ik rankings,how they work???

[Jtear]

just wondering how the ranking system works,dont no if there has been a previous thread on it if so sorry if not how does it work?????
reason why i want to no is that i beat someone 6 spots higer than me and i went back 1 spot,just seems weird

[muzza]

it gos on how many fights you have had

win 3 points
loss 1 point
i think draw 2 points

they just get added up so it dont matter if you beat someone, if they have had more fights and wins then they will be ahead

[cales]

Jake the IK rankings dont necessarily show you who is the best in every weight catergory and if you beat anyone ahead of you doesnt mean you move past them. It goes on how many fights you have had - so as muzza said you get points for the fights... so if your active alot you will move up but might not necessarily be winning. If you have a fight every so often but beat a person ahead of you it doesnt mean you advance past them if people are more active that you....
so you gotta be busy to stay at the top!!
dazmon does an awesome job in keeping these up to date but i think there should also be another system where you can move past people you have beaten and get the recognition cause in the males especially a lot of guys in there have beaten people higher ranked....
Its a tricky one!!

[Avery]

i know i dont really understand them either as corbett is number one in the 95kgs class but most of his fights have been at different weights?? with retired fighters there points would have to be pretty high. i remember for a while stuart mckinnon was still ranking pretty high

[DazMon]

Hi Jake I will fix that.
I REALLY need to know if you have beaten someone above you, I know you told me, and not many fighters do, but sometimes I will miss that aspect.
That win is worth double points.
I think our rating system is based on the AFL system, and we have been through this many times but winning is obviously the quickest way to the top, but to just beat the top team or top fighter does not instantly qualify you to pass them.
Harald Olsen has been around a long time and has a good win ratio, you can't just bypass him.

I think you went back a spot because Adam Bailey informed me he competed again?

For a quick score check, not sure if you can see these, Adam is just over double your score and Harald is more than triple, hope that helps. I'm not sure if you can see the win/loss/draws and resultant total on the online stats?

In regards to Carnage, it doesn't matter which divisions he has competed in, it doesn't matter if its KB, K-1 or MT, and it doesn't matter which titles he has, he weights such-and-such now and that's his total fight record. Some of the girls and a couple of the lighter guys regularly compete in 2 divisions, I try not to have more than 1 coz I can lose track, but they might have titles in both divs so I keep them like that.

Cales is a good example of this, she has beaten someone ranked above her, she has a slightly different score in one div to the other, but she has titles spanning both divs so I have to keep her like that, is that right Caley? Nicole & Heather are 2 others who come to mind.

[DazMon]

Stuart McKinnon - I don't think I ever had him in the ratings??? How long ago was that Avery? Also, I really need to hear from a fighter or trainer that someone is retired, then I will take them out, I rarely use heresay.

[Hironaka]

Names are thrown into a hat and drawn out.

[DazMon]

Don't own any hats...

[Kano]

Names are thrown into a hat and drawn out.

Is that similar to keys in a bowl?

[Kano]

But on a serious note, it would be a massive job to try and keep track of all of the fights that happen in Aus. We only see a few of the shows listed on here and quite often it is hard to find results, It is a massive job to keep track of it, Keep up the good work Daz.

[Mungkorn]

But on a serious note, it would be a massive job to try and keep track of all of the fights that happen in Aus. We only see a few of the shows listed on here and quite often it is hard to find results, It is a massive job to keep track of it, Keep up the good work Daz.

Not a job I would like to do..............

[Jtear]

thanks for the input guys/girls,now i no its time to stay busy:)......
Dazmon i didnt want to get ranked higher than harald just rhought the win night havve moved me 1 or 2 spots forward

[Mungkorn]

thanks for the input guys/girls,now i no its time to stay busy:)......
Dazmon i didnt want to get ranked higher than harald just rhought the win night havve moved me 1 or 2 spots forward

yes Jake get back to training....................

[Jtear]

;)?

[Avery]

Stuart McKinnon - I don't think I ever had him in the ratings??? How long ago was that Avery? Also, I really need to hear from a fighter or trainer that someone is retired, then I will take them out, I rarely use heresay.

it was a while ago now i saw him ill have to dig out some of the older mags and let you know. i actually like the I.K rankings but think it has some falls must be a hell of a job keeping them up to date

[Up and comer]

How often are they updated?

[DazMon]

They are updated in print every 2 months or so but I am constantly getting updates from fighters, trainers & promoters, so I have to keep my spreadsheet on the go! I try to keep the online one up to date but that requires a free hour every now & again. So if any fighters, like Jake, want to keep me updated at any time, rather than when I ask, that would be great! Jake you should move forward now, I'm thinking of taking out 2 from your div.

[Jtear]

why you taking me oit of my division????

[Bushi]

Food for thought on the rankings.

- 25% on points if they don't fight for 6 months, - 50% for 9 months, out of rankings if they don't fight for 12 months.

Then if they came back and fight within 15 months, give them back the 50%, then 25% if they fight agian within the 18 month period...

IMHO, It's about ACTIVE fighters, not fighters who racked up loads of fights years ago and get the rankings but don't remain ACTIVE....

Just my 2 bobs worth...

[ChrisQ]

why you taking me oit of my division????

He said he was thinking of taking 2 other fighters out of the division (possibly inactive etc. etc.) and that you would probably move ahead. Read it again...

[Jtear]

:oh

[Jtear]

fHe said he was thinking of taking 2 other fighters out of the division (possibly inactive etc. etc.) and that you would probably move ahead. Read it again...

