Subscribe
Computerized Mixed Martial Arts Rankings
The rankings on this site are computer generated, and are based only on official results. There is no human intervention involved, which means that all bouts are considered in chronological order to determine the current rankings. The idea is to provide a list that is comparable to the “popular thought” without bias. However, there are some prediction-based elements. So in summary, you could say the system is a hybrid of popular thought and prediction analysis.
The following notes are important to consider when viewing the rankings.
- These are CURRENT rankings. The more recent a result, the more impact it has on a fighter’s ranking.
- A fighter must have a professional MMA bout in the previous 450 days to be listed.
- As of 2/2/09, points are not division-specific. They are completely transparent from division to division.
- A fighter can only appear in one division at a time and is almost always placed in the division in which they last fought. It is rare, but sometimes we make exceptions if we feel that the move is temporary and the fighter accomplishes nothing there (Example: Matt Lindland jumping two divisions to lose to Fedor).
- The winner is always placed above the loser, regardless of the outcome.
- A bout’s winner can lose points, if for example, they only manage a close win over a much lower rated fighter. In addition, the loser will gain points in this scenario.
- There is no “blocking”. In other words, if Fighter A beats Fighter B, Fighter B can improve over Fighter A if their following performance(s) warrant this shift in points.
- There is a special factor involved in UFC title bouts, due to the increased length of the matches and prestige of the lineage. It also helps with problems caused by global talent pool separation. The same factor applies to historical PRIDE title bouts, Shooto (125,135,145) and WEC (135,145), DREAM (155,185).
- A ranked fighter may appear to lose or gain points for no reason at all. The reasons for this may include: historical bout additions & changes and/or quality performance decay penalties.
- Injury-related TKOs are not treated any differently then standard TKOs. A TKO is a TKO.
- Rather than being overly concerned with the actual placement of the fighters, take a look at their points. Often times, the point differences between two rankings are very slim, and this means that their placements are really a “toss up”.
Latest Rankings:
June 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Ben, that is correct. If we were to publish historical rankings as of 12/23/2000 (the day after the first Fedor-TK fight), TK would be ranked ahead of Fedor.
On the other hand, TK was most likely ranked ahead of Fedor even before their first fight, as Emelianenko was only 4-0 at that time.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
First of all I want to say that I think your rankings are the most accurate I’ve seen. All of your rules for ranking make sense to me except possibly the rule that “a winner is always placed above the loser”. Does this mean that if Fighter A lost his most recent fight to Fighter B he is as a rule ranked below him in the charts? For example, if the rankings after Kohsaka’s fight against Fedor Emelianenko were shown, Kohsaka would be ranked above Fedor despite the historical evidence that suggests this is inaccurate?