|
Post by Tero Lampikari on Aug 31, 2011 1:27:30 GMT -5
Problem is people are putting emotion and personal biased in these opinions. Compile data and enter it based on super match only format. Anyone can speculate. JMHO You have a good point Kyle. But what if there is not enough data? And how long does it take for the data there is to get out dated? I think rankings reflect also which matches should take place and that's why Engin is the MAN to do the rankings with educated opinions and knowledge and not only with the data.
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 31, 2011 2:11:17 GMT -5
For example who has Jerry beat in a super match format on top end of this list to place him the number one challenger for Devon with Denis? Right. But I think he belongs to that number 2 spot for now. or who did Denis beat in a supermatch to place 2. ? Jerry beat John who beat Denis 5-1 .
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Aug 31, 2011 2:13:38 GMT -5
supermatch ranking will be easier to run once we can start from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Devon Larratt on Aug 31, 2011 7:56:25 GMT -5
Hey Engin! how are you doing? I think establishing the rankings will not be so tough.. just use your current rankings as a start point. I think they are the current world standard anyways? I do feel that this is going to get really tough for you to maintain, 2 sets of current rankings... i believe it will become the biggest headache. will it result in a guy having to beat a guy in both scenarios? tournament and supermatch?
A little story for you - Many years ago I pulled in many tournaments. I won many, beating WAF champions. I pulled at what were supposed to be the "biggest" tournaments in N.A. only to find that it really really didn't matter unless the top guys were there. It is not about the tournament it is about the man... and even then there are excuses. @ that point i really decided that the only way to clearly (and even then there will be discussion) rank above an individual is to face him in 1 on 1 competition of an agreed format when both athletes are fresh. Armwrestling is a 1 on 1 combat sport.
I now think that the format really just depends on what you think armwrestling is. And obviously there can be huge flex here. my person opinion is that Armwars is the current global leader when it comes to Armwrestling, due to a great number of reasons.
bottom line - results are not rankings, And to make 2 sets of rankings i believe that there will be some results starting to take place in one of them.
And.. don't think that it will be years before these big matches happen. I don't plan to stop armwrestling anytime soon, and i am most interested in pulling the guy who has a lowest # beside his name. left and right. it will happen.
IMO
|
|
|
Post by Scott Wright on Aug 31, 2011 11:06:19 GMT -5
But Baths win over Tim came after his super match with Todd, I think. He also lost to Tom Nelson that day. I wouldn't use that result against Tim. JMI.
|
|
|
Post by David Owens on Aug 31, 2011 13:18:01 GMT -5
But Baths win over Tim came after his super match with Todd, I think. He also lost to Tom Nelson that day. I wouldn't use that result against Tim. JMI. Thats true, lol seems like there is always something
|
|
|
Post by Fabio Nimis on Aug 31, 2011 15:26:36 GMT -5
If we use ONLY supermatches results of past years as Engin asked us to do, ranking should be something like this :
1 Devon Larratt 2 Jerry Cadorette 3 Arsen Liliev 4 John Brzenk 5 Ron Bath 6 Yoshinobu Kanai 7 Michael Todd 8 Richard Lupkes 9 Tim Bresnan 10 Modestas Grigaitis
If you don't want John Brzenk in a current ranking until he comes back, so I would probably put Sylvain Perron or Christian Puscasu at 10th place.
I personally don't like this type of ranking, but probably it would be necessary to make it, considering how the armwrestling world has changed in the last years...
I'm 100% sure that Michael Todd with his current shape would beat best of Kanai, but if we don't use supermatches results of past years how we could make a supermatch ranking???.... It's confusing...
It seemes that people have not understood correctly what Engin asked, if we have to base only on supermatch results, then we have to consider the athletes who played more supermatches and who has been most successfull in it during the last years.
I saw that many ranked Don Underwood, but with all due respect to him he lost 0-6 against Modestas Grigaitis from Lithuania and if I'm not mistaking Don also lost against Ursu Puscasu from Romania 2-4 in 2009 at Arm Wars, so I think there's no way to see him ranked in a SUPERMATCH ranking (please don't take it as an offence, Don Underwood is a Great Champion and i have a lot of respect for him, I'm just using Supermatches results).
People also ranked Travis Bagent, but he lost with Arsen Liliev 0-5 and with Sylvain Perron 0-3... Do I think that Travis was in a good shape in those supermatches?? Of course NO. But it's a fact that he lost, so if we don't consider pure supermatches results I don't understand how to make that kind of ranking in a fair good way...
People also ranked Cyplenkov and Pushkar, but they have pulled few supermatches and haven't been so successfull, so I think they can't be ranked in a Supermatch only ranking (Engin made me understand this point in one of our discussions), if Tournaments ranking and Supermatch ranking are almost the same, what would be the sense of a separate Supermatches ranking?? I think they must be different, considering which events Top World pullers have competed in the last years... Many haven't pulled supermatches or pulled just a few and not successfully, while others have pulled a lot of supermatches and few tournaments, so IMO we can and have to make the two rankings being different IF we want to create a new supermatches only ranking, just my modest opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Fabio Nimis on Aug 31, 2011 15:28:00 GMT -5
Problem is people are putting emotion and personal biased in these opinions. Compile data and enter it based on super match only format. Anyone can speculate. JMHO I think this is exactly the main problem, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Aug 31, 2011 16:58:30 GMT -5
My humble opinion
Using results only will not produce the most accurate result. A computer could replace man if that were the case. Consideration of all factors along with results will produce the most accurate set of rankings. This is why we trust people like Engin, Eric Roussin etc. to calculate all given information and come up with their best possible opinion.