Hahahaha f#ck im a dumbass , thatnks chris for pointing out my lack of reading ability hahaha

[DazMon]

Hi guys, the fighters you have beaten to take double points, they have to be in the same division as you.

[Hot Sizzle]

Good on you Daz for taking on a big job. I have a few suggestions that could help. Have you looked into how they do the rankings at Lumpinee and Ratchadamnern? I think they have some good criteria. Now i don't have a clue on how they do it but one rule i do like is that if you are Champion and are knocked out in a non title fight, within your weight division, you are automatically stripped of the title.

Also i think that if you beat someone higher than you you should atleast replace them in their position. How about having a negative points system for losses and KO's?? This could solve some of the issues with losing yet still getting points and being higher than someone with a better record yet not as many fights.

Now for my above point to work there would probably need to be seperate rankings for the bigger weight divisions. By bigger i mean more numbers i.e the middleweights. Some of the divisions have 30-40 names. A top 5 or 10 only (depending on numbers) would be THEE rankings to be in. The seperate ranking page would be for those who would be next in line to crack the top 5 or 10. Now you have the best 10-20 people in each weight division and each fighter can pretty much fight anyone without too much complaints baring of course the obvious 20 vs 1 etc.

And for those that aernt in the rankings well they would have to aim at cracking the fighters ranked 11-20 to get a chance at the top.

Now i know there are some flaws their and probably even more hard work Daz but these are just some suggetions i thought i'd share.

[Hot Sizzle]

Just a quick example. Chris White is sitting at #1 in 57kg division with Chris White at #2. Now correct me if i'm wrong but Dane has beaten Chris twice and i think once or both times by KO which clearly makes him the bet in that division and therefore should be at #1.

[BabyCube]

Just a quick example. Chris White is sitting at #1 in 57kg division with Chris White at #2. Now correct me if i'm wrong but Dane has beaten Chris twice and i think once or both times by KO which clearly makes him the bet in that division and therefore should be at #1.

Dane should at least be number 2 :)

[chicano]

Personally I think the rankings are pretty darn good. And I'd hate to see additional points for knockouts or negative points etc. It just gets more complicated and doesn't tell you anymore about how good a fighter is in their division. The way things are at the moment you get a very good idea of who sits where in each division.

Sure there is a couple where someone could be one spot higher or lower, but if you start making major changes you are going to throw it into chaos. And is anyone volunteering to find out about every knock past and present????

Leave as it is imo

[DazMon]

The additional points for anything is going to be a difficult thing to implement.
Negative points would be worse, have you seen how many fighters are listed all up?
And Tiger White has had at least 20 more fights than Dane, has to account for something?

What would make the ratings the most reliable thing, despite any improvements or good ideas, is for all fighters & trainers to just tell me the records without me chasing all the time, there are still so many gyms I don't know about...

[DazMon]

I just counted all the active fighters on my listing, there are 312, I know there is a bit of doubling up, but thats a lot of emailing and chasing. Plus a lot to change the scoring of if we implement negative points or KOs etc. Plus I am trimming it all the time, but its rare that someone tells me such&such is retired or injured or whatever. If you guys know about something then just let me know...

[The_Muss]

The additional points for anything is going to be a difficult thing to implement.
Negative points would be worse, have you seen how many fighters are listed all up?
And Tiger White has had at least 20 more fights than Dane, has to account for something?

What would make the ratings the most reliable thing, despite any improvements or good ideas, is for all fighters & trainers to just tell me the records without me chasing all the time, there are still so many gyms I don't know about...

How do you manage the contact side of things?

I'd imagine I'd try and get every gym registered to an online database where they can update fighters records on a monthly basis.

[Hot Sizzle]

Lol my bad babycube i ment Dane number 2 lol.

But my reasoning still stands. Chris has had more fights than Dane but that doesn't mean anything when Chris has lost twice to Dane which means Dane should be considered number 1 in that weight division.

I think points should be counted for all fights but if someone within the rankeings beats someone higher than them they should replace them.

This sysem is pretty good but cannot be compared to a team sport criteria like AFL because this is an individual sport. In a sporting environment if you perform bad you usually get dropped out of the top division team but this is an individual sport and the only blame can be blamed on the fighter.

[Hot Sizzle]

I just counted all the active fighters on my listing, there are 312, I know there is a bit of doubling up, but thats a lot of emailing and chasing. Plus a lot to change the scoring of if we implement negative points or KOs etc. Plus I am trimming it all the time, but its rare that someone tells me such&such is retired or injured or whatever. If you guys know about something then just let me know...

That's why you only list the top 20. I've seen some of the weight divisions that have 30-40 fighters but most of those fighters dont deserve to be ranked. If you don't have negative points for the losers then atleasdt you should not get points for losing.

Let's remember that this is an individual sport where your personal performance represents your result.

On another note. I didn't see JWP at number 1 when clearly he is the best in Australia and Oceanian. that alone means that the current system is flawed.

[Hot Sizzle]

And just because Chris has had more fights than Dane means nothing. the current system, (while pretty decent), doesn't respect the results factor. Yeah Chris has had more fights than Dane but Dane has beaten Chris twice which should make him nuber 1 in that division.

Just like the 60kg division. Tomohawk has beaten pretty much everyone in that division yet still isn't number one in that division. Yet i know that he is the number one fighter and to be number one you have to either beat him or Flip Steet