Why Is ESPN Getting in Bed With WAMMA?
by Luke Thomas on Mar 12, 2009 12:28 PM EDT
in News
71 comments
They aren't getting in bed; taking a look at members the WAMMA Men's Ranking Committee, it appears WAMMA and ESPN are already spooning:
Jon Anik
Member
Jon Anik, 30, joined ESPN in February of 2006, working primarily for ESPN Radio. He moved over to the digital media platforms early in 2007. An avid MMA advocate and fan, Anik began covering Mixed Martial Arts in February of 2007. He has hosteda boxing radio show in Boston for the last four years, covering more than 25 championship fights in Las Vegas and throughout the United States. Anik came to ESPN from WWZN '1510 the Zone' in Boston, where he hosted an afternoon drive show called 'The Diehards'. In addition to 'MMA Live', Anik does other television work for ESPN Mobile TV and ESPN.com, and can still be heard as a fill-in host on ESPN Radio.
I have a ton of respect for Anik and others on the list, but quite frankly, there are several names listed whose judgement when it comes to rankings I simply do not trust. The WAMMA rankings are good enough to include in our meta-rankings, but they aren't as good as Sherdog's much less the industry standard.
0 recs |
71 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Some of the names are ridiculous… like Mike Straka… lol! The Fight Game show alone has some of the most uninformed people on it from time to time, and it’s embarrassing. Straka is one of those people, and he’s the host.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Meta-Ranking are fun, but they include EVERYONE and give everyone an equal say. If I popped up a side and updated rankings then They would add me. Don’t get me wrong, they are great. A lot of fun and a good look at the lay of the land, but not official in any capacity. I think Sherdog’s are pretty great. They should be the standard and ESPN is already partnered with sherdog. I don’t get this thing with WAMMA.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 12:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sherdog's Rankings
Sherdog’s rankings were always of a surprisingly high quality, but they lacked in certain areas, namely listing just five Flyweights.
Granted, myself and Jordan Breen are about the only people this side of Japan that could possibly care about Flyweight rankings, but still, it seemed odd that they only had a top five for that division when each other division had a top 10.
Sure, there are fewer flyweights of any sort of prominence than there are fighters in the other male divisions, but it’s not like there are so few that a top 10, or even a top 20, cannot be put together if one chose to do so.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re sleeping on the metas. A) They don’t include everyone as over time we’ve removed some of those included and b) the point of them is to iron out biases. The community offers some consistent themes, but are very fractured. The idea is that by taking a macro view some of those biases in individual rankings are off set. They aren’t perfect by any stretch, but I don’t think there’s any source within the metas that give a more accurate picture than the metas themselves.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 12, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
MMA really lacks a true “authoritative voice” at this point and some of the rankings out there are really odd. That’s why I love the meta-rankings, instead of it being one guy/website’s opinion it makes it a general overview of what people are thinking.
by who me on Mar 12, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Relevance of Meta-Rankings
Yes, it’s true, the meta-rankings do represent the general consensus amongst the MMA community as far as rankings are concerned. But as for being an authoritative voice, I don’t think they are recognized as such on any level. Which is a shame, really.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe some day....
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 12, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No they don’t represent an “authoritative voice” at all they are just a good work around for the sport’s lack of one. Lets face it in MMA the rankings are purely subjective to start with and carry no relevance to what actually goes on in the sport. Joe Silva has taken dumps with more significance to what happens in the sport than the WAMMA rankings have.
Rankings are still at a stage where they are for “entertainment purposes only” but for my entertainment I prefer the rankings that seem more like a general consensus instead of one person’s/site’s opinion.
by who me on Mar 12, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“No they don’t represent an "authoritative voice" at all they are just a good work around for the sport’s lack of one.”
You’re going to change your tune with this sooner than you think.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 12, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The big announcment is a rankings publishing in a mag? Like ring mag?
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could just tell me so I don’t keep jumping the gun. You can email me, I will keep it on the DL.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you starting your own sanctioning body? I won’t consider it legitimate unless you make Bill Goldberg your vice president of public relations :D
by who me on Mar 12, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BEMMARC VP of Public Relations
I nominate myself as the Vice President of Public Relations for the Bloody Elbow Mixed Martial Arts Ranking Conglomerate. No where will you find someone more obsessed with both this website and the ranking of fighters across all weight classes recognized in North America (sorry, I’ll admit I don’t follow the 114lbs. guys in SHOOTO).