I realize we need a starting point but the knowledge of the men compiling the rankings must not be overlooked. It is a valuable resource and using a "results only" formula wastes their capabilities.
I would say to let Engin come up with his own list and he can fine tune it as he sees fit. Eventually they will become very accurate as more matches come to pass.
Another note on rankings. I've never seen or even heard of a perfect set. We will never see unity among speculation (which is what rankings are) so lets just have them come out and have the men involved fight for their spots. I like this idea (of SM rankings) as it will promote more discussion and rivalries in the sport.
|
|
|
Post by Fabio Nimis on Sept 1, 2011 3:37:43 GMT -5
My humble opinion Using results only will not produce the most accurate result. A computer could replace man if that were the case. Consideration of all factors along with results will produce the most accurate set of rankings. This is why we trust people like Engin, Eric Roussin etc. to calculate all given information and come up with their best possible opinion. I realize we need a starting point but the knowledge of the men compiling the rankings must not be overlooked. It is a valuable resource and using a "results only" formula wastes their capabilities. I would say to let Engin come up with his own list and he can fine tune it as he sees fit. Eventually they will become very accurate as more matches come to pass. Another note on rankings. I've never seen or even heard of a perfect set. We will never see unity among speculation (which is what rankings are) so lets just have them come out and have the men involved fight for their spots. I like this idea (of SM rankings) as it will promote more discussion and rivalries in the sport. I must say that I totally agree with you John on almost everything you wrote, talking about general rankings, this is why I don't like a possible supermatch ranking, as I already wrote. Just some examples, I would rank Michael Todd above Ron Bath, Ron beat Michael in two supermatches in 2006 and 2007, but we know how much Michael has grown since that time, and basing on what Ron did with Devon in 2007 and what Michael did with Devon and others lately, I would surely rank Michael over Ron. Another example, I've heard many times that Richard Lupkes was badly injured when he pulled with Ron Bath in 2009, considering what Richard showed us against Cyplenkov and others I personally think that best of Richard would beat best of Ron in a supermatch. Again, I would not rank Arsen so high because his supermatch with John was under the weight limit of 95 kg, IMO Arsen would have never beaten the heavy in shape version of John. Again, as I already wrote I think that Michael with his current shape would beat best of Kanai, even if Kanai beat him 5-1, but Michael was lighter, weaker and smaller than now. These are just some examples about what I would personally think about supermatches outcomes of last years compared to current reality. But I think it's very very difficult to put our opinions into a supermatch ranking, because if we can do it sometimes for the tournaments outcomes (for example Engin didn't rank Razor above Ruslan Babayev after Worlds because Ruslan had had a killer match against a russian guy before facing Razor, and I would have surely done the same), but about Supermatches there can't be excuses, when an athlete accepts to pull a supermatch he must be in good shape or not pull. For example John, you surely remember how much I didn't want to see Devon ranked over John Brzenk 3 years ago because John was injured and out of shape in their supermatch, but then I realized that we can't think this way, a supermatch is a supermatch and both athletes agree to pull and agree on format and rules before, so we must use the pure results when we talk about supermatches IMO, or it would become too much difficult to make this type of ranking even for the biggest expert as Engin is, or for another great expert as Eric Roussin as you quoted. This is why I say again that I would not like this type of ranking, because supermatches don't allow us to use intelligence and logical opinions to make a solid ranking. If we try to put personal opinions into this matter, it would become a very confusing thing and even Engin and Eric would have huge difficulties to do it JIMO.
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Sept 1, 2011 6:23:17 GMT -5
thank you guys for the responses! i am in Istanbul for MBPOWERNEXT event and i will share my thoughts once i go back to home.thanks once again!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Handeland on Sept 1, 2011 20:38:16 GMT -5
Underwood beat Travis 6-0 in December at ArmWars Travis beat Underwood 3-0 at UAE in June this year Both matches were right handed just FYI Josh I thought the one at the UAE was a tournament not a supermatch? You're right, my mistake
|
|
|
Post by tomnelson on Sept 2, 2011 12:51:06 GMT -5
The only bs part of supermatches is i have to pin someone 5 times before i can say im stronger....what really matters is the first match....
|
|
|
Post by John Milne on Sept 2, 2011 14:17:57 GMT -5
First Tom - Nobody asked you Second - When have you ever waited to tell someone that you're stronger ?
|
|
|
Post by tomnelson on Sept 2, 2011 15:05:35 GMT -5
FIRST TOM is right....2nd jon your stronger smelling then vazgen...3rd canada cant win the stanley cup for nothing ...4th nobody was talking to you high hooker
|
|