Bloody Elbow June Meta-Rankings: Welterweight
| Fighter | Points | Promotion |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Georges St. Pierre |
201 | UFC |
| 2. Jon Fitch |
187 | UFC |
| 3. Josh Koscheck |
135 | UFC |
| 4.Thiago Alves |
128 | UFC |
| 5. Matt Hughes |
115 | UFC |
| 6. Jake Shields |
106 | Elite XC |
| 7. Diego Sanchez |
92 | UFC |
| 8. Matt Serra |
58 | UFC |
| 9. Carlos Condit |
46 | WEC |
| 10. Karo Parisyan |
36 | UFC |
| 11.Nick Thompson |
24 | WVR/EliteXC |
| 12. Jay Hieron |
9 | IFL |
| 13. Mike Swick |
5 | UFC |
| 13. Jonathan Goulet |
4 | UFC |
| 15. Satoru Kitaoka |
3 | WVR |
| 16. Hayato Sakurai |
1 | DREAM |
| 17. Akihiro Gono |
1 | UFC |
| 17. B.J. Penn |
1 | UFC |
| 19. Yoshiyuki Yoshida |
1 | UFC |
Here's the 170lb edition of the June Meta-Rankings.
The explanation of the Meta-rankings concept and methodology is in the full entry. Just keep in mind that they're not our opinion of who the best fighters are, rather they are an attempt to track how well fighters are regarded across the web.
No real surprises emerge from this month's scores. GSP is almost universally regarded as the #1 welterweight. Only one of the 21 sites surveyed ranked him anywhere else. Fitch is equally clearly the consensus #2. This makes the upcoming GSP/Jon Fitch UFC title bout one of those rarest of all title matches -- the consensus champ vs the consensus #1 contender.
Thiago Alves' quick rise hasn't been fully digested by the MMA world. Some sites haven't updated since he beat Hughes. Others are punishing Alves for missing weight. I expect Thiago will have to beat Koscheck or Diego Sanchez to get a title shot.
The July 26th Jake Shields/Nick Thompson fight is clearly the best matchup possible for a non-UFC promotion. Well done EliteXC. If they sign IFL champ Jay Hieron to go with Hector Lombard, and build both guys up correctly, they could have a decent division of legit challengers to keep Shields busy for the forseeable future.
There are some clear outliers muddying up the charts. Goulet and Kitaoka are both on the list due to one site -- the same site that ranked GSP at #10. I'm looking for ways to discount patently dumb rankings. Perhaps a minimum score of 5 points to make the list? Please chime in with your ideas in the comments. I'm not looking to eliminate any sources as bad decisions are a key part of making rankings and should be reflected.
I'm also looking for a way to reflect the credibility accruing to fighters being ranked in the top 25 by those sites that rank in greater depth. Since a first place vote is worth 10 points and a 10th place vote is worth 1 point, what should an 11th place vote get a fighter? Do I have to re-engineer the system? Speak up MMA geeks, lets perfect these rankings.
UPDATE: Alright, alright, we'll drop the hated MMA Ranks from next month's list. Now that that's settled, help me figure out how to account for the fighters that are ranked in the top 25 but not in the top 10.
This is a purer and simpler Meta-Rankings, and we believe the most accurate informative rankings anywhere on the web.
Because opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one and they all stink -- we don't put up our own subjective fighter rankings, we compile and average the rankings of every credible or popular source we could find online. The full list of sources is in the extended entry.
Note that the points are out of a possible 210.
We retooled our approach to include more sources. We also eliminated the weighting we were doing to favor statistical and fan-voting sites.
The goal is to show how the MMA community rates the fighters, not to bore you with our opinions.
Note that we only include fighters who made the top ten of one of our source sites. That creates some obvious distortions at the bottom of our rankings -- Jason Mcdonald for example is not even considered top 20 by most sources, but somebody out there considers him a top 10 middleweight.
We combined the following heavyweight top 10 rankings: Wamma, MMA Fighting, MMA-ELO, MMA Ranks, Full Contact Fighter, TAGG Radio, 411 Mania, MMA Weekly, Sherdog, Cage Potato, MMA Madness, MMA on Tap, Five Ounces of Pain, FightMatrix, MMA Playground, HD Net/Inside MMA, MMA-ValeTudo Japan, Brawl Sports, Total MMA, Fighters Magazine and Figure Four Online -- giving 10 points for a first place rank, 1 point for a tenth place ranking.
The following sources were checked but were not current enough for inclusion: MMA News, InsideFighting, World Fight.
0 recs |
30 comments
Comments
How can anyone be retarded enough to rank GSP 10th? I don’t care how much you dislike him. I don’t even understand having him at #2. I can’t see him as anything but #1.
by SplitBreast on Jul 2, 2008 3:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah that was utterly inexplicable
They’re still punishing him for the Matt Serra loss but going so far as to just be retarded.
by Kid Nate on Jul 2, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
May I please have a link to the site that ranked GSP 10th? That is a site I would like to read.
by MrNiceGuyMMA on Jul 2, 2008 3:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Save Your Brain Cells...lol
Kelvin Hunt
I'm like those boyz on the sidelines...cause I ain't playing...
by Tha Realness on Jul 2, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be this one: http://www.mmaranks.com/ww.html
You’ll notice he’s ranked just below Drew Fickett. I repeat, just below Drew Fickett. Really.