Plus, I know more about MMA, and to be honest, pro wrestling, than does Bill Goldberg, so that would instantly give the BEMMARC more credability. Plus, KENFLO once held a seminar that I attended, so I mean, I’ve got an in there to get us on ESPN’s MMA Live.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Second this motion. Move to vote. Eye.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Subjectivity of Rankings
It’s not as though MMA rankings are required to be subjective by and large. Yes, in certain circumstances, there will be a level of subjectivity required when all other things appear equal. However, if fighter A beats fighter B, it’s pretty easy to determine which fighter should be ranked the higher of the two.
Frankly, it amazes me how many ranking “authorities” cannot figure that out.
This is not College Basketball or Football. We’re talking about pugilism. One man wins, one man loses. Issues can arise on other levels, but in that regard, rankings are made ridiculous simple.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One would think it would be that obvious but for some reason rankings still seem to be as much popularity contest as objective overviews.
by who me on Mar 12, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Guessing Game
To me, it’s as if most folks who compile rankings are trying to guess what might happen in the future. This is ridiculous to me, and carries about as much merit as a 900 number psychic, albeit for less than $2.99 a minute.
Rankings, to me, are snapshots in time. At the time they are published, that is how they person, or persons, ranking the fighters stack up against each other. It doesn’t even mean that a fighter ranked ahead of another fighter will always beat the lower ranked fighter, it just means at that particular time, the higher ranked fighter has beaten more/better competition, won more decisively, etc.
But that’s just me, and since no one is reading my rankings, it’s not as though I really have a leg to stand on in this discussion.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
it’s been a long standing problem of NCAA Football. Preseason rankings are a prediction…so then every ranking thereafter is done with the same kind of “forecasting” rather than encapsulating the season to that point.
Honestly I’d love to see NCAA rankings done on merit (some very good blogs already do it) where yeah, the first few weeks it is going to look weird, but things will even out over the course of the season.
“Predictive rankings” are a cancer when rankings are supposed to reflect achievements.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 12, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep, i seem to remember a time when most rankings had Paulo Filho and Matt Lindland rated #1 and #2 respectively when in retrospect those rankings seem rather foolish.
by #5mmafan on Mar 12, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Linland
The Lindland rankign was always ridiculous. The best fighters he had beaten were Jeremy Horn, Travis Lutter, and Joe Doerksen, the latter two having been beaten in 2005 if memory serves. Oh, and a DQ victory over Ricardo Almedia. Yippie.
Lindland was an example of folks ranking based on perceived ability. I guess they really bought into the fable about his being run off by ZUFFA in order to protect Rich Franklin, which is utterly ridiculous considering the UFC’s current Middleweight champion isn’t drawing jack squat, but he beat Franklin so bad (twice) that he ran Franklin out of the division. But yeah, they got rid of Lindland to protect Franklin. Ok.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not entirely in agreeance that fighter A defeating fighter B ALWAYS makes it obvious where a fighter is ranked. This is the common problem and debate among MMA writers and fans alike.
What kind of rankings should we have? Subjectivity-intense or more objectivity. Objectivity to an extent works, but there is always some type of subjectivity involved.
One of the big debates last year was Lesnar’s standing. While he did defeat Couture, many felt that since he was fairly green in the MMA world with relatively a low amount of fights under his belt, he shouldn’t be at such a high ranking.
Also, the degradation of one’s rank due to inactivity is an issue. I don’t see how fighter A defeating fighter B is such an easy way to rank. Take for instance, Fighter A beating Fighter B, but then Fighter B defeating someone higher ranked that Fighter A, but then Fighter A defeating someone moderately at the same level as the Fighter that Fighter B defeated. It’s becomes this huge MMAth equation that everyone hates.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rankings Issues
First of all, I’ll address a pet peeve of mine: MMAth. That’s nonsense. Sure, it’s cute, because the “MA” in “MMA” are also the first to letters of “math,” but it makes no sense. Mixed Martial Artisth? No. Stop it. Just type the extra space and two letters and say “MMA Math.” It’s not that taxing.
As for everything else you said, it comes back to using rankings as a snapshot in time. Degredation, a fighter beating someone ranked higher than a guy he previously lost to, and all other permutations you can come up with mean less as time passes, at least compared against the current snapshot (i.e. rankings).
