Rampage has a much better claim to a title shot than Machida at this point in time.

Look at their last five fights. Rampage beat Eastman, Liddell, Hendo, and Wanderlei Silva and he lost a razor thin decision to Forrest. Machida beat Heath, Nakamura, Sokoudjou, Tito and Thiago Silva. Rampage wins on strength of schedule plus with the way the Forrest-Rampage fight went there should have been either an immediate rematch or Rampage needed to win one and then fight for the title again.

Sean Salmon sucks.

Mr. Fagan:

Concerning the flowchart, what application was used, and what do the color distinctions represent? Maybe consider adding a legend for reference.

Having not known anything about “Bones” Jones, I approached the fight with Bonnar like a blind date… ’we’ll see how things go’.

Within seconds I had the epiphany that it was going to be a good fight because of Jones footwork, head movement and feints. Then, combination kicks — spinning back (missed) and side — right into Bonnar’s liver and made his right hand drop. Next, Jones times Bonnar’s jab with a grunting front kick, again to the liver. And then the clinch. Jones knees and then begins positioning on Bonnar, misses a foot sweep and immediately transitions to a double-to-single takedown. All in less than 60 seconds. Unfortunately, in one minute he dominated the warrior that Bonnar is in all aspects and elements of the sport. The balance of the 14-minute interchange was already apparent.

Jones is only 21, and one of the youngest pugilists on the Zuffa roster. He already demonstrates composure and octagon generalship, and his wrestling foundation was demonstrated.

With the aforementioned in mind, it seems that “Bones” should have a place on the flowchart with asterisks next to it… {** Jones ** (to be determined)}

Mike, here’s my best shot at ways to break loops and address logical flaws in the system. But first, I want to say: awesome job creating the concept (if you did) and putting the work in to get these things together.

1. If a pair of fighters are 2:1, supremacy goes to the fighter with more wins over his opponent. [Example: Sylvia beats Arlovski] I’m not sure if your system accounts for this already.

2. If the fighters are 1:1. the more recent victory takes precedence over the older win. [Example: GSP beats Serra]
(AND/OR )
3. The more decisive win beats the closer win. This introduces an element of subjectivity, but certain objective or near-objective measures may apply. For example, a stoppage is more decisive than a decision win, and a unanimous decision supercedes a split decision. Also, undisputed wins beat controversial wins (dude to say, referee error, weird cut or doc stoppage or other mitigating factor). Other reasonable subjective measures may apply [Example: Liddell and Henderson have both defeated W.Silva, but Henderson’s win was more decisive, therefore he beats Liddell]

Bonnar > Jardine > Griffin > Bonnar

Griffin-Bonnar took place in 2005, so we drop it (3-year rule)

That leaves Bonnar > Jardine > Griffin. Ironically, introducing more recent fights flip that order on its head.

Jardine > Liddell > W Silva > Jardine

The fights in chronological order:: Jardine vs Liddell, Liddell vs Silva, Silva vs Jardine. Knock out the oldest fight and you end up with Liddell > Silva > Jardine

Griffin > Jackson > Liddell > Ortiz > Griffin

The oldest fight is Ortiz-Griffin. Drop it, and you get Griffin>Jackson>Liddell>Ortiz