Mets do slightly less horrible than the Yankees (not this year, grats yanks on the birth) and get a playoff berth where they actually manage to win a few games past August 1st and take out their first round opponent.

If the ranking system in place had said the other team did better than the Mets up to that point, do we blame it? Should we really be flaming the ranking system in this case? Instead, maybe we focus on the fact that the series shouldn’t have happened at all.

Those are just two examples, but many more could be made. Players can get suspended, MMA fighters can linger on the undercard, MME can prevail over MMA at times, etc.

See the thing about me is I don’t mind being blamed for what I actually do. Look at the situation below and understand that if I were the older brother I’d be ok with whatever punishment I got. As the younger brother…not so much.

Consider an older brother hitting their younger brother in the head with a baseball bat and the younger brother getting yelled at because they bought the bat in the first place. *shrugs*

Do keep in mind that everything on this site is there for a reason, so if I don’t address a specific question you have, please feel free to ask.

Mirko “Cro Cop”

I’m sure this one jumped out at a few people. Somehow Mirko is still ranked “top 10″. This seems insane to some, and I have to confess that even I was a bit shocked by it. As usual though, I looked into it a bit more and here’s what I found…

- The first thing I noted was his relative rating to those around him. There are only about 13 rating points currently separating #9 and #13. Basically there are lots of fighters bunched up very closely around #10. If Mirko’s rating were just a couple points lower his “ranking” wouldn’t seem so far off.

- He didn’t lose to Alistair. I know that might sound silly, but on a personal level that fight resolves as a loss in my head. Much like how some still see Diaz as having a win over Gomi (or Gomi a loss to Diaz lol). In truth though, Cro Cop did *NOT* “lose” that fight. Had Alistair kept his knee out of Cro Cop’s groin and won the fight then the rankings would look at lot more “expected”. ie Cro Cop outside “top 10″ and Alistair moving up a bit.

- The rankings for heavyweights is pretty weak. This is probably the biggest point and can’t be stressed enough. When we look at Mirko’s all-time high rating we see it sat at 2126. Now his current rating sits at 1914. That is a drop of over 200 points. That is just an insane shift in rating.

At his peak Mirko was #2-3 in the world, yet even with the huge point drop he’s still sitting at #10. Why is that? It is because other heavyweights aren’t putting together wins. There are basically two ways to “drop” in rankings. You go down, or your opponents go up.

What makes Mirko’s case so interesting is that although he’s personally dropped an absolutely incredibly amount of rating, other fighters simply haven’t stepped up. There are a few reasons for this. Some fighters like Tim Sylvia and Randy Couture have had rating drops as well during this period. Additionally, some of the other fighters that could have passed him haven’t been given the proper match ups for it.

To get a better perspective on this, consider where Mirko’s current rating would place him in some of the other weight classes.

LHW – At Light Heavyweight a rating of 1914 would barely be good enough for 15th. Well outside of the top 10.

MW – At Middleweight a 1914 rating wouldn’t even crack the top 20.

WW – At Welterweight right now you need almost 2k to even be top 10, 1914 isn’t even good enough for Top 20.

LW – 1914 is the exact same rating Joe Stevenson currently has. That rating has him at 23rd.

When we look at this it becomes clear that Mirko’s rating really isn’t that far off. Looking at other fighters with similar ratings Mirko fits in (sadly for some I know, but look at his recent performances). Where it becomes an “issue” for some is that despite his rating having significantly dropped his overall ranking hasn’t shifted a lot due to how others have performed recently as well.

- The loss just happened. Before Mirko’s next fight it’s very likely at least one fighter will pass him. That is simply a function of how spread out MMA fights are. Much like how looking at the standings saturday after one team plays and before another team plays monday can show a different picture. Although Mirko is “top 10″ today, odds are quite good that won’t last for very long.

- “top 10″ doesn’t really matter. Another important point, but one that gets overlooked. You’d think with how much I rail against “top 10″ I’d be immune to such flawed thinking, but no. What it really comes down to is his rating and performance and the truth is Mirko’s currently rating is quite reflective of his performance.

Yushin Okami

Another fighter that helps illustrate the difference in rating vs ranking is Yushin Okami. He sat at #2 on the MW list for awhile. He was rumored to be getting a title shot. He is 7-1 in the UFC. His only 2 losses in the last five years both came against former title holders. However, he’s been inactive all year (last fight 2008-12-27), and now some other fighters are closing the gap and passing him.

In this case Yushin’s rating hasn’t gone down. Like we talked about above though, other fighters’ ratings are going up. As a poor analogy imagine a hitter in baseball that continues to hit .325 and sits in first, but eventually some other hitters get hot and raise their batting averages higher. It’s not that Yushin has gone “down” so much as the other fighters have gone “up”.

This situation is interesting because it’s almost the exact opposite of what happened to Cro Cop. In Yushin’s case they haven’t lost and their rating has gone down at all, but they’ve slipped several places in the rankings. On the other hand, Mirko has done almost everything he could to tank his personal rating, but still sits moderately high in the rankings.