It’s like in Spaceballs, where they watch Spaceballs: The Movie. “Well what happened to then? We missed it. When? Just now? You’re looking at now, now. Everything that’s happening now, is happening now.”
A (poor) paraphrasing, but you probably remember what I’m talking about. Not that I’m really taking cues for how to ranking MMA fighters from an Mel Brook’s film (though it’d be a better source than some), but hell, I thought it was pretty funny.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, the entire MMAth phrase is pretty ridiculous although I love to point it out as MMAth because it is… ridiculous to use.
I understand the analogy. I really believe that objectivity is the way to go in the end as there are various formulas that can be used to degrade ratings over time, which in turn would affect rankings… but the biggest hurdle is that overall view from fans.
If Fighter A doesn’t surpass Fighter B when he beats him, pandemonium usually ensues and constant debate occurs. If Paulo Thiago was still unranked in the top ten after beating Koscheck, I would not have cared… but some casual fans may have had a minor aneuryism trying to figure it out.
Of course, in all objective computer rankings comes some subjectivity when it comes to creating a formula. Do we count title bouts as less of a detractor to a rating if a fighter loses… since it was a title fight? Stuff like that comes into play. It’s too much of a mind boggle to tackle for most fans.
Pure subjectivity would probably work if the rankings were done by writers that weren’t biased or actually had a set criteria that was ALWAYS followed. The problem is that a lot of sites seem to jump the ship on criteria from time to time.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Criteria Uniformity
Pure subjectivity would probably work if the rankings were done by writers that weren’t biased or actually had a set criteria that was ALWAYS followed. The problem is that a lot of sites seem to jump the ship on criteria from time to time.
Well put. I really like that, and obviously I agree with it.
The toughest situations, to me, are things like Chael Sonnen beating Paulo Filho. A strange match in and of itself, but what do you do with each after the conclusion to that match? Sonnen was, at best, ranked around 15, but most probably had him hover around and probably just outside of their top 20, to the extent to which folks consider a top 20 as opposed to simply a top 10. Meanwhile, Filho, prior to losing to Sonnen, was the consensus #2 ranked Middleweight, with an undefeated record.
The question becomes, where do you rank each after that fight? Can you justify putting Sonnen at #2 and just bumping everyone else down a notch? Probably not. Can you justify dumping Filho and putting Sonnen at the last spot in your rankings? Probably not either, although that’s an easier sell. Sure, you know that Sonnen must be ahead of Filho, but how do they compare to everyone else at that point?
It’s tricky. It’s not a perfect system, but that’s when the integrity of the ranking official that you mention becomes so important.
It’s one thing to disagree with a set of rankings. It’s another for those rankings to contradict themselves. I think most reasonable people can look at rankings and, if they are constructed well, conclude that while they may not agree with every ranking, the rankings overall are sound. When rankings lack that integrity though, it becomes intellectually insulting to the reader. That must be avoided.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally...
In the Filho situation, I’d drop Filho down significantly while moving up Sonnen up as well. The problem is how to do you quantify their movement in the rankings to a number. Unless you’re using some sort of objective formula, there isn’t a way to do it.
Personally, I’d drop Filho down to 8-12 and move Sonnen into the 12-15 range. Of course, that’s a subjective viewpoint. Filho did beat Sonnen in their first bout, and it was evident that Filho was affected once again by the weight cut and whatever personal demons he was having in the second fight.
Should those demons affect rankings? I don’t think it should ever.
One of the things I’d like to see implemented that could work to alleviate those kinds of ranking problems is the possibility of figuring out a set way to drop those fighters down the rankings.
Hypothetically, drop Filho down to 8, then give Sonnen the 7 spot instead of dropping Filho to 3 and then pressing Sonnen into the 2 spot. I would be much more inclined to believe the first ranking as opposed to the ridiculous ranking of Sonnen at 2.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rankings Consideration
There would be other things that could be taken into consideration. Other opponents they’ve beaten, that sort of thing. At a quick glance though, that’s one situation that makes it difficult to stick to a usually simple formula.
The “demons” mean nothing, by the way. A fight occured, and one man beat another. Same goes for crappy judging, crappy refereeing, and “lucky” punches.
