Mission

The mission of the CKO is to recognize victory.

Not every fighter can secure a million dollar K-1 contract. Some good fighters can’t even get entry level contracts. In some cases the K-1 blackballs (or is forced to blackball) fighters like: Nick Pettas, Peter Graham, Sem Schilt, Stefan Leko, Lloyd Van Dams, Ryuta Noji, Bjorn Bregy and Matt Skelton. In other cases, there are no resources for deserving fighters. The K-1 coffers are the richest in the sport, but they have a limited number of openings and have their own priorities that may not translate to a fair offer to a deserving fighter. The K-1 is under no obligation to sign all the top fighters. Also, less established promoters need a fair system as much as less established fighters. They can curry the favor of sanctioning organizations but they will buy nothing more than bias over other promoters who don’t pay the fees. The CKO has no monetary bias. The success of every heavyweight kickboxer or promoter will be recognized.

The mission of the K-1, on the other hand, is to increase revenue, decrease costs, maintain a domestic market share, expand the international franchises, etc. To reach these ends they will invest heavily in Bob Sapp and Hong Man Choi.

Many fans see the K-1 crown the K-1 Grand Prix Champion and hallucinate that they are seeing a sanctioning body or a league. They are neither. They are a promotional company and unlike a sanctioning organization, they are exclusive. Stefan Leko wanted to fight in 2003. He earned the right in the eliminations. The K-1, nevertheless, blackballed him. Unlike a league, there are not several owners. Each fighter signs his promotional rights to the K-1. In a league, teams are part-owners. This kind of governance doesn’t exist in the K-1. The K-1 Grand Prix Champion is in a sense the “Employee of the Year.”

If the CKO mission were to create an exclusive K-1 ranking, we would:

1.        List the Grand Prix participants in the top 8 and the reserve winners in the next two spots to create a top 10.

2.        Eliminate blackballed fighters from the list.

3.        Eliminate fighters without K-1 contracts from the list.

4.        Buy into the fake-wrestling freak-show size-queen hype.

One-Based System

Contrary to common belief and the movie Back to the Future, Jesus was not born in the year 0 (zero). There is no year zero on the calendar. We go from 1BC to 1AD. In many sports, 1 (one) is the top and 2 (two) is second best. Kickboxing’s sister sport, boxing is zero-based. The champion (#0) is the best and the top challenger (#1) is next in line. Many kickboxing sanctioning organizations follow the same philosophy and rank challengers from 1 to 10. The CKO, however, is a tracking organization that denotes the top ranked fighter with the #1. There is no CKO title. There is no CKO belt. There is no CKO champion. The word “champion” is never used when referring to holders of the #1 rank. Some fans have created unique terms in their correspondence: Primus, Primo, etc. The history of the defenses and changes of the #1 rank can be found on the Majesty Page of this site.

Fairness

Fairness is not always pleasant. A young child may die of a bullet wound to the head, yet a cannibal rapist may live to be 110 years of age. The laws of physics are fair, and so we have to accept that innocence will not make a human brain invulnerable to firearms. Tragic but fair.

In sports, winners are not always the “deserving” ones. In kickboxing, we’ve seen several examples where the less deserving (or greatly unexpected) fighter has claimed victory. Fair is fair, however, so even though we believe a lesser fighter will not be able to repeat the accomplishment by defeating the greater fighter in a rematch, we must recognize that he did indeed succeed in the feat the first time.

Many subjective lists appeal to fans evaluation of the future at the expense of fairness. As regrettable as it is for Bob Sapp to defeat Ernesto Hoost and claim the #1 rank, it is 100% fair. Whenever A defeats B, there is no reason for A to be ranked lower than B. Most subjective lists will need more convincing and in this example it would have come when Sapp defeated Hoost a second time.

In boxing, if a fighter defeats a champion, he will become the champion. There is no evaluation. A fluke win is still a win. The heavyweight division has grudgingly put the belt around the waists of less than stellar competitors. Wins among the challengers, on the other hand, are not as meaningful. If the #4 ranked fighter loses to a dud, it is unlikely that the dud will break into the top ten. More likely is the case where the sanctioning body will punish the #4 fighter for the miserable performance.

