Tapology Forums
Thoughts on Regional Amateur Rankings
Anonymous Mode
You are not logged in to Tapology. When browsing anonymously, profanities and images are automatically removed from the forum.
02.25.2015 | 8:25 PM ET
Just wanted to see what the thoughts were on the regional amateur rankings and how accurate they are. Seems to me like there are definitely some improvments that can be made.
Responses
02.25.2015 | 8:28 PM ET
Of course there are always improvements. No system is going to be perfect, but we did a ton of research and played around with a lot when designing the algorithm that ranks fighters.
As long as the records are accurate, we feel you're being ranked fairly. If your record is inaccurate, we can amend it and then see what the ranking spits out.
What are your thoughts on specific things that should be improved, or things that don't make sense in your opinion?
As long as the records are accurate, we feel you're being ranked fairly. If your record is inaccurate, we can amend it and then see what the ranking spits out.
What are your thoughts on specific things that should be improved, or things that don't make sense in your opinion?
"When a game cannot be won, change the game."
02.25.2015 | 8:45 PM ET
Hey Matt -
I know because you emailed in that you are concerned about your ranking.
Since you asked the question publicly, let's see what everyone else thinks is right and wrong.
The ranking in question is the New York amateur heavyweight rankings. Matt's record is 3-7 and he's ranked 43rd. But if you look at the ranking you will see that all the fighters who are 1-0 are ranked better than him.
I think this is a really good and a really challenging question. Who should be ranked higher? 1-0 or 3-7? Clearly Matt is more experienced and has demonstrated he can pick up wins. But let's face it, you're losing a lot of fights.
Let's see what other people think.
Thanks,
Greg
I know because you emailed in that you are concerned about your ranking.
Since you asked the question publicly, let's see what everyone else thinks is right and wrong.
The ranking in question is the New York amateur heavyweight rankings. Matt's record is 3-7 and he's ranked 43rd. But if you look at the ranking you will see that all the fighters who are 1-0 are ranked better than him.
I think this is a really good and a really challenging question. Who should be ranked higher? 1-0 or 3-7? Clearly Matt is more experienced and has demonstrated he can pick up wins. But let's face it, you're losing a lot of fights.
Let's see what other people think.
Thanks,
Greg
"I live, I die, I live again."
02.25.2015 | 8:55 PM ET
I don't think the UFC's top 10 rankings are too great, I don't think the sport has a handle on accurately ranking each division's top 50 in the world of professional MMA very well at all specifically. I find the amateur and regional rankings on here a bit excessive but not of any real annoyance.
That's my opinion.
The Nomad.
That's my opinion.
The Nomad.
"If I have a goal, then it is to escape from this literalism. I'll never achieve it; in the same way that I'll never manage to describe what really dwells within my character, although I keep on trying."
02.25.2015 | 8:55 PM ET
Ok so, amateur rankings. What the **** do they matter? Kind of like amateur titles, pointless. Your amateur fights are an opportunity to put yourself in positions that test your skills, cardio and mentallity who gives a **** what you are ranked because when you turn pro you are gonna be at the bottom anyway. I see guys all the time with ****** amateur records that will be better pros than undefeated can crushers worried about their amateur ranking. As an amateur take the time to improve your skills in the gyn and test yourself in the cage. Don't be afraid to lose, but instead use it as a time to teach yourself and learn. Worry about beconing a qualified professional fighter that has a plan and not a guy that gets stuck toiling around the local stockyards in the 5 county area.
"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted. If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it." Jose Ortega y Gasset
02.25.2015 | 8:57 PM ET
Idk about the amateur rankings but the main problem I have noticed with the regional rankings is that often someone will be ranked over a fighter that they just lost to, sometimes by a dozen or so spots. I could understand if there was a big discrepancy in their records other than their fight against each other but from what I have noticed they often have similar records yet the loser is still being ranked higher.