Now, another pet peeve: “lucky” punches. What does that even mean? If you throw a punch in a fight, it’s usually done on purpose. You may be feinting with a jab, or you may be trying to knock your opponents block off, but in my experience watching fights, most punches don’t throw themselves. This idea that Paulo Thiago or anyone else lucked into to throwing a punch, having it connect, having it drop their opponent, and having that series of events being deemed so violent that the referee intervenes is not luck, it’s cause and effect. Surprising? Sure. Lucky? Tell that to the guy who trained for the fight.
Not that it really has anything to do with our discussion of rankings, other than some folks would discount a knock out because they didn’t expect it to happen, thus concluding that it was merely “luck.” Nonsense.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always preferred statistically improbable…though lucky is much easier to say. I think people are just referring to the punchers chance in a fight.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 12, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, all those things taken into account make rankings such a tough thing to pick apart. But hypothetically in that situation, I’d still be more inclined to drop Filho a lump of spots and push Sonnen up a lot of spots. How that is done is still under question.
If I were to use a mathmatical formula with some type of deviation to determine what each fighter is ranked in terms of a solid number, the result would likely be that Sonnen would not surpass Filho at all in that case. Filho would drop significantly to the late top 10 while Sonnen would inch close to the top 10. In something like ELO or Glicko or even Microsoft’s ranking formula, past fights would have some account in their current rating due to where those opponents were ranked at the time of that specific fight. Statistically objective rankings also have deviations (Glicko and Microsoft’s TrueSkill) for inactivity and time.
The reason I bring those up are that I love the way those systems do their rankings on a level of having no subjectivity. I think combining the two methods would be ideal.
If Sonnen was ranked 7 and Filho was ranked 3, I could see a switch at possible 4 and 5 where Sonnen hits 4 and Filho hits 5, but when Sonnen is barely top 20 and Filho is top 3, I don’t think he should immediately shoot to the top. I think, in that aspect of the rankings, the objective formulas from some of the systems in Chess and other computerized rankings should be used.
Of course, that type of suggestion hits at the core of rankings. That would be a heavy determinant in their rank. Subjectivity, in this case, could be the determinant in slightly moving those rankings one way or the other. For instance, let’s say I move Sonnen up to #12 after beating Filho, and Filho moves to #8 after losing to Sonnen. What if a guy who Sonnen previously defeated is sitting at #11 because he’s remained more active? Subjectivity would likely push Sonnen a bit higher. Same could be said for Filho. What if his drop went a bit too far.
I think a mix could work, but pure subjectivity could work if everyone was on the same page. Unfortunately, I don’t agree with everyone’s version of what rankings should be. I still think the leapfrogging of rankings due to Fighter A defeating Fighter B isn’t the right way to push rankings.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is a question, what happens when an unranked person beats a top ranked person? A lot of rankings systems are based on the fighter history, which makes sense, but how does that affect when someone is ranked for the first time with no history. Say Satoshi Ishii fights and beats Barnett?
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 12, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Newcomer v. Established Fighter
For me, Barnett has established himself as, at the very least, a top 10 fighter. He’s beaten a lot of fighters. A win for Ishii over a fighter of that caliber would not, then, indicate that Barnett has declined to any significant extent. It would, though, indicate that Ishii beat a really great fighter.
Barnett would possibly drop a few spots, sure, but probably not out of the top 10. Ishii would be ranked immediately ahead of him at that point in time.
I say this going off the top of my head. It doesn’t take into account what other fighters have done around the time that this proposed fight would have taken place to otherwise affect the rankings.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Usually in an objective-based ranking system such as an ELO system, a fighter is ranked at a specific number to start. Let’s say I start out a new fighter at 500 rating while the top fighter in the world is 2000.
Per the formula, if Ishii started out at 500 and say he beat Barnett something like 1750. In advanced rankings system, there is also a Volatility deviation. When a new person enters the rankings, they have a max’d out Volatility rating, whatever it is set at to start.
Basically, the volatility rating says that this guy’s RATING could be PLUS/MINUS this number. Typical settings are 1500 to start out a new person, 350 is your volatility rating.
Without getting horribly technical, Ishii would gain a lot of spots due to defeating such a highly ranked fighter, but Barnett might not drop considerably under a Glicko or TrueSkill type of system because his Volatility is very small. Volatility shrinks with the more fights you have. You eventually settle into an area of ranking. The massive problem with this is that over time, your skill may drop considerably and your ranking wouldn’t drop considerably because your volatility is a very small number.