‘kos’ Vs Twinkle Toes

This is another case where I had things wrong in my head. When I first heard the match up I assumed Kos was much higher rated than Trigg. Looking at the numbers though Trigg was actually a bit higher. Immediately I looked a bit deeper.

Kos – Lost 2 of his last 3. Only 3-3 in his last 6
TT – Won 4 in a row. 5-1 in last 6.

The truth is historically these two fighters are close enough that one of them getting into a bit of a slump (1-2 in last 3) at the same time one of them gets hot (4 in a row) is enough to shift their overall position.

Looking at the head-to-head fighter comparison I linked above you can see just how similar these two fighter’s careers have been.

- Win/loss percentage very close
- Edge to Trigg in (t)KO%
- Edge to Kos in Sub%
- Both lost to GSP

In the head to head Kos has the win, has the more recent win, and is rated/ranked higher.

Where these two fighters will go from here will be interesting to see. Both have gotten close, but never broken 2k rating. Both have had WW title shots, but never won. Either way, both have had solid careers and will hopefully continue to be healthy and give us fights we enjoy watching.

Moral of the story

Don’t just look at the rankings. This site provides us with far more useful and far more powerful information than “1)A 2)B 3)C”, it’s silly to ignore that. Yes, even I mess up sometimes and fall back into the old way of looking at things.

If something looks “off” then dig a little deeper and you will almost always find an answer. No, you might not always agree with it, but it’s an answer none the less (much like asking out a hot chick). If you see something that looks completely off, then please feel free to ask.

I didn’t mean to make you *wait*

You see…*mate*

I’ve had a lot on my *plate*

There was this *quaint*

cutey named *Kate*.

She took the *bait*,

so we went out and *ate*.

What a *date*!

As I got her back to her front *gate*;

it was starting to feel like…*fate*.

Then she told me about her *RATE*!

Now let’s get one thing *straight*,

this whole thing I blame on *Nate*.

Please, forgive me as I’m still a bit *irate*.

…Oh well, enough *hate*

Let’s just get on with…

The *GREAT* *WEIGHT* *DEBATE*

A lot of people ask about how the site handles weight classes. Currently the site allows a fighter to carry their rating with them between weight classes. Some think this is a major flaw with the system. I personally think weight classes in general are flawed. 8P

What I’m going to attempt to do is you give you look at things from inside the mind of Evil Pooh. Please don’t get lost or break anything.

1) Information Not Available

The first point is probably the most important. Understand that the information in question does *NOT* actually exist. When I receive updates from promoters and commissions there is no weight class information provided. If I see Fighter A Vs Fighter B, I can guess which weight the fight was contested at, but I simply cannot be sure.

Some people act as though I’m ignoring information that is readily available, but that simply isn’t true. The information as people expect it simply doesn’t exist. When discussing this topic further, please keep in mind that what some people are requesting simply does not currently exist.

Obviously for some of the more mainstream events weight class information is available, but even that has flaws…

2) The information isn’t accurate

The way “weight” works in MMA right now is that you have weight classes, and people use the “weight class” to say what “weight” a fighter fights at. For example, if I weigh 180lbs and I weigh-in at 170lbs, then weigh 180lbs the day of the fight…I’m considered 170lbs.

Here are just a couple amusing situations that result from such a practice.

2a)Up or down?

Let’s say we have these three fighters…

Fighter A – 172lbs

Fighter B – 169lbs
Fighter C – 185lbs

Let’s ignore weight classes for a second and ponder which fighter (B or C) Fighter A should be matched up against. If it’s Fighter B they have a 3lb advantage, if it’s Fighter C, then Fighter C has a 13lb advantage.

Hrmmm…So “competition” and “fair” and “balanced” and all that should dictate that Fighter A and Fighter B compete, right? Oh wait, look there are the weight class brackets…they say that Fighter A (a ‘middleweight’) is being a bully if they fight Fighter B (a ‘welterweight’) and that instead Fighter A should pick on someone their own size!!!…Ya know, the guy their own size that is 13lbs heavier than them.

2b) Fight Day Weight

One of the silliest situations I’ve witnessed, and I’m sure it’s happened other times, was this:

Fighter A – 175lbs
Fighter B – 180lbs

They are scheduled to fight at 170lbs.

Fighter B cuts to 170 and “makes weight”. Fighter A oversleeps or something and only gets down to 172.5. Fighter A then had to give up part of their purse and the “official” results show that Fighter A had a weight advantage over Fighter B. Of course, during the actual fight (ya know, when it actually mattered!) Fighter A was clearly out weighed.

In a case like this the “offical” results would show A as being heavier, they’d show the fight as not at “170″ and a host of other flaws.

At this point it’s clear that even when the information does exist, it can be quite flawed.

3)How much of a weight difference is needed to make a difference?

