As an experiment, I decided to create a “division dominance” list with the current rating set.  At its core, it is a hybrid of a pound-for-pound list and a current snapshot of the divisional rankings.  It basically says, which fighters are the most dominant over their own respective divisions.

Division Dominance List

Rank	Fighter	Record	Division Dominance Points
1	Anderson Silva	21-4-0	258
2	Fedor Emelianenko	27-1-0	255
3	Quinton Jackson	28-6-0	226
4	Georges St. Pierre	15-2-0	215
5	Randy Couture	16-8-0	198
6	Norifumi Yamamoto	17-1-0	197
7	Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira	31-4-1	186
8	Yasuhiro Urushitani	14-3-5	185
9	Urijah Faber	20-1-0	176
10	Miguel Torres	17-1-0	172

If you like this list, come in the forum and let us know!

Since the quality performance decay (QPD) is now working as intended, I figured I would do a quick write-up with regards to its purpose.

In short, the QPD is meant to gradually decrease the rating of a fighter who has not necessarily been a victim of losing, or inactivity, but one who has not recently had a performance that’s indicative of a fighter of that rating. It is important to note that a quality performance is relative to the fighter’s rating.

Without digging too deep into the decay, in order to register a quality performance, a fighter must beat an opponent at least 1/3* of their pre-bout rating, draw against an opponent at least 1/2* of their pre-bout rating, or lose a split/majority decision against an opponent at least 2/3* of their rating. *Values used are approximate.  Note: UFC/PRIDE title bouts have/had special considerations.

Please remember, that even if a fighter draws or loses a close decision to a lower rated fighter and registers a quality performance, they will still lose rating points as a result of the bout’s outcome.

If a fighter has went 360 days without a quality performance, they go into a mode of QPD. This decay is not nearly as strong as the inactivity decay, but is a bit less forgiving than a fighter coming back from inactivity as an inactive fighter can (in some scenarios) redeem a bit of their lost rating by performing well against a quality opponent in their comeback bout. The reason for that forgiveness is that we can gauge a fighter in QPD, but not one who is inactive.

Once a fighter in this QPD registers a quality performance, they are taken off of the decay mode. It is also important to note that since a quality performance is relative, as their rating slips, the requirements on breaking free from the decay are lessened.

The QPD is one of the main advantages of the rating system. It is gradual, and no fighter is immune. Many ranking sites may forget about certain fighters who have been bottom-feeding, or simply leave them at their position due to prestige. They may also over- or under-correct these fighters. This is not the case here. The decay treats everyone equally, as it is gradual, and proportionate.

Notable fighters currently in the QPD are: Fedor Emelianenko, Josh Barnett, Mirko Filipovic, Wanderlei Silva, Matt Lindland, Ricardo Arona, Antonio Rogerio Nogueira, Frank Trigg, Takanori Gomi, and quite a few others.

Ratings as of March 11, 2008

Notable Changes

• Rating code updated to 1.11 which includes the correction of quality performance penalty application as well as the strengthening of the penalty rate.
• Approximately 100 old bouts added to the database.

The overall changes to the rankings are very minor.

Rating code updated to version 1.11

• Re-worked quality performance decay.  Before, fighters in a quality performance decay were getting penalized with their full decay before each bout.  This was not intended.  Now, fighters are penalized with partial decays, equivalent to the time elapsed since the previous bout.  In addition, the decay rate was strengthened.

A rating set will be released sometime between now and Wednesday, once everything is tested and finalized.

Ratings as of March 9, 2008.  Only minor changes have occurred since the last release.

• Recent shows added to database, such as Cage Rage (3/8), American Fight League (3/7), etc.
• Various division corrections.
• Some old bouts added to database.

Ratings include 1.1 update which is detailed in the previous post, as well as results from the Sengoku card.

Notable Changes

• Josh Barnett re-enters the Heavyweight rankings at #6.  However, he is in immediate danger of slipping to #7 as it has been quite sometime since he has performed well against a quality opponent, relative to his status.
• Takanori Gomi re-enters the Lightweight rankings at #1.  He too, is in a quality performance decay, but has a fair lead over the #2 ranked Calvancanti.  However, a dominant win over Aoki would likely propel Calvancanti over Gomi as #1 in the division.

After the Sengoku card, version 1.1 of the rating system will be live. This is a relatively major update and will affect parts of all divisions. However, the Top 15-20 fighters in divisions from Lightweight and up, are relatively untouched. Improvements will mainly be seen in the lower weight classes, as well as the Women rankings.

Notable Changes

• Fighters rated above the starter debut level can no longer accrue points by defeating fighters without a quality performance. A similar protocol was in place, but it was improved upon. This change will put more emphasis on beating experienced, proven opponents.
• A “sticky” zone has been placed from the starter debut level, to 2x this level. In other words, fighters who are within this zone, or fall through the zone, will experience a more gradual descent to ensure separation between experienced “journeymen” and fighters who are very early in their career. This results in better handling of mediocre veteran fighters and those in the lower weight divisions. The effects of the “sticky” zone will not be in place if a fighter loses to an opponent below the starter debut level.
• Inactive and quality performance penalties were softened for those falling within, or below the aforementioned “sticky” zone.
• Bug fix with regards to fighters being penalized when coming back from inactivity.  Some fighters were over-penalized if they did not return with a quality performance.