Grip Sport Rankings

[Eric Roussin]

Are there any overall rankings that exist for grip sport? What I mean by this is a list of say the top 10 or 20 North American grip athletes who can be considered active. What I think the purpose of these rankings could be would be to provide an answer to the following:

Assuming there was a grip strength tournament held two months from now, with a mix of events that evenly tested all aspects of grip strength (as much as possible) and there was prize purse of $1,000,000 (an amount high enough to motivate all athletes to attend), who would be most likely to win the tournament? This person would be ranked #1. Who would be the second most likely to win the event? This person would be ranked #2. And so on…

Some details would need to be agreed upon, such as what qualifies someone as an “active” athlete? The person must have competed in a grip strength event in the past 12 months? Past 24 months? The rankings would also need to be maintained by someone (or a few people) who has a strong knowledge of the sport.

I actually manage a set of North American rankings for armwrestling (http://www.inthehook.com/top_north_american_rankings.html) and think it would be fun to see something similar for grip sport.

Any set of rankings of this type would surely spur debate, and would not be universally recognized as being perfect. However, I think most people would love to see their name on the list and would be motivated to train.

Is anyone else interested in seeing something like this?

[Jedd Johnson]

Yeah definitely interested. Would love to have an idea of how to compile this sort of thing when some people compete all the time and others only compete rarely.

Also, does it matter that the events aren't always the same?

I'd love to hear suggestions how we can apply this to Grip, using sanctioned contest results.

[Jedd Johnson]

Eric,

I'd like to talk with you on this. Any chance you can call me sometime today after 3PM? 607-857-6997.

Thanks.

[Jedd Johnson]

Hey, I am going to be away from the computer, so just email me if that time works. I will get the email on my phone.

Jedd

[AP]

Well, the WSH series seems to encompass most serious grip competitors in the world on similar equipment under similar conditions. I think that could be a pretty good place to start.

[mobsterone]

We already have a points system for rankings here in the UK.

[Jedd Johnson]

Got a link? I've never seen it before.

P.S. I just searched for it too, and can't find it. No terms I search for on the BHSA site, David's site, etc, ever come up on the first page of Google.

[mobsterone]

PM sent

[Jedd Johnson]

Thanks Steve. I checked it out. Preciate you shooting it over.

[The Mac]

The BHSA Ranking system is designed to reward consistency (and more precisely consistent sucess) over the course of the year, which isn't quite what is being asked for here, although there is much overlap.

To answer the question of, on average, "Who would win X contest given Y events" you'd have to look a lot deeper - in fact at the sort of event by event analysis that has been going on here for some time (Mobster has done many, I've done a few etc) based on past contest results, current training etc. Given that we are now getting a bit of data compiled about past results you could create the sort of databases and do the analysis that goes on in say, American Football & Baseball stats (www.pro-football-reference.com is my favourite) and / or the many betting / fantasy sites that abound on various sports.

It's a lot of work, but be assured that if there was big money to be made betting on these events (we are talking hypothetical) I'd be doing it.

Edited October 27, 2010 by The Mac

[Jedd Johnson]

Chris,

Why such an immense spacing at the top though? TO me that rewards finishing first a few times, not necessarily consistency.

I guess I'm a damn idiot or something for not being able to understand this stuff.

Jedd

[The Mac]

Jedd,

As has been mentioned, the points follow that of Tennis, where there are big gaps up at the top.

See Here.

.

[Jedd Johnson]

Thanks.

[gothrik]

I'd be interested in this just to see what the "cutting edge" is in each area and how its moving around... especially if the list was a top 20 or top 50 list, so I could see how close I was getting to it (probably really far away lol.)

[Forever]

Yeah definitely interested. Would love to have an idea of how to compile this sort of thing when some people compete all the time and others only compete rarely.

Also, does it matter that the events aren't always the same?

I'd love to hear suggestions how we can apply this to Grip, using sanctioned contest results.