One of the most confusing things to me (I’m not very smart) about weight classes is how they are currently divided up.

Going from 135lbs to 145lbs is a 10lb difference, this gives a new weight class

Going from 145lbs to 155lbs is a 10lb difference, Ok so 10lbs matters…

Going from 155lbs to 170lbs is a 15lb difference, ok so the first 10 don’t matter here, but the next 5 do

Going from 170lbs to 185lbs is a 15lb difference, 10lbs again doesn’t matter, so 15 is our lucky number now it seems

Going from 185lbs to 205lbs is a 20lb difference, Uhhh ok so more than double 10lbs to make a difference, ok the guys are a bit heavier, I guess? Maybe??

Going from 205lbs to 265lbs is a 60lb difference, ok now I’m just lost~!!!

So it’s “ok” for someone who’s 210lbs to fight someone who’s 265lbs, but *NOT* ok for them to fight someone who’s 205 lbs?

Isn’t 210 minus 205 just FIVE POUNDS~!?!?! (checks on his claws) yeah, five pounds. Going from 140 to 145 is 5 pounds and it doesn’t matter way down there when 5lbs is over 3% of someone’s total body weight. Yet somehow, up at 210 just over 2% of a body weight difference is completely unacceptable.

In a head to head sport, shouldn’t the *ACTUAL* weight of the fighters *AT THE TIME OF THE FIGHT* be the comparison that really matters? Sadly, we don’t get the actual weight of the fighters, and we have some fights that are viewed as “wrong” simply because of predetermined brackets.

Evil interlude

Over my lifetime I’ve fluxuated between a few weight classes: Heavyweight, super heavyweight, super-duper heavyweight, ‘get-two-scales this one only goes up to 300lbs’-weight, etc. Despite all that weight gain I’ve never experienced any major performance gains from a few pounds either way. Going from 205 to 207 didn’t increase my bench by 40lbs and my vertical jump by 8inches. When I went from 185 to 187 it wasn’t because my arms grew an inch longer.

What makes these brackets so magical and significant? Why is it that adherence to these brackets is more important than the *ACTUAL WEIGHT* of the competitors?! How can it be OK for someone to weigh 170 and fight someone who weights 185 and “cut” the day before, but not OK for the 170lb person to fight someone who is 172? Why are people ok with a 50 plus pound weight difference in some cases, but not ok with a 5 or 10 pound difference in others?

4)Weight, the Whole Weight, and nothing but the Weight~!!!

Almost as confusing to me as the “that 5lbs matters, that 3lbs doesn’t, that 10lbs does, those 10lbs don’t” is this almost automatic belief that weight is the be-all-end-all stat by which to determine a competitive advantage.

Make no mistake about it, if two fighters have equal:

- Height
- Reach
- Uhh..I don’t know…~S~K~I~L~L~~!!

Then weight can definitely come into play. Sadly, what I often see are many other competitive advantages completely overlooked because of “weight”.

If I’m going into a match against a known striker and my game plan is to strike I can assure you I’d give up 5lbs of weight for an extra inch reach advantage. I’d probably do that up to about 20lbs, or 4 inches of reach advantage…after that I’d look silly standing with my arms at my side. *shrugs*

The exercise here is to think about how big a factor weight is across a wide range of MMA fights…you know MMA a sport with a wide range of backgrounds/skill sets/fight outcomes. Just consider these situations…

4a)Striking matchup

Fighter A – 200lbs 84inch reach
Fighter B – 205lbs 80inches reach

These two fighters are about to engage in a pure striking match. Assume most other things are reasonably even do you believe that the possible 5lbs more strength is a bigger advantage to fighter B than the 4inches of reach is to Fighter A?

4b)Body Mass

Fighter A – Roy Nelson (Sorry Roy)
Fighter B – Sok

Somehow people talk as though every fighter has the exact same body mass. If Fighter A is 200lbs and Fighter B is 200lbs, they have the exact same weight, so they have the same body mass, the same body fat%, the same lean muscle, the same muscle distribution, the same bone density, etc.

Anyone that’s every seen more than 2 people of the same weight in their lives knows that isn’t the case. Some have higher body fat (Sorry again Roy), some are Taller, some have bigger legs, some have a lot of hair (Clay could make 145 if he was bald!!), etc.

Again, the point here isn’t to talk in absolutes, but to understand what a huge variance already exists within the current framework. What it comes down to is aren’t there times when even at the same weight one fighter still has an advantage. Miguel Torres has a lot of height for his weight class. Anderson has quite the reach for 185. Fedor…sorry gotta chalk that one up to the third category from above.

5) Working hard for an asskicking

How many fighters do you see change weights so they can lose? I’m being serious here, how many fighters do you see change weight with the sole intent of performing worse? How many times have you seen interviews where a fighter goes:

“I was feeling great at 185, but going up to 205 enables me to get taken down more because my sprawl is worse. Besides, chicks dig the love handles!”?

or

“I figured since I got knocked out a lot at 205 I’d move up to heavyweight so I could get knocked out just a bit faster!” John “zulu’d” Doe

Ever?

