Lloyd van Dams...number 1 on CKO?

[Lone Wolf]

Ok, something`s been bothering me about the Schilt/van Dams fight:

Obviously Semmy doesn`t feel good about this fight since he wanted out, but they seem to be forcing him to fight. I don`t know the reason that Semmy didn`t want to fight, maybe he`s injured, tired, ill, not physically ready, the point is van Dams could go against a Semmy that is way below his usual condition...and win. That would make Lloyd the nr 1 fighter in the world on the CKO list which seems to me a respected ranking system.

Now, I think we can all safely say that van Dams is not the nr 1 fighter in the world by any strech of imagination but that`s not the main problem...the main problem is that you can expect van Dams to lose at any time to who-knows-what B-list fighter who might then lose it to another B-list fighter starting a transition of the nr 1 ranking to all the wrong places.

Am I making any sense? LOL

[Jofeljoh!]

lol!

interesting point of view. Well, you might have a point. If Van Dams wins and if you consider that Van Dams won't fight any topfighter after that, it could be possible a mediocre fighter can take the number 1 rank. And you can get in a spiral if that nr1 fighter won't fight any top competition soon (or the next mediocre fighter who win it for that matter).

[AKA]

yeah thats why the rank sucks sometimes!
If Van Damme win and dont fight, he will keep the N°1 rank for one year before getting down in the ranking!

[freeman]

Even if Lloyd Van Dams wins against a tired Semmy Schilt, everybody will be interested in seeing VanDams fight against other top fighters : so VanDams won't keep his title for long.

[Wheelie]

Ok, something`s been bothering me about the Schilt/van Dams fight:

Obviously Semmy doesn`t feel good about this fight since he wanted out, but they seem to be forcing him to fight. I don`t know the reason that Semmy didn`t want to fight, maybe he`s injured, tired, ill, not physically ready

none of that was the reason not to fight

[Mago]

CKO's rank isn't assumed as a way to acknowledge the BEST fighters in order of merit, but is a way to illustrate, during a specific place in time, who won against who, but directly swapping places between winner and looser.

It is, as the author himself stated, bascily a way to keep track of the results in a graphical system. It has SOME subjective traces in it to make it not only a statistical (sp) reference, like fighters loosing rank due to inactivity (making him not "worthy" of his rank anymore) or the fact tournement fights don't count as ranked victories because they are not a result of a single fighter's work.

The point is: the number 1 in CKO's rank isnt exactly the number one fighter in the world, in terms of merit, but rather another referenced fighter whose position reflects only the previous rank of whoever he beat in his last meaningfull fight.

For example, Semmy is currently the number one fighter in the rank ONLY because he beat Musashi who held the place before him, it has nothing to do with him beating Hoost, Bonjasky or Feitosa (who had "lower" ranks) or even after winnning the whole thing. Winning against Hoost is a feat to tell your grandsons about, but in terms of this rank, it's the same as winning over giant Silva or Akebono - it just means swapping rank numbers or not (in case you are higher than the guy you beat).

I think a more "complex" system that award previous feats as the base for ranking would be extremely interesting, along side with CKO's incredible compilation and effort, and would serve to cover another aspect to illustrate even better the K1 world today.

**THIS IS SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC**

A simple example would be: I have 10 points, I beat Hoost who has gathered 100.000 points throughout the years, I get a certain amount of that (10% or whatever), and he looses points proportionaly to my current rank - I would raise my points value and hopefully gain quite a higher place because Hoost has so many points, and Hoost would loose a few points and perhaps even drop a rank or two because he lost to such an low ranked fighter. Points would be used to award winners (for wins, wins by KO, winning the Crown, etc) and to reflect one's negative results too (loss by KO, points, etc), while also reflecting the importance of WHO you fought, by giving more or less points for victory depending on your opponents feats.

Still, many have already suggested changes to the only rranking system available for K1, and CKO already said he sin't interested in any other type of tracking system now.

[Lone Wolf]

none of that was the reason not to fight

Then, if you don`t mind my asking...what was the reason for his withdrawal?

[WOLVES AT THE DOOR]

CKO has inactive fighters ranked over active fighters..... It's very inacurate in my opinion.

[HolyRamenEmpire]

We're just going to get back to the old routine of saying "the ranking is not perfect, but it's an attempt at objectivity, and at best a reference". A point to note is, a lot of fighting happens without the thought of ranking... Unlike boxing, mma tends to be supra-ranking... Pancrase/Shooto seem to adhere to a ranking system but these days it's getting weak due to multiplicity of leagues... Overall, we see a problem of balancing sport with entertainment... It's not about rankings... It's about name values... It's about images...

