Tournament Make-Ups

[The Sandmen]

I assume you guys know this, but you might not; booking tournaments is usually hard-as-fuck. Even when you have a series of objective systems in place to ensure there is little to no judgement or bias in picking who ends up in a tournament.

Right now, top priority for tournament fights is "Ranked fights, on win streaks, who are due for a fight". Those 3 criteria early come together though.


Typically, you get 2 people on win streaks due for a fight at the same time you get 2 ranked fighters due for a fight.

Both of these are criteria I use when building tournaments. I usually build tournaments either fully OF people on win streaks, or of ranked people. Generally, I have found that if I mix the two, and put an unranked fighter on a 3 fight winning streak in a tournament with a ranked fighter on a 3 fight losing streak, the ranked fighter will slaughter the unranked one, making the fight an apparent waste.

But, if I make a tournament of only unranked fighters on winning streaks, often people complain that the subsequent title fight is a joke-fight (and it usually is, about 85-90% of the time, with the champion shredding the unranked person).


So here is my problem. The one to which I want as much input from you guys as possible.

When I cannot make a tournament entirely of ranked fighters on win-streaks, would you rather the tournament be made up of:

A) Only ranked fighters (some on 3+ fight losing streaks, meaning win-streaks don't matter)?

B) Only unranked fighters on winning streaks (meaning tournament winner will likely get squashed in title fight)?

C) A mix of both (probably meaning shitty/one-sided tournament fights with a ranked fighter getting an easy route to a title fight)?

D) Other ideas? (comment below?)

Please comment any and all thoughts below.

[The Texas Rattlesnakes]

I think it would be best if it was only ranked fighters. However, if the fighter is unranked and they've proven themselves worthy of beating legit guys in their win streaks, then I'd say go for it. If they have a massive win streak heading in to a tournament fight against other ranked guys, they'll end up being ranked if they win anyway. If someone is a lower rank though, have them face the unranked guy. Like don't have anyone in the top five face someone unranked, have like the 13, 14, 15 ranked guys do that. They have an opportunity to keep their rank, and the unranked fighter would have an opportunity to become ranked.

[The Sandmen]

(in starting to reply to this comment below, I was reminded of how indescribably complex tournament fight bookings are. So bear with me, this turns messy really fast, lol.)

The Texas Rattlesnakes - most of what you said above works, and I try to do it. But

Apr 18, 2018 9:00:32 GMT -5 The Texas Rattlesnakes said:

However, if the fighter is unranked and they've proven themselves worthy of beating legit guys in their win streaks, then I'd say go for it.

This part doesn't make practical sense for booking. If they beat anyone legit, they should be ranked. If I'm being honest, it also asks a lot more booking work too, since I might have to check the last fights of anywhere between 4 and 16 fighters (then compare them amongst themselves) before determining tournaments. I don't think that is realistically in the cards.

That said, if we do go with something like "pretty much only ranked people", booking simplifies, in that "unranked win-streakers" next fight will be against a ranked opponent.

But then, typing THAT, I realized, the pool for ranked fighters dries up really fast - meaning if I throw ranked fighters into tournaments AND I need ranked fighters for unranked win-streakers, I will run out of fighters really fast.

Which might bring us back to where we are now...incredibly shitty judgement calls of "Gina Carano on a 5 fight losing streak vs. Kaitlin Young on a 4 fight winning streak".


Other thing. Related and also not. Real example of related issue. Alistair Overeem is on a 7 fight losing streak, and ranked 15th. I am looking at booking him against someone like Dan Severn (2 fight win streak). Maybe I am wrong, but it feels obvious to me that Overeem would destroy Severn. So in doing so, Severn would lose his streak, and, if we maintain this hybrid tournament system we have now, Severn loses his win streak, and his shot at being in a tournament based on win streaks. This is kinda why the hybrid system has flaws. But I'm not sure how to fix it.


Also, a lot of replies from me in this thread will be like this ("that won't work because..." type thing). I want to emphasize I am not "fighting with you" guys or being difficult. I am trying to clarify the complexity of the problem I am trying to solve, since it often sounds simple, but gets really complicated really fast, hence asking for everyones input.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

some input here - no refs stoppage #RouseyDaReaLZCHAMP

[The Sandmen]

So...I had hoped to get more input before now (since this page is 50% of the reason I did not post a card yesterday). And ideally i was hoping to get some sort of general consensus, so there was less judgement calls that I had to make (thus less bitching people will do). But no worries.

Here is what I am doing going forward.

I am making tournament fights that MAKE SENSE. Whatever that means.

Being in a tournament is an OPPORTUNITY. If you make the most of that, and upgrade your fighter to be competitive in that tournament (or for the subsequent title shot if they win the tournement), you have the OPPORTUNITY to do that. If you don't, it's your loss. If you see your 4-fight-win-streak scrub is in a tournament against a #2 ranked losing streak superstar, UPGRADE THEM. Make the most out of your opportunity, and make it difficult for your fellow teams to earn their title shots. I can book your fights for you, but I can't make you work on your fighters. And I'm no longer going to try to protect people/teams from shitty match-ups.

Don't like the match-up, TRAIN YOUR ASS OFF AND GET THAT UPSET (right Mark Hunt?)

[The Killing Joke]

Touchdown Yes Sir