Here’s what I usually see,

“Man, those guys at 185 were *HUGE* 170 is a better fit for me”.

“Getting down to 205 was too much of a cut, I was too tired and just working against my body, heavyweight is a much better place for me”.

“155 is where I should be”

The point here is that almost never does a fighter cut or gain weight in order to do worse. In fact, I think it’s fairly safe to say that the decision to change weight classes is often dictated by a desire to perform even better.

This leads to the question of…if a Fighter is 1800 rated at one weight class, what are the odds they change weights just to drop to being 1700 rated? Doesn’t it seem more likely that a fighter changes weights because they believe they will perform *BETTER* overall?

6) Everything changed?

This ties in a bit with point 4, but some people act as though the difference between 185 and 170 is night and day. When a fighter moves from 185 to 170 do they completely forget takedown defense and have to relearn it? When someone goes from 185 to 205 do they have to completely relearn their entire ground game? Are sprawls at 155 categorically different than they are at 145?

Think about the MLB playoffs. How many times do you see a “starting” pitcher come out of the bullpen during crucial series? Obviously there is a difference between “starting” and “closing”. However, there’s also a lot in common.

Think about if you’ve been scounting a great right fielder, but your farm system needs left fielders. It’s *NOT* the same, but doesn’t a *LOT* of it transition? Speed, reaction, dedication, drive, heart, etc?

What I’m getting at here is that although there are differences between 155 and 170 or 205 and 185, it isn’t a whole new ballgame. Many of the fighter’s skills transition with them.

7) Past more important than recent

At some point in the future I’ll address the “current vs alltime” issue, but what it comes down to is some people think too much emphasis is placed on older fights and not enough emphasis is placed on more recent fights. Where this gets interesting is when looking at weight classes.

Some people think looking at Fighter A’s fights at 205 from years ago is more relevant to his 205 standing than his recent fights at 185. Some people want to focus on Fighter B’s wins at lightweight years ago, and ignore his more recent losses at welterweight.

Lets go back to baseball for a minute. Lets say you now need a right fielder. You’ve got Baller A that has been a DH for 4 years, and a first baseman for a year before that, but five years ago was a solid right fielder.

Baller B won a gold glove in left field last year and only has two errors so far this year.

Who do you throw into right field?

Another sport, lets take a look at the NFL. Every year you see defensive linemen drafted to play in a scheme they’ve never played under. There are big differences between a 4-3 and a 3-4. Especially depending on the offensive formation and the team you are going against. Why on earth would someone draft a “great” nosetackle they don’t need instead of a “solid” defensive tackle?

One possibility is that they see how many of the skills transition. Maybe see the drive, the determination, the willingness to learn, etc.

Remember, we are *NOT* talking perfect here. We are talking about reasonable. Some people seem to be of the opinion that going from 170 to 185 resets everything, all I’m saying is that *SOME* of it transitions.

8) Have to start somewhere

All fighters start off at 1500. Then they fight some and land wherever they land. Always keep in mind that the system is very self-correcting. If a fighter is “too high” they will drop, and drop quickly. If a fighter is too low, they will rise quickly. Both assuming proper matchmaking. 8)

Let’s actually take a look at a few big name fighters that have hoped weight. Basically I’m just thinking of examples and then opening up their fighter page…let’s see what we find…

Randy Couture

One of the most well known weight hoppers. Following 2 losses at heavyweight (both against higher rated fighters) Randy moved down to Light heavyweight. Instead of setting him to 1500, we kept his ranking and he fought Chuck. He was still an underdog (as he was everywhere), but this way it didn’t appear as though Chuck was fighting a basically 0-0 fighter. Randy won and then fought Tito. He was slightly lower ranked than Tito, but it was a reasonable matchup and Randy won.

The two Vitor fights are skewed because of the cut. (another case where I can’t change it on the site, but I do wonder about the decision *shrugs*)

Following the Vitor fights Randy then lost to Chuck, Beat Mike and Lost to Chuck. All three of which fit from a “rating” perspective.

Randy then moved back up to heavyweight where he was an underdog against Tim (again, not just on the site), and he won. Following that win, he beat Gonzaga, whom he was higher rated then at the time. He then got matched up against Brock. (Business > sport)

Overall though, not bad at all. Chuck lost, but it wasn’t against a 1500 rated guy. When Timmy fought Randy it was 2007, that’s 5(ish) years after Randy’s last fight at heavyweight. Just like the example above. Do people honestly think 5+ year old information is more accurate than 5+ years of recent competition and performance? Simply because of a few pounds?

Mike Swick

Mike was tearing up the middleweight division and then ran into Yushin Okami (a fighter higher rated than him). Following the loss Swick dropped to welterweight and his first fight was against Josh Burkman. Transferring his rating directly from middleweight he had a 3rating point advantage…and he won (by majority decision).