Anyways, CKO's ranking is a nice reference, to see beyond the impressions.

And if Van Dam does beat the champ, then so be it. If anyone is bothered by that, then just consider the #2 guy in the ranking to be the true champ... Or just hope VD gets challenged by a big name...

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

Hey guys,

I can't disagree with anything here. If Van Dams wins, he takes the #1 rank. He will be able to squat on it until the end of 2007 if he is in a squatting mood. I don't mind him winning it. The squatting is pretty unfortunate. Mirko squatted and I endured about 18 months of "He is in Pride now!" LOL.

[unicorn]

Oh c'mon guys. Let's suppose any other way of doing the ranking. Say Bonjaski would have held it - he'd have been close to lose it to Predator. You imagine a rank with Predator on #1 ? I mean Sapp on #1 looks like paradise ! The ranking still has a clue about not being eternally biased : it is a matter of evolution of the whole scale of fighters. Not even the best can hold the rank eternally or long enough a time to become really embarrassing. Much less the worst. If Van Damms beats Schilt by any means imaginable (say Schilt stumbles in the ring and breaks an ankle before even they can trade) and this is acknowledged a legitimate win by the officials, the blunt fact is that he won against Schilt. Imagine how many of you would put in a ring some of your heavy trainees with Schilt. How this would feel at the locker room 5' before the fight. Whoever survives there those 5 min and by any reason beats Schilt after that diserves the credit. C'mon...

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

**THIS IS SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC**

A simple example would be: I have 10 points, I beat Hoost who has gathered 100.000 points throughout the years, I get a certain amount of that (10% or whatever), and he looses points proportionaly to my current rank - I would raise my points value and hopefully gain quite a higher place because Hoost has so many points, and Hoost would loose a few points and perhaps even drop a rank or two because he lost to such an low ranked fighter. Points would be used to award winners (for wins, wins by KO, winning the Crown, etc) and to reflect one's negative results too (loss by KO, points, etc), while also reflecting the importance of WHO you fought, by giving more or less points for victory depending on your opponents feats.

Still, many have already suggested changes to the only rranking system available for K1, and CKO already said he sin't interested in any other type of tracking system now.

In the early stages, I did test a few point systems like the one you are describing.

Here are some of the things I noticed.
1- A lower tier fighter who is very active could get more fights than a higher tier fighter who fights once a year. Right now Alexander Ustinov would probably take the number 1 rank on nearly every point system. He has a lot of wins against solid competition. Hoost, on the other hand, lost to Schilt in his only fight of 2005. Any formula to keep Hoost higher would likely also keep Mirko higher too.

2- Do you really want to see #2 take the #1 rank by beating #17? That is the way points work. You don't need to beat #1 in the ring. Just on the points.

3- I can't imagine anything being easier to understand than the title system the CKO uses now. Yet we still get "How the hell did X get ranked higher than Y?" The point system would draw more questions about "HOW".

4- If Red beats Blue, is he ranked higher? The point system will have to answer this clearly.

5- How reliable will it be? Is it fair across the board. Will a fight with one promoter (say K-1) be more valuable than with another (say Mars).

6- How valid will it be? The CKO measured Spearman's rho at .785. What is your target? I eyeballed a lot of suggestions that wouldn't last a year before falling below .300. That .785 is in 2006 and the list was started in 2000.

[Mago]

Well, I know this isn't exactly the best way to discuss this, hopefully I won't get the readers tired, but this might be a good conversation topic, since it's something I was also thinking about doing (probably rank a whole year in K1 (2003 for sure, to prove Ignashov was number 1 back then :) ) just for demo purpouses.

In the early stages, I did test a few point systems like the one you are describing.

Here are some of the things I noticed.
1- A lower tier fighter who is very active could get more fights than a higher tier fighter who fights once a year. Right now Alexander Ustinov would probably take the number 1 rank on nearly every point system. He has a lot of wins against solid competition. Hoost, on the other hand, lost to Schilt in his only fight of 2005. Any formula to keep Hoost higher would likely also keep Mirko higher too.

Not necessarily - Ustinov COULD get a high rank yes, but the amount of points he gets for each win would depend solely on his opponents own points level (remember, he would get a certain amount of that, say 10%, so if he beats B who has only 10 points, he gets 1 point for his victory, which isnt much). So if you go the whole year beating low ranked fighters, you'll only get a proportionally small amount of points.

