|
|
Post by K1power on Feb 15, 2015 12:47:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by K1power on Feb 15, 2015 12:53:20 GMT 1
Finally some up-to-date rankings to discuss.
For starters I would've ranked Gerasimchuk #1, I don't even see how that's debatable.
The Chinese fighter who destroyed Simon Marcus should be ranked as well, but I'm not sure at what weight that was contested so that might factor in.
Also, I think Kehl is ranked a bit too low. His win over Buakaw should at least put him above Souwer and Grigorian.
|
|
|
|
Post by dvewlsh on Feb 16, 2015 23:17:42 GMT 1
Ranking Andrei is.... Very difficult. He provides what was the same problem that Badr stomping on Gerges did way back when; he clearly doesn't belong with the other names yet. The Gerges DQ win fucked up the HW rankings for a very, very long time. Then the weird Gerges loss to Rico made Rico a top Heavyweight when he wasn't a top Heavyweight. The second win over Gerges things had changed, so it wasn't a total loss, but still. I wanted to put an asterisk next to both Rico and Andrei because for all intents and purposes Andrei should be #1. If he gets a few more wins against legitimate competition I'm going to place him at #1, but Balrak doesn't really count. He hasn't been fighting top competition and holds one win over a guy that is [sadly] the #1 guy. Here's what I've been able to find for records of his; fightlife.ru/en/fighter/439-Andrey-GerasimchukThe best guy that he's fought is probably Patrice Quateron, who beat him in 2012. His record (above) is unimpressive to say the least and the fact that I can't find solid resources on him over the past two years means that ranking him makes the rankings unpredictable. If some random Russian fighter beat him last year then that guy lays claim to being ranked as well and the entire rankings could end up a spotted mess to make room for Gerasimchuk. If he goes on to beat Gerges and keep winning in that Kunlun tournament and keeps facing legit competition then I'm more than willing to give him a better claim at the top, but if he goes back to Russia and is losing to guys we've never heard of who aren't that good, then, well, no. I had a similar problem with Steve Moxon. Steve Moxon has random, good wins (like over Aikpracha), but then has a ton of losses. Those losses outweighed his one win over Aikpracha, who has better wins overall still. Askerov is no longer ranked, Larsen isn't ranked, etc. For Marcus it was similar to the Andrei problem. Literally don't know enough about the guy that beat him, but if he keeps fighting top guys and smoking them like he did Marcus then he can be ranked. I wanted Kehl higher but the only wins that he has right now from the K-1 MAX tournament aren't exactly the best, plus the win over Buakaw was... Well, the win over Buakaw. Fighting Varol again isn't exactly great but the Petrosyan fight is... Yeah, kind of scary. |
|
|
|
Post by K1power on Feb 17, 2015 12:31:12 GMT 1
To me, rankings are always a very interesting topic.
Their purpose is to give an idea of who's who currently and some sort of measurement of where a certain upper echelon fighter stands after recent accomplishments/developments.
I expect any type of ranking to get at least some backlash for various reasons. The groups consist of people that:
- are biased fans who don't agree with them because their favorite fighter isn't ranked or not ranked high enough
- are simply confused because they don't know what the criteria are, which makes the rankings seem arbitrary
- don't want to understand/accept the criteria due to them conflicting with who they think should be ranked
- don't like the criteria being used for other - possibly justified - reasons
There's also a group of people who find rankings useless for a combination of the above: the fact that regardless of the criteria there's no way everyone will agree to a certain set of criteria, or a standard so to speak.
While I agree with that last group that there's no way everyone will universally agree with one type of ranking, I do feel it's possible to get a certain majority to find rankings a useful tool, at least when it comes to the fans who are able to judge fairly.
I mean, why even try to argue with biased fans that are blind to reason? Whoever says Morosanu or Catinas should CURRENTLY be in the top 10 is pretty far removed from reality.
A lot of confusion and some of the disagreement could be avoided by publically clarifying the criteria that establish the rankings.
I still feel Gerasimchuk should be ranked #1 for having beaten the 'previous' #1 in Verhoeven, but I do get your dilemma:
What if Gerasimchuk returns to Russia and loses to some random Sergei next month, which is something that can't be ruled out given that this is heavyweight and Gerasimchuk's record for 2012-2013 doesn't look very hot.
Should that new guy be ranked #1 as well?
My answer would be yes, however I would build in some safety mechanisms in the ranking criteria to sustain some stability without making it too predictable: Some refreshment every now and then is good.
Newly ranked fighters:
- If a newly ranked fighter does not fight another top 15 fighter within 6 months he drops 4 ranks.
- If a newly ranked fighter is inactive for 6 months he drops 7 ranks by default.
- If a newly ranked fighter is inactive for 12 months he drops 10 ranks by default.
Fighters that have been ranked for over 6 months:
- If a ranked fighter does not fight another top 15 fighter within 6 months he drops 2 ranks.