Good on you Jedd...we can see your working on things

[jad]

IMO the events would have to be kept the same for the rankings to mean anything. For example in AW, if Devon pulls 3 classes and loses to somebody he shouldn't have, who only pulls one, then I doubt Eric is going to drop him in the rankings. Whereas if he pulls Brzenk fresh for fresh in a supermatch and loses, then John should claim his spot or at the very least, Devon should no longer be ranked #1. The WSH series is going to be pretty hard to improve upon in this aspect; same events, same equipment, etc... Also ranking should reward those who compete, not hypotheticals. So, could Rich Williams beat everybody in a WSH contest? Who knows, but if he doesn't compete then he shouldn't be ranked. The whole "well if so and so competed, that wouldn't be the record" is just a big circle jerk. For example, in Eric's In the Hook rankings, John Brzenk could cut to 198# and decimate everybody. Robertas could probably wax a lot of the 98s but you have to go by the actual performances and that's why Brzenk isn't ranked #1 in 198s. Grip has a huge advantage in this area because you don't have to directly compete against someone to outperform them, you just have to put up better numbers under the same rules/equipment. AW gets into the whole styles makes wars, so just because A beat B, and B beat C, it doesn't mean A would beat C.

I think you also need to decide if being ranked #1 makes you "The Champ" or if we'll continue to have a formal Nationals, British Grip Championships, etc..

[barbe705]

I think you also need to decide if being ranked #1 makes you "The Champ" or if we'll continue to have a formal Nationals, British Grip Championships, etc..

ranked #1 means ranked #1. winning nationals means current US champ. I don't think one really needs to conflict with the other.

[jad]

So being ranked #1 doesn't mean you're the best or being the Champ doesn't mean you're the best? If that's the case, what's the point of either title?

[climber511]

Rankings are like in football etc. You're "ranked" #1 by the AP or whoever as the season goes along - but as contests happen, the ranking should change with peoples results. Then when you hold the Championship (end of the season type thing) - you find out how well the rankings held up.

Edited November 4, 2010 by climber511

[Autolupus]

So being ranked #1 doesn't mean you're the best or being the Champ doesn't mean you're the best? If that's the case, what's the point of either title?

Same as snooker or tennis, you're the #1 seed, therefore expected by probability to win.

Champs though? boxing? WBO, WBA, WBC...I suppose only a unified 1st would mean #1 champ?

[jad]

So being ranked #1 doesn't mean you're the best or being the Champ doesn't mean you're the best? If that's the case, what's the point of either title?

Same as snooker or tennis, you're the #1 seed, therefore expected by probability to win.

Champs though? boxing? WBO, WBA, WBC...I suppose only a unified 1st would mean #1 champ?

In boxing, isn't the ranking supposed to determine the priority on who gets a shot at the title next? I know money and deals screw this up. The problem is not everybody who's ranked is going to show up at the Championships so you need to decide which takes precedence. If Nationals is going to have minimal effect on ranking, then in a time when attendance is already down, it's one more thing that will hurt it. For example, if the #1 and #2 ranked guys don't show at Nationals, do they lose their spot? In otherwords, does the second place guy at Nats automatically move into the #2 spot? This is not the case in AW and so just because you're the National Champ, doesn't mean you're ranked #1 in the country. Then of course you get into the arguments of "you have to show up to win" vs. "national champ means national champ, it doesn't mean you're the best". I would just like to avoid anything that dilutes a national championship or the ranking system.

[Bob Lipinski]

I set up something similar to this a long time ago. I didn't have any set formula, just kinda plated it by ear.

My inspiration was a bodybuilding ranking in I think MuscleMag International. Basically, you get lots of points for winning the biggest events- GGC, BBB, etc. depending on the year.

In the bodybuilding system, the Olympia winner recieved a very large number of points. The only way someone could beat the Olympia winner in the rankings would be to win a couple other big shows (Arnold, Night of Champions, etc) plus a few smaller ones.