In his fights since he has beaten: Marcus Davis, Jonathan Goulet, and Ben Saunders. All of which are fighters he was higher rated than.

Michael Bisping

Following a loss to Rashad Evans…who was higher rated than him at the time. (Notice all the fighters that change weight after a loss…must be because they want to lose more *shrugs*).

Anyway, following the loss Bisping beat “chainsaw” (whom he was higher rated than), Jason Day (who he was 3 whole rating points lower than), Chris Leben (who he was higher rated than), and then loss to Hendo (who he was lower rated than).

Enough examples

I could literally do this all day. Some fighters will have done well, some will have continued to flounder, but the truth is the majority of fighters fit the pattern outlined above. That pattern is that their current rating at the time of the weight class swap is more accurate than restarting them back at 1500.

Other options?

Some might say that instead of starting them back at 1500, why not just deduct a small percentage. The obvious questions then become, “how much”, and “why”? Remember, most fighters change weight classes to perform better, the thought of taking even 10% of their rating “just in case” doesn’t make much sense.

Additionally, why penalize/reward a fighter for what might happen, when you will be penalizing/rewarding based upon what actually does happen. Think about it like this:

If a fighter changes weights and loses their next fight their rating will go down. If we had forced their rating lower to start with, they’d lose less for the fight, but still be lower.

If a fighter changes weights and wins their next fight their rating will go up. If we’d lower their rating already, then they’ll gain even more because they were “lower” rated going into the fight.

The system will self correct quite well, so the question becomes, “Why guess at how to adjust someone’s rating when simply having them fight will properly adjust it for us”?

Basically what we need are two things:

- A logical and compelling reason to adjust ratings outside the standard flow of the system
- A fair and mathematically sound way to make such an adjustment.

Much like the weight information itself neither of these things seem to exist. Lots will speculate that a fighter is “worse” when they change weight classes, but that is both counter intuitive and unsupported by data. At the same time, naturally boosting Roy Nelson (honestly, last time man) just because he loses some weight also seems a silly thing to do.

Since we have a system in place that already accurately adjusts fighters based upon outcome, why would we want to try tinkering with it based upon non-outcome based factors?

And that’s how we got here

Basically a combination of the above and a few other things I edited out are why we stand where we stand. If I needed to try to condense the above rant down it’d be very hard, but probably along the lines of:

- I like to *rhyme*…it’s just something I enjoy doing in my spare *time*…even when I don’t get paid a *dime*…
- Weight classes are highly flawed structures
- Accurate weight information does not exist
- Roy Nelson is fat (Guess I was wrong)
- Attempts to artificially adjust a system that has built in self correction seems foolish and wastrel

As always I’m not opposed to changing anything, but at this point it would require:

- Accurate weight information
- Compelling reason(s) to make the change
- A mathematically sound change to make

Currently, I have none of the three. What I do have is a plan for how to handle weight classes in the event I found myself in charge of sanctioning MMA in a post apocalyptic world I had been forced to repopulate after a “smart” bomb left only me and the hot redheads alive. It will probably never come to that though. 8(

Strikeforce – Carano Vs Cyborg

Fight outcomes

Some people are obsessed with fight outcomes as a means of measuring the validity of the system. As I’ve said in the past that is an often flawed approach because the system (and the sport) is much deeper than that.

For those that focus only on direct prediction percentage though, the higher ranked fighter won 8 of the 9 fights on Saturday. In the one fight where the lower ranked fighter won, they are now ranked higher. Doesn’t seem too bad, does it?

I don’t really look at things in those terms though. I see that the case of one fighter “leapfrogging” the other wasn’t because of enforced leapfrogging within the system, but because the fighters were genuinely very evenly matched. That to me speaks to good matchmaking, and to an overall meaningful fight.

Another thing I note is the fight between Melendez and Ishida. It wasn’t that long ago that Ishida beat Melendez and since that win the fighters have both had modest records (2-1 and 3-2). The reason the fight stands out to me is that despite the head-to-head loss previously Melendez was still the higher rated fighter. This makes sense from a logical point of view, from a system point of view, and obviously now from a results point of view.

For some people the sight of a fighter being ranked above someone they’ve directly lost to immediately signals that the site’s system is flawed. These people will complain about Sherk being 11 whole rating points higher than Edgar, yet some of them didn’t mind that Jardine was ranked lower than Forrest. People need to understand that although a direct head-to-head victory has a tremendous impact on where two fighters stand, it does *NOT* immediately invalidate everything else that has happened up to that moment in time.

Note to the Gegard Mousasi bandwagon…YOU’RE LATE!

As with all fighters I’ll say there is no way to know what happens next. Gegard could have peaked and his rating may never go higher. He might get bored, change sports, retire, or continue winning for the next three years. There is really no way to know what will happen in the future.