The CKO treats every rank the same as boxing treats the titles. It is a uniform system where if an unranked fighter defeats the #9 ranked fighter, he will take the #9 rank. There is no evaluation of the fighter’s history or potential to win more fights. Names like Hoost, Aerts, Sefo and LeBanner carry no more weight than Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C and Mr. D.

A knock out is a win. A split decision is a win. They are both means to an end, victory. The Central Kickboxing Organization doesn’t seek to evaluate the quality of one win over another. Objectivity allows no judgment whatsoever.

Dropping 5 ranks appears to have a greater effect on the top ten than the lower ranks. Consider dropping from #2 to #7 and dropping from #200 to #205 (#200 doesn’t fall to #700). It is possible to lose one fight and still hold a top ten rank. Two losses in a row to lower ranked fighters will send the #1 ranked fighter to #11. Losing to a higher ranked fighter is a different matter of course. There is no penalty. In 2005, for example, Frans Botha lost two fights to higher ranked opponents and maintained his #4 rank.

Most quickly realize that Article 2 is a punitive measure against the fighter who lost. Few notice that this is also a protective measure for those near in rank to the fighter who failed to defend his rank. If the #3 ranked fighter, for instance, loses to #75, fighters ranked from #4 to #7 will not have to slide down a rank to compensate for #3’s unfortunate failure.

Draws are the result of indecisive judges as much as they are of equally matched opponents. Draws are also the bane of every sport. All sports begin with equal scores. When matches end with equal scores, fans wonder why they even bothered buying a ticket. Likewise, if the fight decides nothing, the rankings will reflect that nothing was accomplished.

The onus is on the lower ranked fighter to step into the ring fiercely motivated to seize the rank or go home empty handed. Some objective rankings in boxing have a formula that will narrow the gap between the two fighters in the event of a draw. They, however, don’t treat ranks as titles like the CKO.

Unlike a No-contest, a draw does count in terms of activity. (see Article 6)

Article 4 is not so much a rule as it is a reminder that we are not alone in the world. A fighter can defend his rank with great and regular success and still slide down due to the activity of other higher-ranked fighters. In some cases, fighters slide up

Here is an example of a fictitious event.

Adam Ankle [1] defeated Ernie Ear [5]
This is a simple defense. Ear lost the match but didn’t lose any ranks due to losing to a higher ranked fighter.

Dave Deltoid [4] defeated Brian Bone [2]
Bone lost to a lower ranked fighter and fell from #2 to #7. Deltoid took #2. Fighters ranked 4, 5 and 6 are all protected thanks to the penalty against Bone. They also have to slide up to occupy the rank that Deltoid vacated. The most notable is Earnie Ear who lost a fight and still gained a rank due to sliding.

Tim Toe [20] defeated Chuck Cornea [3]
Cornea lost to a lower ranked fighter and fell from #3 to #8. Toe took #3. To make room for a new fighter in the top 10, everyone ranked from #9 to #19 must slide down a rank. The most notable is Herbie Hamstring who won a fight yet still lost a rank due to sliding.

Herbie Hamstring [8] defeated Akebono [250]. Hamstring did what is to be expected against such a low ranked opponent.

A loss by DQ is shameful. Fouls can be divided into 3 categories:
1- First degree fouls- planned and deliberate. The foul was planned and the technique was deliberate.
2- Second degree fouls- unplanned and deliberate. In these cases, a fighter deliberately uses a technique and then realizes that, in France, there are no knees. In this example, the knee was deliberate, but the foul was not planned.
3- Third degree fouls- unplanned and accidental. The foul was unplanned and the technique itself missed its intended target hitting a foul zone.

Most disqualifications are due to either a first degree foul or repeated second degree fouls. In other words, the fighter who received the DQ is either malicious or careless. Regardless of his rank in relation to his opponent, he will take the -5 penalty. In short, unlike Article 2, a lower ranked fighter can take a -5 penalty.

In some cases, the fighter who received the foul is not content with the point advantage (yellow card) awarded by the referee. They see the foul as a way to pocket the victory and the rewards that go with it. In 2003, we saw Cyril Abidi and Remy Bonjasky embellish the damage in exchange for victory and berths to the K-1 Grand Prix. These actions were in line with their objectives. The CKO will not give ranks to fighters who win by DQ. It would be irresponsible to tempt fighters to lower their standards.