There's is no reason to keep Hoost for example in the top, if his current career dont match - still, becasue he won K1 so many times and won over other high ranked fighters (Aerts, Hug, etc) he would surely have, by 2006, a freaking solid point amount, placing him up there, even if not in the #1.

2- Do you really want to see #2 take the #1 rank by beating #17? That is the way points work. You don't need to beat #1 in the ring. Just on the points.

Yes, true, but that question is a subjective view, and by all means a ranking system, like you also stated, must be above all objective. The points ranking would reward fighters for their achievements, rather than direct climbing of rank positions.

3- I can't imagine anything being easier to understand than the title system the CKO uses now. Yet we still get "How the hell did X get ranked higher than Y?" The point system would draw more questions about "HOW".

Yes, this is a very valid point, unless someone is willing to go through the whole career of a fighter and calculate his wins and loosses, and his opponent's, it would make it impossible for one to know the true point value. Maybe the solution could be to cut the job and have ranking for each year, etc.

4- If Red beats Blue, is he ranked higher? The point system will have to answer this clearly.

No, unless they are very close in terms of points level. In my example, if you are 10, and beat someone with 100, you end up with 20 points, and the other with 90 (a loss equal -10 %, -50 % or whatever, there's no real rules, I'm making them up as I writte), so you are climbing your way through the ranks, and the other guys got also hurt for loosing, but still is somewhat closer to his previous position - he would never go from #1 to #230 directly, but rather would loose his rank gradually.

5- How reliable will it be? Is it fair across the board. Will a fight with one promoter (say K-1) be more valuable than with another (say Mars).

This is a problem, but a way to simplify it would be to either face each fight as normal ranking fights, no matter organization, or to set a simple rule like: all events other than K1 official events will only count 50 % in terms of point level achievements - you would end up with a mathematical nightmare with this rule though. Something better should be imagined! :)

6- How valid will it be? The CKO measured Spearman's rho at .785. What is your target? I eyeballed a lot of suggestions that wouldn't last a year before falling below .300. That .785 is in 2006 and the list was started in 2000.

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean here, maybe youre talking about precision or number of variables in the system (number of fighters)?

This is fun for me to talk about but I know any kind of ranking system requires HUGE loads of work, hours of info gathering and you always end up running the risk of making mistakes. The ranking system I described here doesn't exist and seems quite easy to function, but begin in 1993 K1 GP final, give everybody 10 points for being K1 rookies, and do the maths from there (add things like points bonus for winning the crown, bonus or penalties for winnning/loosing by KO or TKO, etc), with a system that links EVERY fighter with each other (since what you get in a win comes from the opponents previous point level, which you also have to calculate by going through HIS own fights) and youll get work for months of sheer ranking fun.

These are fun ideas that could get the hardcore fans somthing to chew on, but I recognize these discussions only as hobby chat, since the actual work is clearly something I wouldnt like to do unless K1 would pay me some nice Yens. ;)

Thanks for the answers anyway, CKO! Keep up the great work of mantaining the ranking and writting incredible articles!

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

1- Be careful of the smoke and mirrors. K-1 can make Abidi look like a star. They can make Sapp look like a god. They can make Skelton look like a bum.

If you don't have a decay feature in the equation, Hoost will keep points from 1995. That is a mountain for someone like Sapp to overcome. Yet, beating Hoost twice in the ring was achieved in a span of (what?) 3 months.

If Hoost has more points than Remy, what does the ranking tell you? I'm guessing that it is a lifetime achievement ranking. Nothing wrong with that, but if that isn't the goal, you have to accept that you missed.

2- A lot of sports allow the #2 to pass the #1 by beating #17 or so. I'd actually forgive this if a points system hit the scene. Personally, I'm in love with the title system. Professionally, I'm pretty open-minded in this respect.

3- This is a trust game. Q= How the hell did LeBanner get that rank? A= Trust me.
Believe it or not, I'm okay with this too. If 99% of the fans don't understand the equation, that's fine. I know I'm in the 1% and can draw meaning from the numbers. The CKO ranking is pretty simple and transparent, my preference.

4- If A beats B and is still ranked lower, you will have a serious problem. No question about it.

5- If you give more points to K-1 than Mars or It's Showtime, you will be regarded as a servant of the promotional company. If K-1 suddenly went bankrupt or got bought out, where would you stand. If a second company, say Don King Promotions, held a tournament with better fighters than K-1, where would you stand.