But to answer your question… Ishii would likely gain an incredible degree of ranking but would he break top ten? Unlikely in an objective computerized system. And that’s what I feel is fair. He would have to string together a number of quality wins to gain a top ten rankings, which I believe is how it should be.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool thanks.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 12, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a beautiful conversation...
considering that I am currently working on quite an elegant statistical analysis for sometime in the next month. Details to follow…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 12, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luke is rubbing off on you =P
Both of you spill it!
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 12, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine is simple...
and not really a major secret. It’s just that I don’t want to give too much detail until I’m ready. But it’s basically just a new way of looking at the relative merits of fighters.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 12, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 12, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d for Spaceballs.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 12, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but they are subjective. lets say in a hypothetical the #1 fighter can easily destroy fighters 2-9. but what if fighter #10 because of styles or just plain having his number can defeat #1, but cannot defeat fighters 2-9. so where would you rank fighter 10?
by #5mmafan on Mar 12, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beating the Best
If you beat the best, you are the best. I’ll leave the whole “styles make fights” argument for another time, but suffice it to say, if you beat the best fighter in the world in your weight class, it stands to reason you are, at that moment in time, the best fighter in the world in your weight class.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but what if in my scenario fighter 2 through 9 all have wins over the #10 fighter, would you still consider him the best in the world on just the strength of one victory, albeit over the #1 fighter.
by #5mmafan on Mar 12, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The metas are a great tool, I guess I haven’t sat down and looked at all the sites included these days. I just remember when it started and everything was being added. But the fact remains that you can’t filter out bias. You can do a pretty good job of it and that has been done, but it simply won’t go away. I think guys fighting no one outside the UFC get over valued. Not to say they are not great, but they don’t fight top fighters. They can’t because the sport is so fractured, but that doesn’t mean that they should shoot up the rankings because they beat Joachim Hansen. Maybe that is my bias, but I think it is an issue with rankings. Guys have nobody to beat so they beat no bodies and look like world beaters. They might get a credable win here or there over another equally over valued guy, but that just makes the rankings harder to do. I think a lot of rankings are taken lightly.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking Rankings Lightly
It’s easy to take MMA rankings lightly. Not only is there really only one organization putting on fights that matter (two if you want to include WEC for the lower weight classes), but when MMAWeekly is perceived as the primary ranking institution for the sport, considering the track record of their rankings, you’re going to have a problem convincing anyone with even half a brain that the rankings are worth the server space on which they are posted.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your rankings are better then sherdogs. You should publish them. I have said this before and I am going to stay on you about it.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Rankings
I should have done so when Rob Joyner asked to see them. That was flattering.
But now, why bother? I mean, if I ever get around to updating them, I can just send you a copy.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, I will put them on 5 oz. of pain and call them mine.
I just think you method of ranking is ideal. Maybe I don’t agree with them, but I know you can justify each placement beyond “he is awesome and I like him”. As objective as possible with something so subjective.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
very nice of you to say that ….thanks…. I remember it seemed like you put a lot of careful thought into it…. i’m still game to check them out….
Mike Goldberg on robnashville:
"His analysis is so analytical"
by robnashville on Mar 12, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The beauty of the metas is that they do a good job of minimizing bias through diversification. Like a mutual fund or ETF minimizes company specific risk through diversification, the metas iron out flaws with specific ratings by pooling all the ones that are deemed worthy of inclusion into a composite picture. Any rankings of any sport are going to be flawed, and bias will be part of the equation. Unless all the rankings included are severely flawed in a similar way, I don’t see fretting over bias in one particular ranking to be a fruitful exercise. As has been said, the guys managing the metas analyze the rankings and will exclude those they don’t feel should be included.
by Cannon Jacques on Mar 12, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think ranking are flawed in a similar way. In that guys outside the main org are getting over valued because they beat lesser competition. Maybe they are great, even the greatest, but they need to prove it by beating worthy competition. Fedor proved it by beating a guys who was on top in the UFC and beating him easily.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think one problem is pretty simple. If the rankings deviate significantly from what an individual believes they should look like, the inclination by that individual, in general, is to view the rankings as somehow flawed. I think they affect me like this.
The fact that MMA is still rather fragmented does make it difficult to compare fighters across organizations. Big differences among rankings are a natural by-product.
by Cannon Jacques on Mar 12, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are 100% correct.