What we can be relatively sure of though is the past. The fact of the matter is that Gegard has been doing very well for a long time now and most were unwilling to look/listen/think. To hear some people claim Gegard “arrived” by winning a single fight after he won 12 fights in a row, a MW tourney, and jumped weight classes to fight Mark Hunt, just seems silly. There’s no doubt the win over Renato was impressive, but some people obviously should have been paying attention sooner.

Random Answers

As evidenced by the two day late site update, I don’t have a lot of time. I try very hard to answer questions on this site, and even some I get directed to elsewhere. However, your best chance to get a response to an honest question is to post in the forums here or e-mail me. If you genuinely have a question, then I’ll do my best to answer it.

Genuine(ish) Questions
The question of weight classes on the site has come up…again. I’ve responded to this several times in several places, but perhaps it’s time I throw it all together into one big answer. Look for a rant later this week to address why weight classes are handled how they are on this site.

Another question I see raised is that of how unbiased the site is. Let me be clear, the site is only biased towards accuracy. The site is completely unbiased in terms of the fighters themselves and the organizations they fight for. There is nothing that gives Fighter A an inherent advantage over Fighter B. The system evaluates GSP the same way it evaluates Fedor. If you see one fighter with an 1870 rating and another fighter with a 1270 rating you can be certain that if you swapped their fight histories exactly, their ratings would swap as well.

This is very different from some sites where wins mean different things. Sometimes fighters leapfrog, sometimes they don’t, sometimes people move up without ever fighting, sometimes people move down without ever fighting.

I know some like to claim that the site is “biased” based upon the initially selected criteria, but that is simply wrong. To claim it was biased would suggest that I wanted a certain outcome (say, Fighter A ranked highly, or Organization B to have more of the top ranked fighters), I’d then have to re-tune the system variables after almost every fight to ensure that the status quo I wanted was still maintained. Given that the core system variables haven’t changed in quite some time I think it’s safe to say that isn’t the case.

As I said at the top, the system is biased towards accuracy. A rant about system accuracy is on the list (along with a dozen other things), but understand that the values used on the site were chosen because they were the most accurate. By accurate I mean that when the system expects a 60% win%, there is very close to a 60% win percentage. Not that my all-time favorite fighters are cemented at #1 in every weight class and will never move regardless.

In a likely to fail attempt at clarifying the situation lets talk about painting a house. If I were a huge fan of red walls in a house (I had a bias toward the red walls), and was painting the walls of a house and made them red due to my own personal tastes, that would be bias in the sense most understand it. It is a personal bias that is determining how something is done.

The situation here on the site would be akin to me liking red walls, but doing research and knowing that statistically white walls make a house more likely to be sold. Given the intent on selling the house, my “personal bias” is set aside and a decision is made purely based upon supporting evidence.

If people want to get hung up on perceived “bias” they can all they want, but understand that most rational people understand what the term “unbiased” is representing in regards to this site. It means no *PERSONAL* (Evil Pooh) bias, it means no *ORGANIZATION* bias, it means no *FIGHTER* bias, etc. If you want to get hung up on “statistically accurate bias” be my guest, but I pray you have better things to do with your time.

Not so genuine “questions”
Here are a couple comments I’ve seen around the web that were a waste of my time and sadly others I’m sure.

“Elo is basically using MMAth…”

Wow it only took this “author” five words to show they either have no clue what Elo is, or what MMAth is (maybe both *shrugs*). Thank god they are making a comment about…Elo *AND* MMAth!

I’d go into more detail on how wrong this is, but it’s the kind of thing that if I have to explain what’s wrong it’s even worse.

Why I’m Evil Pooh and not Tolerant To Morons Pooh
Another little gem I saw was this “tongue-in-cheek, stick-it-to-the-man, omfg I’m so clever I’m going to jump out of my chair and slam the ‘submit’ button as I post this ownage of a response” that said,

“i just like the elo system because it still has jon fitch ranked high, and he never dipped. AND as it stands now fedor is the only top 10 HW that is outside the UFC and signed with SF. so much for more competition outside the UFC”

Let’s step through this pile of shit turd by turd, shall we?

“Jon Fitch ranked high” – is this a problem? What places don’t have Fitch ranked high?

“and he never dipped” – Simply wrong. It takes clicking one link (shockingly titled “Jon Fitch”) to see that he, in fact, did dip. He lost personal rating when he lost to GSP, he also got “passed” in the sense that other fighters’ ratings improved.

It’s important to keep in mind that a fighter’s rating shows where they stand on a personal level, but a fighter’s “ranking” is determined based upon their rating in relation to other people. As I’ve said before, hitting 50 home runs in a year might sound awesome, but it loses a bit of its shine if the league average is 72 home runs.

“as it stands now fedor is the only top 10 HW that is outside the UFC and signed with SF”

I love the effort put in to tailor the response…”outside the UFC *AND* signed with SF”. Yeah because SF is completely against co-promotion and unless someone is signed to SF this very second there’s no chance they could be one of Fedor’s next three opponents.