6- To test validity, you will have to compare the list to another standard. If they correlate at .700 or better you can sleep at night.

One day I may draw up a point system unless someone beats me to it. It won't be my next list though. I have another idea brewing that is very different.

[Mago]

Haha, dont worry, I won't bother you anymore regarding this! :) Thanks for the carefull answers, I'll surely wait for that "different idea" you are growing in the background.

The only "problem" I detect really, but this might be simply a case of personnal preference, is in the 4th topic: "If A beats B and is still ranked lower, you will have a serious problem. No question about it." I think this is the main question that get most of the guys confused with the title system you adopted, simply because it bases in a abstract superiority system. I'm sure everyone will agree that winning a fight makes you the better man on the occasion, not necessarily the better man of the two. If Scott Lighty (USA) beats a high ranked fighter (by any means) such as Aerts (Hoost is being so inactive that is a bad example), you bet he gave a huge leap career (and ranking) wise, but it doesn't mean he's now officially better than Aerts, and it doesn't mean that just because he won that single fight, that he should be above Aerts when Peter also got numerous wins throughout that year (Goodridge, Semmy, Mo, whatever), many more than Lighty, for example.

Previous achievements should never be forgotten when trying to actively label this fighter as "superior" or currently better than that other one, we are talking about pofessionals who take their career very seriously, if they are going to have a system, even if fan made, that evaluates and tell them how good they actually are comparing to ohers in their profession, it should be as fair as possible, IMHO. Your ranking of course is as fair as possible, but sadly eliminates the fighters path from the equation, which isn't unbearable, just another kind of annalysis to the K1 scene.

[Lord Gaul]

I want LVD to win even more now. It adds to the cotravercy.

[HolyRamenEmpire]

The pt system gets messy... If you count the whole career, then you get old timers at the top for a while... The list does turn into a sort of "best career ranking"... And if you make the list "annual", then fighters that fight less will end up disadvantaged... The pt attribution seem problematic too...

I think the idea is: don't get beat by a huge underdog... and if you do get beat, then have a re-match. That'll assure the accuracy of a "beat and over-rank system" of ranking. And that's what often happens. If the #1 gets beat by #17, and if the ex-#17 gets beat by #2, then #2 turns #1, and the ex-ex-#1 get beat the ex-#2 to return to #1... I think that's fair, safe, and intelligible.

Was the adcc ranking, a pt based system?

http://www.adcombat.net/adnet/FightersDB/NHBDB/Fighters_Ranks/frame_nhb.htm

Perhaps it's one sample of a pt system.

If someone wants to make a subjective ranking, then anyone can make one.

If you want to use a pt system, then think of one :)

Semmy should just beat LVD...
or if he gets beat this time, then he can re-match.
If LVD turns inactive, then he can fall down the ranking for inactivity.
Fine system.

I think CKO's ranking is a good reference. People can attribute various meaning to the ranking. Musashi as #1 doesn't mean he's the best. It can just mean he was the smartest, or the luckiest. That's up to the viewer.

In regards to Semmy, I think a lot of people want to see him replaced by someone more charismatic and stylistically inspiring. LVD winning or not, I'd like to see the next generation kicking ass.

[HolyRamenEmpire]

Bob Sapp and Mirko are the ones who essentially messed around a bit with the CKO ranking :) Like history, there happens some period of turmoil in any ranking... Then comes the reign of a longlasting king... So forth. The ranking's fine with me->CKO

Peace~.

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

HRE,
Patrick Smith taking the #1 rank from Andy was by far the biggest upset.

The ugliness of the past few years (Thanks Mr. Sapp) has caused a bit of a backlash but as expected it died down. No one today blurts out "LeBanner has a weak chin." like they used to. No one today complains about the K-1 dumping a Japanese tomato can in every tournament. People get used to stuff. Ask any Canadian about taxes and they'll flip out a little less intensely. LOL.

[Lord Gaul]

Pat Smith taking the title from Andy Hug? I thought the list started in 2000.

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

Pat Smith taking the title from Andy Hug? I thought the list started in 2000.

The list, yes, started in 2000. The #1 rank has gone from Branko Cikatic to Sem Schilt over a period of 52 fights since 1993. Impressed?