Other fun ranks from that site: Karo at 19, Jonathan Goulet at 7, and no Jake Shields or Matt Hughes at all.
by AJB on Jul 2, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not one to normally badmouth MMA sites (I prefer to just ignore those I don’t particularly like) – but MMARanks is just a ludicrously retarded site. Those rankings in no way reflect the view of anyone with a single fibre of their being steeped in reality. I really think they should exempt from your meta-rankings.
by -Sam on Jul 2, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
believe me I'm giving that a lot of thought
Several readers emailed and suggested I add them to the old Meta-rankings, and they’ve been around forever. I think I can find a way to keep them in without them damaging the end results too much (its not like they bumped GSP down to #2 or anything) with some more complicated math.
by Kid Nate on Jul 2, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How About...
instead of factoring them in, you do the rankings without them, then put their rankings beside the metas, so we can all laugh at them??
If you need another source to take their place, there is a mildly retarded chimpanzee at the Denver Zoo that can pick ping pong balls with fighters’ names on them.
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jul 2, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What do you do when you get to some of the other weight classes, though? Like lightweight, where they don’t even have BJ Penn ranked… I know that there’s all kinds of stats analysis tools that can be used to reduce the impact of bizarre results like this, but doesn’t the inclusion of them at all represent a problem in that it validates what are clearly some biased and patently bizarre decisions? THat’s obviously less of a numbers problem than it is an ethics/logic problem, but it’s still a problem.
by AJB on Jul 2, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well the thing is
I concluded after spending the first four months of the year poring over all the different site rankings that all rankings systems are pretty arbitrary. And my goal isn’t to produce a definitive who’s the best fighter ranking, its to document what the general MMA community’s consensus is.
And sadly the MMA community includes many many idiots.
by Kid Nate on Jul 2, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is arbitrary...
...and then there is “D00D! Check it out yo! We’ll put GSP at #10 in the division!”
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 2, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously...
drop them bro. Their rankings are obviously not based on reality. I know when we started this we were very “we’ll take everybody!” but for real…their rankings are crazy and I don’t think there is a fan in the world who thinks it’s more than just a lame attempt to be “edgy” or something equally stupid.
I’d cut them right off here.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 2, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They also...
Don’t have BJ Penn ranked…at all…in any weight class….
I get that they’re trying to base it off a “system” but their system sucks
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 2, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Riddance!
Bring on Lancelot Link!
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jul 2, 2008 5:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Top 25
If you want to include fights that go past 10.. Its simple really.
Work off a 25 pt system…
1 = 25#2 = 24… etc. If a site ends at 10, no biggie.. If a site goes past 10 and you want to consider it, you have the leeway to go downward.
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 6:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that is that you reduce the effect of rankings that only list the top 10. You could stay with a 10 point system, and scale the 25 points down to 10 and give 11-25 fractional points.
by Mike Fagan on Jul 2, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Edit: The system would have to look something like
1st: 10 points
2nd: 9.6 points
...
10th:6 points
Which still provides an advantage to those on the 25 point system
by Mike Fagan on Jul 2, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How??
How does it provide an advantage?? Yes, the sites that list past Top 10 get more points cumulatively but the fighters beyond the top 10 get recognition at a lower level.
1 gets 25 pts#10 gets 16 pts
#25 gets 1 pt
That is constant no matter how many ranking spots a site ranks toward.
This is the only way to do it. How is this any different than your method? Its still staggering the points downward keeping leeway for those beyond #10.
If you want to get technical, you could use an equation for those who rank to 25 to make the cumulative points awarded equal.
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If..
One site ranks to Top 10 and you use the #1 = 25 pts, #2 = 24 pts.. etc.. They get 205 total points of effect.
However, a site that lists a Top 25.. using the same system, would yield 325 total points.
To offset that, you could give an arbitrary amount of points to those fighters on Top 25 lists, not found in the various Top 10 lists. I would say 8 points (325 – 205) / 15 extra spots.
Actually that would work perfectly…
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fighters not found on Top 25s
That 8 may be a bit high (probably go with 6 or 7)... but hopefully you get what I’m trying to say. Think of it as an Excel spreadsheet.
The fighters found are in the first row. The sites represent each column.
You’d do the Top 25 lists first. Going from 25-1. You then fill in the Top 10 lists. 25-16. Fighters who aren’t in the Top 10 lists at all (but are obviously in a Top 25 list since they are on your sheet) get a value of 7.
At the end, total everything up and rank.
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That "arbitrary number" of 7
Could be dynamically calculated, but it might complicate matters.
I’d be willing to explain :) Just ask me.
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just in case you wanna know...
The “normalization number” (new name) would be:
120
divided by
(Total Fighters Found in Any List minus 10)
Every fighter found somewhere else, but on a Top 10 list would be assigned this number.
The “normalization” number would not apply to a fighter not found on a Top 25 list. They would simply get 0.
So the process would be:
Do all of the Top 25 lists first, #1 = 25, #2 = 24…. #24 = 2, #25 = 1
Do all of the Top 10 lists, same scoring structure.. stops at #10 = 16
Figure out that normalization variable.
Fill in the normalization variable to all fighters not found in the Top 10 lists, but found elsewhere.
Do your totals and rank.
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just to confirm
That fighters who are not located in a Top 25 list, but are found elsewhere, get assigned a value of 0. This differs from the Top 10 handling as stated above.
If you want me to review your final SS feel free to send it over
jcs at fightmatrix.com (creator of fightmatrix rating system)
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't trust this guy...
...he doesn’t know math. ;)
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 2, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, MMARanks
They’re model isn’t THAT bad… but they clearly didn’t think it all the way through. If they had, it would probably make more sense if you actually read into it.
Right now though.. it makes no sense, regardless of how long you take to try and make it make sense.
by JCS_FM on Jul 2, 2008 6:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Alright, alright, we’ll drop the hated MMA Ranks from next month’s list.
Thank god. I remember back when you did the HW meta-rankings and seeing TENGIZ TEDORADZE ranked in the top ten HW on their site. I was left scratching my head.
by Tonley on Jul 2, 2008 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 