- If a ranked fighter is inactive for 6 months he drops 4 ranks by default.
- If a ranked fighter is inactive for 12 months he drops 6 ranks by default.
These criteria can still be tweaked with each new ranking update as you go, but it's just to throw out an idea.
If everyone can look up exactly how your rankings work, there's a lot less room for unnecessary discussion.
Also, it might be an idea to update the rankings every two months.
As things currently stand there isn't enough activity in every weightclass to warrant a montly update, but I feel an update every 4-6 months is too little.
I'd probably do something like this:
- Update #1 - Last week of February
- Update #2 - Last week of April
- Update #3 - Last week of June
- Update #4 - Last week of August
- Update #5 - Last week of October
- Update #6 - Last week of December
Every 3 months would still be okay too.
Just some ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenshin (Banned) on Feb 17, 2015 13:26:28 GMT 1
You're definatly underestimating random Sergeis though. You are in the group of people who underestimate random Sergeis.
|
|
ddd22
Rookie Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by ddd22 on Feb 17, 2015 21:49:17 GMT 1
I think Gerasimchuk shouldn't be ranked at all. Just because someone, a nobody, got a good day against someone who probably only had a very bad day+ underestimed his opponent, doesn't mean that the other fighter should take his place or be considerd the best in the world, especially when the fighter in cause is a fighter who has never win against anyone relevant(other than rico) and has a lot of loss against nobodies. First he should win again against a top fighter and then we can talk. Until then, we don't really know how good is this guy.
Also he might be just a bad match up for Rico. You know, like Schilt vs Aerts. Although Aerts beat and dominated Schilt, he was never number 1 at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by K1power on Feb 17, 2015 22:19:01 GMT 1
Why am I not in the slightest surprised your ip address is from Romania.
Let me guess, Ghita was robbed twice against Rico wasn't he?
Oh and thanks for completely proving my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenshin (Banned) on Feb 18, 2015 12:26:00 GMT 1
I think he makes a solid point. Was Aerts considered the #1 when he beat Schilt in the Final 16? I don't think so, because it was 'just' one fight and Schilt's dominance at this point was too big. Now I don't want to compare Verhoeven's dominance with Schilt's, and I honestly haven't seen the fight you are talking about, but he still does make a point, I think.
He also didn't even mention any Romanian Fighter and actually seemed more supportive of Verhoeven.
|
|
|
|
Post by K1power on Feb 18, 2015 13:17:06 GMT 1
He also didn't even mention any Romanian Fighter and actually seemed more supportive of Verhoeven. While it's great that you defend someone, there's a lot more to this story than this single post of a new member which includes multiple platforms outside of this forum. There's a boatload of Ghita fanboys trying to discredit Gerasimchuks achievement of convincingly defeating Verhoeven, because it makes the whole heavyweight division - which includes Ghita - look like a joke. Looking at his comment and the random nickname he chose tells me he's just here to spout some anti-Gerasimchuk venom, based on strawman arguments. Saying you feel Gerasimchuk shouldn't be ranked #1 is one thing, saying he shouldn't be ranked at all is a whole other category of crazy. Feel free to disagree all you like, but if you do please educate yourself on the matter before picking sides. I think he makes a solid point. Was Aerts considered the #1 when he beat Schilt in the Final 16? I don't think so, because it was 'just' one fight and Schilt's dominance at this point was too big. Now I don't want to compare Verhoeven's dominance with Schilt's, and I honestly haven't seen the fight you are talking about, but he still does make a point, I think. Fair enough, I'll bite. It all comes down to what criteria you use to determine who's ranked where. I don't think rankings should be about who we personally consider to be the best, or rather who we feel 'belongs' there. Bias shouldn't dictate how fighters are ranked. Clearly defined criteria should. Rankings should be all about who beats who, more precisely who has beaten who recently. The one criterium I personally feel should be above all else is 'you take the rank of the fighter you beat'. Gerasimchuk convincingly defeated Verhoeven and knocked him down in the process, twice(!). He did what Ghita, Saki, Zimmerman, Aerts, Gerges, Kharitonov and Edwards couldn't. So yes, I feel Gerasimchuk should be ranked #1 regardless of what he did before that. He beat the #1 so that makes him #1. It really is that simple. However, like I said, I get the dilemma Dave had with ranking him considering his inconsistent history and that's why I definitely think built in safety mechanisms are a necessity. In addition: It shouldn't matter for the rankings if Verhoeven had an off-day or there were other circumstances at play. He lost and that's that. What created this whole problem is that the widely considered #1 fighter went to another organisation and lost to a 'nobody'. It shouldn't be possible for a fighter that's not even ranked in the top 20, let alone the top 10 to fight the #1. Sure, Verhoeven isn't a champion outside of Glory, but it's clear that the Glory champions are widely regarded as the #1 in their respective weightclasses. In conclusion; it's okay to disagree as this is a discussion forum. However, people should counter arguments with arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Kenshin (Banned) on Feb 18, 2015 14:03:02 GMT 1
Înteresting. Spambots are a thing of the past, now we'll have to deal with Ghita-bots. I wasn't picking sides really, I just gave the poor guy with 1 posts the benefit of the doubt and pointed out that he made a solid point, in my opinion. But since I'm in the group of people who don't really care much about ranking, I feel this is not worth the heated discussion.
