( o ) ABCDEs - Ranking puzzle...( o )

Well A beats 3 of em so that's gotta be good.

 

#1 = Fighter A. he is 3-1, and lost to C on a style match up.

#2 = Fighter C. He is 2-2, but beat fighter A ( 3-1 ) who was the best of the five.

#3 = Both fighter D and B are 2-2. Neither beat fighter A, who was the best of the bunch. I think Fighter B was better than fighter D because he beat him head to head. However, fighter B lost to fighter E, who was 1-3! Both these guys are journeyman.

#4 = Fighter E. He is 1-3

Here is how I would rank them:

A
C
B
D
E

 

Since these guys are presumably completely equal except for who they've beaten, they should be ranked as follows:


A -- Because he beat 3 of them.
C -- Because he could beat the guy who could beat 3 of them.
B -- He could beat two guys who beat 2 opponents
D -- He beat one guy who beat 2 opponents and one who could beat 1
E -- He beat only one guy.

They should be ranked according to present effectiveness, BUT past performances can occasionally be useful in judging that effectiveness. Thus, Wlad's trail of destruction in the heavyweight division prior to beating Peter is relevant in showing that his recent performances have not been a fluke.

 

I got the same as you.

The only thing for consideration is, was C's victory over A due to a stylistic advantage?

 

The same question could be posed for all of the wins.

Like you, I would say that a win over the best of the bunch, in the complete absence of more information about the fighters, is more important than winning over two 2-2 guys.