“so much for more competition outside the UFC”

This is great because it acts as though the previous skewed comment actually proved something. Note that the previous line used “*AND* signed with SF” and this line says “outside the UFC”. Little known fact, those are actually two different things.

Let’s take a quick look at the current MMA-ELO top 10 heavy weights:

1) Fedor – Ok so out of the top 10, we are down to 9 because he won’t fight himself!
2) Josh Barnett – not in the UFC, was scheduled to fight, could still happen
3) Big Nog – In the UFC, but uhhhh no one is asking for this fight. (Nog even turned a 4th fight down at one point previously)
4) Jeff Monson – Available, and can’t leave the US lol
5) Cro Cop – See Nog
6) Antonio Silva – Not UFC, Has fought in EliteXC
7) Aleks – Brother, won’t happen (still not UFC)
8) Arlovski – Not UFC
9) Ben Rothwell – Now UFC, wasn’t UFC before, somehow went from no chance against Fedor to now being mentioned as part of the UFC’s uber HW stable that Fedor has to come prove himself against.
10) Randy Couture – If he wins this might actually get talked about a bit more

So of the “top 10″ HWs, that’s really 9 because of Fedor himself, the UFC has…4. Of those 4 Fedor has already beaten Two. That means *TWO* of the top 10 HW’s are available in the UFC for Fedor that he hasn’t already beaten. Additionally, one of those two hasn’t even fought in the UFC yet and until signing was bashed as being no competition. Amazing how the original statement basically bashed SF for only having 1 of the “top 10″, but for the intent of the message, the UFC is sitting at 2. (It’s ok, my head hurts too)

What is really interesting is the names people do talk about fighting Fedor are Brock, Carwin and Cain. They have ratings of: 1916, 1864, 1797. Compare those against fighters like Werdum (1903), Overeem(1912), Rogers(1903) and suddenly it does look like Fedor actually has some competition outside the UFC. Note the word “some”, not “more”, not “better”, just a very reasonable, a very logical, a very factual, “some”.

Also note that Fedor is signed for three fights in Strikeforce. Lots can change. Carwin and Cain are about to fight each other that means one is likely to gain rating and one likely to go down. Randy and Nog are about to fight. If Randy wins his stock will go up, if he loses then people probably won’t mention him again. Dos Santos has a fight with Cro Cop (Offical?) that could impact things.

Lots can and will happen in the next year or so. In the next year Brock could win three more fights (and almost double his career total!) and that’d move him up the list a lot. Carwin (or Cain) could remain unbeaten and climb the list.

Maybe in a year or so the UFC will have all of the top 5 or 10 fighters, then this person could actually post an honest, straight forward comment to support their personal opinion instead of the previous pile of crap.

Quick Note
It should really be it’s own rant, but your personal opinion should not dictate how “good” the site is. If your favorite fighter moves up to #1 that doesn’t make the site better. If they lose and drop from #1 that doesn’t make the site worse. If the site is wrong, then it needs to be adjusted, and that is true whether you like how the Top 10 currently looks or not.

If BJ beats Sanchez and moves into #1 don’t suddenly flaunt how BJ is #1 on mma-elo if you’ve been bashing the system because he wasn’t #1 before. If the system was flawed to not have him #1 before, then it’s likely still flawed even if he’s now sitting at #1. On the other hand, if you’ve been following the site and understand that Brock is on the rise, and he continues to win. By all means, cheer his career and note his accomplishments.

One of the real strengths of the site is how consistent it is and whether you like the site, love the site or hate the site, I don’t think it’s asking too much that you show a bit of consistency back to it.

Thanks,
-Evil Pooh

I’ve tried to provide examples and keep the math simple. If you have any questions please feel free to ask and I’ll attempt to explain further. Even for those that hate math I’d suggest trying to read through it a time or two.

With the disclaimer out of the way, lets move on. The point of this rant is to examine how best to measure and represent system accuracy. I’m going to go over three methods that have been suggested and show how the current system model on the site measures up. There will also be a brief(ish) discussion of what I perceive the pros and cons to be with each approach. Feedback here is much appreciated as I’d like this metric to be something people could quickly use to weigh one system against another.

Method 1: Heads I win, Tails you lose

The first approach is the most basic. It looks at every fight and measures how many fights the higher rated fighter won. It then divides that number by the total number of fights.

Example

Assume there were only 10 fights, and the higher rated fighter won 4 of them, then the result would be 40%. That is to say that the system was correct 40% of the time.

The good, the bad, and the ugly

PROS: One of the upsides of this approach is that the number is very easy to understand. It’s very easy for someone to look at past picks and understand they got 2 out 5 right. Another benefit is that this number is easily compared to other systems.

CONS: The biggest downside to this metric is that it deviates from the entire basis of the site. When talking about sports almost nothing is ever 100%. One of the major benefits of the site is that it is able to recognize that even though one fighter is rated higher that doesn’t guarantee victory or even proclaim vast superiority(such proclamations should be left to the fans and the fighter’s mom).

