Oleg Taktarov Better Than Chuck Liddell?
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 1:01 PM EST
in News
79 comments
As I slog away compiling the November meta-rankings, I came across something I just had to share from FIGHT! Magazine's light heavyweight rankings.
I'm not trying to mock them, its very hard to put together a computer model to do accurate rankings, but check out #19 and #20. Seems like a human being should have caught that one.
This is why I have a hard time taking rankings seriously as anything more than good clean fun.
0 recs |
79 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I am not even sure that list could be called clean fun at all…it boggles the mind.
by iiowyn on Dec 9, 2008 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, clean? Most rankings are filthy.
by Michaelthebox on Dec 9, 2008 1:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not trying to mock them
I’d be glad to.
by Brett Jones on Dec 9, 2008 1:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Are you guys drunk?
Have you watched Chuck Liddell or Oleg Taktarov fight recently? Chuck would get taken down and beaten to a pulp like the joke of a fighter he is.
by KneeToTheFace on Dec 9, 2008 1:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
when is the last time Lidell was actually taken down??
people who try to shoot on Lidell get KTFO
by dbcb on Dec 9, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the type of thing that means you really need to go back into how your rankings and made and fix something, because something is wrong.
by Phildo on Dec 9, 2008 1:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well look at Matt Hamill, he is above Chuck Liddell. Sorry, but Matt Hamill has not even came close to touching what Chuck Liddell has done. Matt Hamill lost to Rich Franklin, Chuck Liddell lost to Rashad Evans. Chuck Liddell is getting a big named fight possibly as a co-main event on a PPV, Matt Hamill is fighting on the undercard of UFC 92. Pretty laughable.
by "Mr. NC-17" on Dec 9, 2008 1:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And how is Tito listed at 9?
that is ridiculous
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 1:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
it’s ridiculous if you’re a Tito hater,because of all the questionable rankings on this list that’s the one you pick out.Just remember that the big light heavyweight title fight coming up at UFC 92 neither of those guys beat Tito.
by tylerdurden1 on Dec 9, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually like Tito,
but ranking him at 9 is crazy when the guy at 20 beat him decisively twice. Now neither one of them has done much since that fight to raise their stakes
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The entire list is ridiculous
, but Tito that far ahead of Chuck really stands out when they are the most prominent names on the list & the majority of the comments on this list are already about Chuck.
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chuck did beat Wand's ass since then,
& how exactly is Wand so far up considering his most recent fights?
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What fight did you watch
“Beat Wand’s ass”? are you serious? Watch the fight again. That was a razor thin decision in my opinion.
by Nick Travaglini on Dec 9, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I am serious.
That was nowhere near a “razor-thin” decision.
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe take a look at Wand's face after that fight
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will have to agree to disagree
with you. I scored that pretty damn close. RD1 could have gone either way and I score rd 2 for Wand. Round 3 was definitely Chuck’s. I don’t have a problem with Chuck winning, but if they scored it for Wand I wouldn’t have had a problem with it either.
by Nick Travaglini on Dec 9, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was not a blowout perse,
but Wand did not win any round of that fight. I have always been a Wand fan, but he really never got off in that fight.
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To each his own
You say tomato, I say tomato. Wait, that works much better when you say it outloud. Whatever you get the point.
by Nick Travaglini on Dec 9, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He got two clear knockdowns in the 2nd round…how is that not decisive enough for you to give him the 2nd round?
Granted he didn’t do much off of them, but based on any scoring I’ve EVER seen in the UFC that’s easily a 10-9 round, maybe 10-8. Even if it was a “close enough to give Chuck”, you had to give at least 10-9 for the knockdowns.
by Frank_Castle on Dec 9, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except for when Rampage knocked down Forrest.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Dec 9, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This
is just another example of why ratings are useless Taktarov higher than Liddell.I’m not even going to get into Steve Cantwell at #11. Ratings are really a waste of time they usually end up with people arguing anyway.
by tylerdurden1 on Dec 9, 2008 1:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rampage at 8
Is almost as bad. The person who made this system obviously didn’t spend much time on it.
by JCS_FM on Dec 9, 2008 1:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
One more thing.