For example at Japan Flyweight Czar Sklavos is #6 and Takeshi Kasugai is #11, they both lost in the past year to #12 Hiromasa Ogikubo. 11-4 vs 14-4-1 vs 13-3-2, I would imagine most would rank the 13-3-2 guy that just beat the other 2 ahead of them.
Not really a big deal but it just seems strange and maybe the algorithm needs some more tinkering with.
For example at Japan Flyweight Czar Sklavos is #6 and Takeshi Kasugai is #11, they both lost in the past year to #12 Hiromasa Ogikubo. 11-4 vs 14-4-1 vs 13-3-2, I would imagine most would rank the 13-3-2 guy that just beat the other 2 ahead of them.
Not really a big deal but it just seems strange and maybe the algorithm needs some more tinkering with.
"She be curvin all the locals, must like foreigns and this is when I had the Martin, I was just like Lawrence so wassup"
02.25.2015 | 9:01 PM ET
@lopati true but people like rankings. people like to know where they stand and where others stand. if you're a promoter it's useful for promotional purposes. if you're a matchmaker it's good for matchmaking purposes. it's fun to rank things.
@nomad we didn't make a big deal out of the regional rankings in the forums, because we didn't expect that a lot of the tapology forum community would have much of a vested interest in them. but, what i can tell you is that since launching the regional rankings 2 weeks ago, tapology traffic has reached an all time high. a lot of people care about rankings.
@nomad we didn't make a big deal out of the regional rankings in the forums, because we didn't expect that a lot of the tapology forum community would have much of a vested interest in them. but, what i can tell you is that since launching the regional rankings 2 weeks ago, tapology traffic has reached an all time high. a lot of people care about rankings.
"I live, I die, I live again."
02.25.2015 | 9:09 PM ET
Another way of looking at the whole thing, from a fighter's perspective, is that, the higher they're ranked, the better it is for them in terms of booking match-ups that will increase their stock on the regional level and attracting attention from the bigger promoters.
"When a game cannot be won, change the game."
02.25.2015 | 9:11 PM ET
I think I see what you mean, for fighters who stay amateur, or regional...hell even national in a lot of cases it's nice for them to have rankings and see where they, their opponents and such stand. It's something to post on your facebook and share with the family. Just another element to Tapology that attracts people and builds the site?
If I do have one criticism still, I suppose putting their overall world ranking before their regional ranking if and when they have one? If someone is the 8th ranked Texan at Featherweight, I'd rather the first listed ranking when picking fights being that they are the 142nd ranked Featherweight worldwide? And have regional rankings as a secondary thing always, unless of course they haven't breached the world rankings yet?
Hopefully I made sense.
If I do have one criticism still, I suppose putting their overall world ranking before their regional ranking if and when they have one? If someone is the 8th ranked Texan at Featherweight, I'd rather the first listed ranking when picking fights being that they are the 142nd ranked Featherweight worldwide? And have regional rankings as a secondary thing always, unless of course they haven't breached the world rankings yet?
Hopefully I made sense.
"If I have a goal, then it is to escape from this literalism. I'll never achieve it; in the same way that I'll never manage to describe what really dwells within my character, although I keep on trying."
02.25.2015 | 9:11 PM ET
@live yes we are making tweaks to the algorithm and will continue to do so. the situation you highlight is a different question. in Ogikubo's case, a lot of his fights are ancient history. he hasn't been very active lately. the algorithm discounts the importance of older fights. this is really important for how they work in other scenarios, but in this particular case it's a bit of a challenge.
"I live, I die, I live again."
02.25.2015 | 9:15 PM ET
@nomad I understand exactly what you mean. It's actually programmed to do the opposite right now. However, there are some specific reasons for this and over the long run this will get a little better and cleaner, and be closer to what you are asking for, I think.
"I live, I die, I live again."
02.25.2015 | 9:16 PM ET
So far nobody has commented on whether they think 3-7 ammy should be ranked higher or lower than 1-0 ammy...
"I live, I die, I live again."