Another potential drawback is that every single fight is counted.

Thoughts: Although I like the simplicity of the number and how portable it is, I don’t like how it fails to utilize the site’s expected win percentage model. Additionally, I think if an approach like this were to be used it might make sense to specify additional parameters(ex. minimum number of fights).

Site result: 65%

Method 2: Fighter history

The way this approach works is by going fighter by fighter looking at every fight they had past their sixth fight where their opponent also had at least six fights previously. For each of those fights I calculate their expected number of wins, and total their actual number of wins.

The absolute value of the difference between expected wins and actual wins is then accumulated across all fighters and this number is ultimately divided by the total number of fights.

Example

Lets look at a two fighter example to get a better idea of how this works:

Fighter A
Total fights = 2
Expected wins = 1
Actual wins = 1
Absolute difference = 0

Fighter B
Total fights = 4
Expected wins = 3
Actual wins = 2
Absolute difference = 1

In this case our total absolute difference is 1 and our total number of fights is 6. From here we can divide the total absolute difference by the total number fights to get a percentage of incorrect outcomes across all fights.

1 / 6 ~ 0.167

We can then subtract that number from 1 to get a percentage correct for the system:

1 – 0.167 = 0.833 ~ 83%

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: The Quickening

PROS: Unlike the previous approach this method factors in the expected win percentage. Which is good because there is a lot of value in the expected win percentage and not just for looking at “pot odds” when placing a bet on a given fight.

CONS: The approach used in this method is definitely more complicated than the first. There is also the possibility that this number doesn’t represent a useful metric for people.

Thoughts: Overall I like this approach better than the first method. It factors in the expected win percentage and is an overall deeper number. There’s no doubt that it would be misinterpreted at a glance by some, but I’m willing to put in the time so that anyone truly interested would be able to understand it.

Basically this number helps give us an idea of the average fighter’s actual performance compared to their expected performance. I’m not sure how useful a measure that is though, so feedback is definitely welcomed on this method.

Site result: 86%.

Method 3: Slice of Life

The final suggested method is an extension of the rant I did a little while ago. How it works is by slicing all fights up into smaller pools of fights based upon the difference in rating between the two fighters. From there it looks at the actual percentage of fights won by the favorite versus the expected percentage of fights that would be won.

In order to get an overall picture of the system on a per fight basis we multiply the number of fights in a given slice, by the absolute difference, accumulate that value across all slices and then divide by the total number of fights from all slices.

I know that might sound complicated, but if I wrote it as a formula with sigmas and stuff you’d hate me even more. Even if the math sounds like gibberish please try to picture what it represents in real world terms. What this method boils down to is showing how close to the expected win percentage various rating slices actually come.

Example

Consider two very broad slices:

1-300 Rating difference:
Total fights = 10
Expected win percentage 65%
Actual Win Percentage 70%
Absolute Difference = 5%

301-600 Rating difference:
Total Fights = 5
Expected win percentage = 85%
Actual win percentage = 70%
Absolute difference = 15%

We then take ((5 * 10) + (15 * 5)) / (5 + 10) ~ 8.33%

That’s means that on average the above system would be off by about 8.33% or put another way it’s about 91.67% accurate in terms of expected win percentage based upon rating versus the actual win percentage.

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, and The Crystal Skull

PROS: The stat focuses in on the expected win percentage approach. It allows one to quickly see how real life results are measuring up against predicted outcomes. This number helps give an idea of the overall accuracy of the system when it says Fighter A is expected to win 65% of the time versus Fighter B.

CONS + Thoughts: At first I was going to say that it’s more of a system stat than a user stat, but that’s pretty much what we are looking for here. What we want is a way for a user to gauge how accurate the other numbers they are seeing are. It’s great to claim that Fighter A will win 45% of the time, but if in actuality the expected win percentages are off by 40% then the value of the original expected win percentage number is greatly deflated.

Site result: 97%

some words Just random

Whenever you deal with stats it’s important to know exactly what the number you are looking at represents and whether that number is remotely relevant to what you are doing.

For a lot of people all they will care about is method 1. Sadly, that wastes a lot of the systems value. There is a world of difference between a 1601 rated fighter taking on a 1600 rated fighter and a 1950 rated fighter taking on a 1700 rated fighter. To simply say A > B (even if by the slimtest of margins) portents guranteed victory is a mistake.

Being the numbers geek that I am, method 3 is the most interesting to me. It’s a number that helps clarify the validity of other numbers. It’s interesting to see how close (on average) to expected results the system is actually coming. This also provides a degree of cushion when weighing expected win percentage between two fighters of various ratings.

If there are any methods I missed or any additional parameters you would like to see applied to any of the methods, please let me know. I’d really like to reach a bit of a consensus on this in the near future as it will prove useful with a couple future features/rants.