With such a ludicrous oversight, I petition that they be ousted from the lists. Although it does make our system look a lot better.
by JCS_FM on Dec 9, 2008 1:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I second that. Any rankings that is clearly erroneous, ridiculous, and downright stupid should not be included in the Bloody Elbow Meta-rankings, which have become the most definitive form of rankings on the net, in my opinion. I love FIGHT! Magazine and think they are the best printed MMA publication out there, but even their rankings system boggles my mind.
by dropkick101 on Dec 9, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
every list is prone to the occasional stupid think — MMA Weekly for example kept overrating Gomi and Kang long long long after it was obvious and yet they’re one of the most influential and popular ranking sites out there.
I personally regret dumping MMA Ratings and consider adding them back in every month.
For the most part Fighter — which is NOT FIGHT! magazine — has decent ratings, that and a fairly significant readership tells me that people pay attention to their rankings.
These things average out, that’s the beauty of the meta-rankings system.
But yes, it does make FightMatrix look even better.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nate..
This is way, way worse than overrating Gomi and Kang though Nate. Gomi had a right to be so high, and Kang reeled off some good wins too. Taktarov has no place in a Top 100 at this point, and that’s just the half of it.
by JCS_FM on Dec 9, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah its stupid but you should see MMA/VT’s rankings.
MMA ELO has had some boners too — they’re constantly putting people in the wrong divisions.
The meta-rankings don’t claim to be the average of the intelligent ranking systems. That’s a subjective judgement, I’m trying to keep this objective.
Just the facts ma’am.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The meta-rankings don’t claim to be the average of the intelligent rankings systems. That sounds like a subjective judgment but when everyone within the industry – fans, promoters, and fighters alike – agree that certain rankings are nonsensical, it becomes the standard thought of a community as opposed to a subjective judgment.
I think what you’ve done with the meta-rankings is absolutely amazing and each month they are consistently the best rankings in existance. I just think weeding out some of these nonsense system would improve it even more.
by dropkick101 on Dec 9, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They might average out based on the sheer amount of rankings involved, but putting in ridiculous rankings systems taints the overall process. Even if a small difference in points places one fighter a spot above or below where he would’ve been, it’s tainted.
Again, I love FIGHT! as a whole but their rankings system doesn’t make sense. They try to push it off as though they are taking fighter “name value” out of it, which biases a lot of rankings. Their goal is commendable but the remedy they have invented simply doesn’t work. I don’t even know where to start with the problems.
by dropkick101 on Dec 9, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason I’m keeping them in is because FIGHT! is a quality publication with a wide distribution. I imagine they have thousands of readers who see their rankings and don’t know any better. Hence, including them reflects the opinions of a certain % of the MMA community.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the goal of the meta-rankings to reflect the consensus of the online mma community.
I hate to break it to you, but utter fucking idiots are a BIG ASS chunk of that population.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Its clear
That their system has a problem with extremes (long inactivity, overrating win streaks, etc).
I’ll agree with you though, I guess keep them in. Some of their rankings don’t seem TOO bad.
by JCS_FM on Dec 9, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
now these idiots on the otherhand
are too far gone. MMA Ranks
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. Where to even begin.
Apparently GSP is only the #6 WW — behind both Carlos Condit and Jake Shields, not to mention a Jon Fitch that GSP absolutely beat up for 5 rounds.
Jason MacDonald is the #4 MW.
Oh and BJ — yeah, he’s not even ranked in any of the available weight classes, apparently.
That’s … amazing?
by Kierkegaard on Dec 9, 2008 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That site wins for some of the terrible fighter pictures.
by iiowyn on Dec 9, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I almost went ape shit...
then i realized the rankings have not been updated in 3 months
Being on the internet gives me a right...nay a responsibility to bitch about things
by beery_pbr on Dec 9, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think back three months, to where everyone stood… They weren’t much better THEN.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Dec 9, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true
Being on the internet gives me a right...nay a responsibility to bitch about things
by beery_pbr on Dec 9, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Valid point. I always forget the “moron-factor.” Thanks for bringing me back down to earth.
by dropkick101 on Dec 9, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nooooooooo!
Nate, keeping these guys in is fine; while some of us may think the rankings are wonky, they could at least make a legitimate argument that it’s based on an impartial “system”. MMA Ratings, though… there was like a general revolt against their rankings because they were just… stupid. With no rationale other than “THIS GUY IS OVERRATED! I KNOW BECAUSE I’M SMARTER!” Don’t add them back. Please.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Dec 9, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not
I took another look. But I did slander MMA Ratings — a perfectly unobjectionable ranking site. Its MMA Ranks that sucks.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I got it wrong too, but I knew which one you meant. I still remember the “wait, GSP is WHERE?” discussion from a few months back.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Dec 9, 2008 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
didn’t mean any harm. you guys do a fine job.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no worries. its all good. keep up the good work with the metas.