02.25.2015 | 9:23 PM ET
@Gregory....that's a loaded question, and I think most of us would look into arbitrary or biased points of view. Age, gym affiliations, physique/size, who they fought (but for amateur not really) and most importantly out of sport credentials. I probably agree on ranking the 1-0 guy above the 3-7 guy. Unless say, the 3-7 guy is on a 2 or 3 fight winstreak...then it becomes much more arguable.
"If I have a goal, then it is to escape from this literalism. I'll never achieve it; in the same way that I'll never manage to describe what really dwells within my character, although I keep on trying."
02.25.2015 | 9:28 PM ET
Newer fights are more important in the algorithm than older fights, as Greg alluded to. So, in most cases, a 3-7 fighter on a 3-fight winning streak would be ranked higher than a 3-7 fighter on a 7-fight losing streak.
"When a game cannot be won, change the game."
02.25.2015 | 9:28 PM ET
I remember seeing one guy who was unranked with an ammy record of like 9-5 and his counterpart was ranked with a record of 0-1.
Overall I like the rankings. They're definitely not perfect as of now, but I'm sure they'll get better as the algorithm improves.
Overall I like the rankings. They're definitely not perfect as of now, but I'm sure they'll get better as the algorithm improves.
02.25.2015 | 9:49 PM ET
My cousin is ranked #7 Middleweight in Kentucky
"Wizzard of Tapology"
02.25.2015 | 10:45 PM ET
In my last 5 fights since October 2013 I am 2-2-1 technically. Its says 2-3, but I can't get the record updated. The loss was changed to no contest because the fighter had previously fought professionally. I personally like the ranking system. My problems are as follows. First a 1-0 that hasnt fought since 2013 shouldnt be ranked ahead of me. Second alot of people ranked ahead of me in the NY heavyweight class don't even fight heavyweight. They are now light heavy and even middleweight. There should be a shorter time frame like them fighting in a certain weightclass in a rolling 9 months or year. There are guys that havnt fought heavyweight in almost two years. Also the guys I've lost too are a combined 23-2. Should I be penalized for fighting the best amateurs in my state?
02.25.2015 | 10:56 PM ET
I think amateur rankings can definitely help in that it allows amateur fighters to gauge how well they have done so far and whether or not they are ready to make the jump to pro or not. And that goes double for allows promotions (not major promotions like the UFC, Bellator, ONE FC, or WSOF; but small to mid level) to see who in the amateur circuit is worth trying to sign up and potentially build up when they turn pro. Then again nothing is perfect, so I could also see (based on how screwy pro fighter rankings can get) how amateur rankings can become a mess.
* Edited at 02.25.2015, 10:58 PM ET *
"..."
02.25.2015 | 11:03 PM ET
Also to take one step further. I'm technically 3-3-1 in my last 7 fights since June 2013. My ranking is the worst of any fighter with a win on their record. Not saying I'm #1, but I'm better than #43.
02.25.2015 | 11:06 PM ET
@matt
for the weight classes, it looks at your last 4 fights. if you've been in the weight class in your last 4, you are eligible at that weight.
for the opponent records, the system looks at their record when you fought them. so even if they went to win a bunch of fights later, it looks at what their record was at the time.
lastly, it does this for your wins too. in your case the guys you beat all had losing records or were 0-0.
for the weight classes, it looks at your last 4 fights. if you've been in the weight class in your last 4, you are eligible at that weight.
for the opponent records, the system looks at their record when you fought them. so even if they went to win a bunch of fights later, it looks at what their record was at the time.
lastly, it does this for your wins too. in your case the guys you beat all had losing records or were 0-0.
"I live, I die, I live again."
02.25.2015 | 11:18 PM ET
I understand that. And once again appreciate the site. I just think I should be ahead of anybody 1-0. Especially a 1-0 that hasnt fought since 2013. They have one fight usually against another 0-0 or losing reocord opponent 95% of the time. Thats just my opinion.
* Edited at 02.25.2015, 11:19 PM ET *