Click here. (http://www.centralkickboxing.org/majesty.htm)

In 2000, Hoost was both the Grand Prix Champion (the orignal list was based on the 2000 series) and the "Lineal Champion". For both reasons, he took the #1 rank. It was a very convenient discovery that allowed the list to acknowledge the success of fighters who held or challenged for the #1 rank over a much longer period.

[Quato]

Why are you all worried about? Sem is going to win this one... ;-)

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

Why are you all worried about? Sem is going to win this one... ;-)

I suppose so, but he may get banged up enough to put none other than Hong Man Choi in reach of taking the rank two weeks later. The CKO protects fighters from losing ranks in multiple fights in one evening, but two weeks puts the rank up for grabs. I cried when Sapp took #1. Choi would push me into a heavily medicated depression. LOL. Go Choi!!

[HolyRamenEmpire]

HRE,
Patrick Smith taking the #1 rank from Andy was by far the biggest upset.

The ugliness of the past few years (Thanks Mr. Sapp) has caused a bit of a backlash but as expected it died down. No one today blurts out "LeBanner has a weak chin." like they used to. No one today complains about the K-1 dumping a Japanese tomato can in every tournament. People get used to stuff. Ask any Canadian about taxes and they'll flip out a little less intensely. LOL.

I see less effect from the Patrick Smith upset than by that of Sapp + Crocop. The effect of PS lasts for just 4~5 months thx to Andy beating PS in a re-match soon after. The impact of Sapp's upsets lasted 3 years! (Thx to Crocop's contribution.)

[Mago]

Hehe, but you guys seem to have missed my only true point about this topic concern (Shcilt loosing his rank to a non deserving "B" fighter, which I don't consider Lloyd to be) - the only problem with CKO list is that the #1 spot is not awarded for Merit, it is rather achieved by beating the casual guy who happens to be in that spot. By all means, the #1 spot is the same as the #3, or #47. You will only get there if you beat the individual who is ranked there - Semmy is in the #1 rank ONLY beacuse K1 decided to shedule a fight between him and Musashi and he won, NOT because he happens to be the best fighter in K1 currently and bull-rushed his way to the 05 crown. In other words, its about who beats who and NOT who has had a better year than the other (or career, for that matter), who is "better" than the other. Winning the first place might be easier than to win another particular rank because of the individuals who are "placed" there.

If Shcillt looses there'll be not upsets - if Seemy is at #1, and then after the fight Lloyd is at #1, it just means Lloyd beat Schilt, and not that he is now the best fighter in the world. If Semmy were at #12 and the same fight took place, Lloyd would be at #12 and it would mean the same thing, that he beat Semmy, nothing more.

The number 1 spot is the same as any other number in CKO ranking because it isn't meant as a "achievement" system, who is at the top isnt necessarily better than the ones below him, because there's no control of what must be done to judge an individual to be better than a large group of people. So there's really nothing to be worried about, THAT's what I was trying to say all along, hope I made myself clear once and for all!!! :D :D :D

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

Mago,
If more people managed to grasp that, the kickboxing world would be a much friendlier place... for me. LOL.

The CKO Ranking is indeed at the mercy of matchmaking. Soon the relationship will balance out. Promoters have already rearranged event match ups to give better (yet lower ranked) fighters matches against lower caliber (though higher ranked) opponents.

Even with the "by chance" match ups, winners go up and losers go down. That is the nature of the list. Fans like you (an me) can bring subjective opinions and say "No way Mori is going to defend that rank against Schilt." Where the criticism becomes unreasonable is when fans say "Mori can't beat Schilt so he shouldn't be ranked higher." The list doesn't operate in the land of theory and prediction. If we did, we would have been wrong about Hoost and Sapp.

[Long Fist]

...will Hoost now take the rank 2# for the next couple of years?

[Jofeljoh!]

Does your ranking take these kind of freak-situations into account CKO ? LOL!

or does this just counts like any fight, allthough he took this fight instantly at a 20 minutes notice without having trained for a few weeks? :D

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

Hoost will take the #2 rank from Peter. The only way Peter could have been saved is to have fought someone else earlier in the evening.

Hoost now has 97 wins by my count. I'd like to see Mr. Perfect get to 100.

[LethalSassonic]

Schilt should hold onto #1 for a while. I bet he will.

[CentralKickboxing.Org]

Schilt should hold onto #1 for a while. I bet he will.

You're not worried that he will leave K-1 and return to Pride for more money?

[Toffa]

Wasnt any need to worry about this eh? Lloyd looked horrible and Semmy won pretty decisively. I think the same thing will happen against Choi.