If the rankings deviate significantly from what an individual believes they should look like, the inclination by that individual, in general, is to view the rankings as somehow flawed.blockquote>
This is the only way rankings should be judged in a meta system. Thats why the metas are great, but they are flawed based on the fracture of the sport. But people ignore that.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Meta’s are like some of the BCS Computer rankings to me.
by natyong on Mar 12, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meta-Rankings v. BCS
I can see why you’d feel that way on some level, but whereas the Meta-Rankings use a calculation to even out different sets of rankings that rank a disparate amount of fighters, the BCS grades teams on wacky statistics.
It would be more correct to say that any of the ranking groups that rank fighters based on statistics would be similar to what the BCS does. And to be clear, I don’t mean to imply the negative connotation normally associated with the BCS by drawing that comparison, I just mean there are similarities in how the rankings are derived.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The BCS still tries to be objective, and they do have some pieces of their formula that have been compared to an ELO ranking system that’s modified. The Meta Rankings work much better because it’s just an overall diversification of the MMA blogosphere and media’s rankings.
The only problem with the meta-rankings is that if more than half the sites are just horribly biased or completely off in their rankings, it can taint that. Or if more than half use some type of ridiculous criteria. I don’t think that’ll happen though.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our Meta-Rankings do not include everyone...
we did not include a lot of sites when we started out but we did have to get enough variety to capture fan rankings, media rankings, computer rankings..etc But for sure we didn’t include EVERYONE and no, simply starting a site and doing rankings doesn’t get you inclusion.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 12, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MMARanks
MMARanks was included initially, but the complaints against that ridiculous set of rankings were so vociferous that you all removed them from consideration. After that was much easier to take your meta-rankings seriously.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
they made the “initial cut” but it quickly became clear that having them as the “extreme opinion” wasn’t worthwhile.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 12, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Fowlkes
Member
Ben Fowlkes is an MMA columnist for Sports Illustrated and a writer for CagePotato.com. He formerly served as editor of IFL.tv, and his work has appeared on CBS Sportsline, Fox Sports, and Crave Online.
WIN!
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 12, 2009 1:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oliver Copp
I notice Oliver Copp is no longer listed as a member of the voting committee. It always struck me as odd that he was a member of this particular committee, as Copp works for the UFC and WAMMA is, of course, not supported by the UFC.
His co-host, Mike Sawyer, is still listed on the voting committee, although his bio is out of date at this point. Still, that pleases me, considering his feelings on WAMMA.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Copp was on it last week. I looked. It was when you mentioned that he voiced his opinion on WAMMA. Maybe you got him taken off.
by szucconi on Mar 12, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Removing WAMMA Members
Well, if my comment about Copp and Sawyer’s comment, which was made months ago, was just now brought to WAMMA’s attention and compelled them to remove one of the people who expressed that sentiment, but not the other, then I ask you: what does that say about WAMMA?
And I’ll answer my own question: It says everything that every detractor has ever intimated.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there are flaws with a lot of rankings but I have to say for my taste, WAMMA’s rankings are better than Sherdog’s. For instance:
1. Shooting guys up the rankings that do well in one grand prix, while beating no one or just one guy of significance, i.e. Gegard Mousasi. Most recent, Paulo Thiago shooting up to 6 in Sherdog with a “lucky” punch against Koscheck. Yes, lucky! His stand-up to that point in the fight was crude and ineffective. He will soon fight himself back to obscurity in coming fights, but Sherdog will hold him in the rankings for a least 2 more losses.
2. The way they favor Japanese-based fighters in the Lightweight rankings is almost laughable. A lot of times I feel like they rank guys that only fight a small group of fighter in Dream or Deep and can’t be measured up to the industry standard of the UFC. I would bet that there are at least 4 Lightweights in the UFC that can beat Aoki.
3. Ranking guys the promoters build-up rather than ranking on actual success against quality opponents. It seems like who ever gets a title shot at Featherweight in the WEC is automatically ranked in the top 10. i.e. Leonard Garcia. Who did Garcia beat besides Pulver, and how good is Pulver, really? There are so few opportunities to watch featherweights that I have little knowledge to compare fighters to, but Garcia looked like he didn’t belong in the cage against Brown.
4. The “What Have You Done Lately” rule is not used consistently. Guys like Gomi, Filho, Shogun, and Cro Cop are victims of my first complaint. They shot up the rankings because they had one or two good showings in root to a Grand Prix championship and now it’s like pulling teeth to get them off the rankings even though they have looked far less than stellar in their recent performances.