Two examples in the top 10 are:
2001/06/09 Jurgen Krut was disqualified against Gregory Tony.
2003/10/11 Bob Sapp was disqualified against Remy Bonjasky.
In both cases, the DQ losers were punished, but the opponents did not take the ranks.

Article 6 is probably the one that is most overlooked or misunderstood. Of all the requests for explanation, very few of the predicted questions for this article have been asked

A no-contest is indeed NOT a contest. It is not a draw. It is a fight that was cancelled after both fighters entered the ring wearing gloves. In 2003, Errol Parris dropped 5 ranks due to inactivity despite engaging in a fight that ended in a no contest.

The concept of a calendar year confuses many. Mirko is the most common example. He was active on March 30, 2003 and satisfied his activity requirement for that year (2003). At the end of 2004, he lost 5 ranks due to inactivity. A number of fans misunderstood and felt Filipovic would take the penalty in April 2004, only 4 months into the year. Article 6 clearly defines a calendar year as the period from January 1^st to December 31^st.

No one has asked about the meaning of 15+ ranks. If #20 is inactive for 2 calendar years and #30 is inactive for 1 calendar year, both will be headed for #35. The 15+ rule gives first priority to the fighter who only went one year inactive. The other will take the next available rank.

The year end adjustments also trigger a lot of sliding [Article 4].

Gerald Ford became president of the USA without winning an election (even as Vice President). Ken Norton, Lennox Lewis and Hasim Rahman were awarded the WBC boxing titles outside the ring. Article 7 prevents fighters from sliding into the #1 rank. The CKO doesn’t see the #1 rank as something to bestow on an athlete. On the contrary, it is the athlete who seizes the rank. This article was enacted when Mirko Filipovic changed sports and went inactive for 2004. The #1 rank was declared vacant on January 1^st 2005, and Akio Mori held the #2 rank. Mori won his next fight and took the #1 rank. Had he lost that fight, Rick Roufus, his opponent, would have taken the #1 rank.

The K-1 is so popular among kickboxing fans that many assume that the CKO rankings are K-1 rankings. In truth, the CKO rankings do not measure the same thing as the K-1 Grand Prix.

The Grand Prix pits 8 fighters in a tournament and the one who defeats 3 fighters in a night is the champion. The CKO, on the other hand, focuses on the one-on-one results. We will count A vs. B but not if A has been soften up by C and D first while B has been worked over by E and F. The K-1 will recognize such a match but not the CKO. (Tournament Measurement Theory)

K-1 fighters who are too injured to fight in the final are expected to walk to the ring and wait for the opening bell before throwing in the towel. In other words, instead of a forfeit, they have a pre-arranged TKO. In 2001, Mirko Filipovic was in this situation and chose to fight despite being unable to walk without limping. The fight was short and it counted as a win for Bernardo. The CKO had already had Article 8 in place to disallow this match for ranking purposes.

Some other things to consider when looking at Article 8:
1- The CKO has no interest in seeing a fighter hold the #1 rank for 45 minutes.
2- The CKO sees no reason to permit a situation where a fighter can take a losing penalty (Article 2) twice or more in the same night. Some fighters who have lost twice in the same night are: Stefan Leko, Lloyd Van Dams, Andrew Thompson and Marcus Royster. In 2003, Jerrel Venetiaan failed his doping test and had all three tournament (K-1 Basel) wins turned to DQ losses.

Most of the above are considered common sense. Muay Thai has a strong following and many of the top kickboxers have Muay Thai trainers. Using elbows to open cuts on opponents’ faces is a technique that, despite pockets of popularity, will impede the growth of the sport internationally. Moreover, the sport is regarded as the property of the Government of Thailand. The CKO has no affiliation with any government body.

Conclusion

The Central Kickboxing Organization was founded to perform a service to fighters who needed a clear objective system to immediately recognize their achievements and document said achievements long after the hair on their heads turned white. Fans, for once, were a second priority. Subjective lists are easy to find. Every sanctioning organization has a subjective list and if that isn’t good enough for fans, they can whip up their own in a matter of seconds. Enough fans can get together to vote and decide democratically who they jointly believe the best kickboxers are. The CKO is an objective system that treats every rank like a title.