I'd only like to point out that I agree that a ranking system should be rather unbiased, for obvious reasons. However, with humans involved, there will always be a degree of subjectivity. That's why I like Fightmatrix for MMA, who uses a totally computer genererated ranking system, with clear and neutral criterias.
|
|
kbfan
Advanced Member
Posts: 634
|
Post by kbfan on Feb 18, 2015 14:24:35 GMT 1
He also didn't even mention any Romanian Fighter and actually seemed more supportive of Verhoeven. There's a boatload of Ghita fanboys trying to discredit Gerasimchuks achievement of convincingly defeating Verhoeven, because it makes the whole heavyweight division - which includes Ghita - look like a joke. Personally, i believe there is just 1 guy with a lot of time on his hands, a multitude of accounts and an iron will  |
|
|
|
Post by K1power on Feb 18, 2015 14:28:44 GMT 1
@ Kenshin: What I like about ranking systems is that - when done right - anyone can quickly find out who's who at the moment without investing a lot of time. They can be a useful tool, rather than just some trivial add-on.
Back in the day CKO's rankings created a lot of fuss as well, even though he had very clearly defined consistent criteria.
People just couldn't take that Bob Sapp took the #1 rank when he beat Hoost.
I agree about the bit of human involvement. It can be minimized, but the criteria used will always be picked by humans. This includes fightmatrix though, the included criteria that define the rankings are still ultimately decided by humans.
@ kbfan: His will is that of iron indeed. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by roy2015 (Banned) on Feb 18, 2015 17:34:31 GMT 1
Hell no Paraschiv, Aikpracha Meenayothin is correctly ranked. I saw the talks. He is in discussion only for the future. I guess Catinas could have been ranked in April, Jorge Loren instead of Thomas. Robert Thomas is wrongly ranked. And Fang Bian if we have the Belarusian despite the fact he might not be top 15. Morosanu beat Braddock Silva so I don't know. He was also stolen in Australia (in Czech Republic too). Surely at least a Romanian of these two (Morosanu, Catinas), and Jorge Loren instead of Robert Thomas, Fang Bian not if you feel he isn't as tested as others. Gerasmichuk is a lot more tested than the Chinese.
|
|
|
|
Post by h on Feb 18, 2015 20:44:43 GMT 1
Hell no Paraschiv, Aikpracha Meenayothin is correctly ranked. I saw the talks. He is in discussion only for the future. I guess Catinas could have been ranked in April, Jorge Loren instead of Thomas. Robert Thomas is wrongly ranked. And Fang Bian if we have the Belarusian despite the fact he might not be top 15. Morosanu beat Braddock Silva so I don't know. He was also stolen in Australia (in Czech Republic too). Surely at least a Romanian of these two (Morosanu, Catinas), and Jorge Loren instead of Robert Thomas, Fang Bian not if you feel he isn't as tested as others. Gerasmichuk is a lot more tested than the Chinese. ROY IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by dvewlsh on Feb 20, 2015 8:21:24 GMT 1
Hell no Paraschiv, Aikpracha Meenayothin is correctly ranked. I saw the talks. He is in discussion only for the future. I guess Catinas could have been ranked in April, Jorge Loren instead of Thomas. Robert Thomas is wrongly ranked. And Fang Bian if we have the Belarusian despite the fact he might not be top 15. Morosanu beat Braddock Silva so I don't know. He was also stolen in Australia (in Czech Republic too). Surely at least a Romanian of these two (Morosanu, Catinas), and Jorge Loren instead of Robert Thomas, Fang Bian not if you feel he isn't as tested as others. Gerasmichuk is a lot more tested than the Chinese. Morosanu beat Braddock in 2012. Since then he's lost to Zhuravlev, Edwards and Hron. Morosanu WAS ranked way back when, but he has no claim to being ranked right now. At all. I really, genuinely want to know what Loren Jorge has done to be ranked. Yes, winning the SK tournament is a cool achievement, but this isn't 2008 when there was a K-1 WGP and winning the WGP made you #1 and everything else fell into line. Talent is strewn across the world, stretched across multiple promotions and winning a tournament that doesn't feature the very best in the world does not assure you a spot. I do agree that Thomas has a tenuous claim at best right now, so I'm not about to argue that one at all. That division isn't exactly stacked outside of the top few guys. Fang Bian is just tough to rank. I've seen him fight something like two times before the Marcus fight and can't find a real record for him anywhere. |
|