Sherdog’s rankings could be much better. ESPN should stick with WAMMA’s rankings.
by Bruiser on Mar 12, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ESPN should just ignore rankings and report the news about the sport, that’s what’s worked for them so far.
by who me on Mar 12, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN and Rankings
ESPN has a fascination with rankings in all sports. Particularly college sports, where on some level it makes sense because it allows you to (somewhat) better determine how things like the BCS and March Madness may work out. But then they create their own power rankings for the NFL, which are just a way to give their writers extra work while patting themselves on their backs for being “experts.”
While I’m the first to admit being enamored with the process of enumerating fighters’ standings against each other, I fully recognize that rankings in MMA are meaningless. Each organization has a champion, and with the exception of Fedor, UFC (and WEC’s) champions are the only ones who are recognized as being the best in the world. No manner of ranking, no poorly designed belt, and no level of involvement by pro wrestling’s Bill Goldberg are going to change that.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Mar 12, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rankings are always necessary to the success of a sport. It links casual fans to the more educated as a good starting point for conversation. the non fans can get interested in a sport because they can get a quick mental picture of the validity of a fighter, “Dude Kimbo is ranked 75 these other guys must be really good,” in relationship to the little they might know (Kimbo can throw down).
by natyong on Mar 12, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and no.They can be important for new fans to figure out who is who but that isn’t neccessary and with the loopiness of MMA rankings who is ranked where has as much to do with who you ask as where the fighter actually stands. Bad rankings hurt a sport much more than they help and a lot of the site rankings for MMA show some very odd biases that makes a mess of things.
Also in MMA the rankings actually mean absolutly nothing at all because Joe Silva decides who gets the title shots that casual viewers are interested in not any of the dozens of people who do internet fighter rankings, for those fans a UFC only ranking would tell them more of what they want to know than what WAMMA is presenting to them. Ranking guys that casual newcomers have never hear of (and in some cases never will again except in rankings) adds confusion instead of taking it away. Lets face it MMA rankings aren’t for newcomers or casual fans anyway, if you don’t have a good understanding of the different promotions, different international regulations/fight cultures and the different weight classes involved then knowing individual rankings doesn’t really add all that much.
Then there is the basic fact that the ESPN web show’s target audience isn’t newcomers and casual viewers it’s internet MMA fans that keep up with the sport enough to know the show even exist. It’s not there to bring new fans in it’s to bring news and analysis to a already existing fanbase.
by who me on Mar 12, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Shooting guys up the rankings that do well in one grand prix, while beating no one or just one guy of significance, i.e. Gegard Mousasi. Most recent, Paulo Thiago shooting up to 6 in Sherdog with a "lucky" punch against Koscheck. Yes, lucky! His stand-up to that point in the fight was crude and ineffective. He will soon fight himself back to obscurity in coming fights, but Sherdog will hold him in the rankings for a least 2 more losses.
This is the massive problem I have with subjectivity in rankings. Since most sites stick to the criteria that if Fighter A beats Fighter B, this is always going to happen. That’s where I like what computer rankings do in terms of something like ELO. Fighter A would jump significantly in the rankings while Fighter B would drop significantly. If the gap between their ratings is unbelievably huge, they won’t pass each other. This causes Fighter A to string together quality wins to gain a top ten rating.
Of course, ELO does other things terribly. That’s the rub with rankings.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 12, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wamma without UFC is pointless you cant have pound for pound or undisputed champion in most divisions without the guys in the ufc. Heavyweight is ok because fedor is #1 in the world but what if mir or lesnar or whoever gets to #2 then what?
"If I wanted to spend a half hour between two hairy legs I'd go to your mother's house." -Don Frye
by Pitbull on Mar 12, 2009 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“Why Is ESPN Getting in Bed With WAMMA?”
Well that explains why ESPN, who gives MMA like a line per month has been flashing the headlines “Ken Shamrock busted for steroids” and " BJ Penn files formal complaint against GSP and camp" like every 2 minutes all day. Thanks ESPN, you give MMA like a comment per month, and when you do it’s about something that’s wrong with MMA. Last week on a show, when the headline “Rampage beats Jardine” popped up, the dude said something like " does this matter?" Fuck you ESPN, stick with the Yankees, Red Sox and USC like you do every second of everyday
by Josh H. on Mar 12, 2009 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 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.