-----------------
MMA Ratings
by kamander on Dec 9, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of the rankings from individual places are way off. This is no exception, but it’s strange that Nate is picking on them. He normally doesn’t go there, although he does make it clear that they are not his rankings.
by szucconi on Dec 9, 2008 2:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is clearly ridiculous. Oleg Taktarov is now and always will be #1. Oleg by Kneebar is the new Rickson by Armbar.
by FRANKIE on Dec 9, 2008 2:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
God Damnit
You beat me to that joke.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am." - Ron Burgundy
by monkeyfightclub! on Dec 9, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the guy who came up with this list was married to the woman Chuck allegedly fondled.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am." - Ron Burgundy
by monkeyfightclub! on Dec 9, 2008 2:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Frank Trigg himself
put these rankings out
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t rule that out until I see who is ranked #1.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am." - Ron Burgundy
by monkeyfightclub! on Dec 9, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Trigg is ranked number one in all weight classes.Hmm… something fishy is going on here.
by dropkick101 on Dec 9, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
can we see 1-8?
Being on the internet gives me a right...nay a responsibility to bitch about things
by beery_pbr on Dec 9, 2008 2:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap!
Sobral is #6? lol
And as much as I love Franklin, how is he top 3 already?
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They have Luiz Cane ranked as the 5th best light heavyweight! Maybe people didn’t notice because they mispelled his name(click on him and get a real laugh at what they have his record listed as) but seriously Luiz Cane is number 5???
by who me on Dec 9, 2008 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks again Nate, but I do not envy your job. I could not stay impartial and the first time somebody ranked lets just say KenFlo over BJ I would right them off. Keep up the great work on the meta.
Being on the internet gives me a right...nay a responsibility to bitch about things
by beery_pbr on Dec 9, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rollerball, nuff said
I don’t understand why Taktarov wasn’t first on the list.
by Gunslinger20 on Dec 9, 2008 2:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That’s why this list is bullshit. Is Oleg Taktarov better than Chuck Liddell? You bet your allowance money he is. I vote FIGHT! rankings are kicked off for not ranking Oleg higher.
by dropkick101 on Dec 9, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They also rank Chael Sonnen as the #4 Middleweight in the world and Mike Swick as the #3 Welterweight in the world.
by Kierkegaard on Dec 9, 2008 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
there are several sites in the metas that have Sonnen at #2 middleweight.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How are their rankings compiled?
As you said, it’s difficult to come up with an algorithm to rank fighters accurately. I can give them some leeway if they’re attempting to develop an entirely objective, algorithm based method. One might argue that a human should intervene and switch obvious errors, but I personally would rather see what the system comes up with. It might not be possible to form a completely objective ranking system, but it’s interesting to see what the attempts come up with (I’m not saying theirs was—I don’t know how they did it). It’s not as if their accuracy is particularly important anyway.
by Patrick McCauley on Dec 9, 2008 2:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know that they’ve posted their complete methodology but their goal was an objective system that would take fighter reputation and hype out of the process.
by Kid Nate on Dec 9, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that this methodology is
not public, but this must be somewhat based on past accomplishments? Otherwise, how could Tito & Oleg be that high?
by dnevil001 on Dec 9, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I view it like the power rankings from fightlines. They might not come up with an entirely reasonable result, but the objectivity of the results are interesting nonetheless. However, it’s a bit difficult to assess if their methodology is unclear or not public.
by Patrick McCauley on Dec 9, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice catch
Although I do like seeing the Janitor get some love.
by subo on Dec 9, 2008 3:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Vladimir’s nickname is #1 in my powe rankings.
Yeah, who got the final Death Blow? 'Cause I thought that Hawaiian guy had it comin' to him. - C. K.
by monkeyfightclub! on Dec 9, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How is Stephan Bonner ranked above Keith Jardine? Bonner did beat Jardine 2 years ago but Jardine has fought top talent since then and Bonner hasn’t fought in over a year.
by Dropkick434 on Dec 9, 2008 3:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This thread needs a picture to sum things up
Certain MMA Rankings ’Nuff said.
by Sokonojudo on Dec 9, 2008 4:29 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
