In Defense of Rankings in MMA
by Mike Fagan on Mar 13, 2009 8:40 AM EDT
in News
37 comments
Our own Michael Rome opined about the merits of ranking lists in mixed martial arts. As someone with an interest in logical ordering and figuring out an entity's value, rankings have always been something that have fascinated me. I understand why others find them frustrating or imperfect, but I believe they are essential for combat sports. There are a few points I want to make.
1. Rankings are not a valuation of a group of fighters' abilities; they provide a champion and a sequential list of challengers. In every discussion about rankings, I believe this axiom is most misunderstood. B.J. Penn may have been the most talented lightweight in the world when he defeated Jens Pulver in 2007. However, a victory over Pulver doesn't amount enough credit to be placed on a top ten list. The ability to understand this concept is paramount to any discussion of fighter rankings.
2. Rankings provide a sense of accountability for promoters. Without legitimate sanctioning bodies, the major titles in MMA are handled in-house by promotions. As no promotion, specifically Zuffa, provides official rankings to the public, it's important for third parties to fill in the gap. (Which is an interesting contrast to boxing where a magazine has become the de facto standard because of an oversaturation of sanctioning bodies.) For the most part, I believe Zuffa has done a quality job of finding credible challengers for their champions.
3. Rankings provide structure in a sport with no "off-season." In stick-and-ball sports, rankings are a superfluous practice as a champion is crowned each season. Combat sports, however, don't follow a rigid schedule. In this sense, rankings provide a valuable snapshot in time of a division's hierarchy.
4. Rankings offer a blueprint for matchmaking and contendership. Without a sense of where a fighter stands in a division, there's no frame of reference for the merits of a fight. Rankings provide a valuable context for the relevancy of a contest.
5. Rankings are fun. 'Nuff said.
0 recs |
37 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Definitely Agree
that rankings are fun.
I think you’re right in that there are two ways in which people look at rankings:
1. The ranking is an order of the best fighters in the world. I.e. the notion of ranking is that the No.1 fighter will beat the No.2 fighter more times out of ten then vice-versa. I think this is the way that most people look at rankings.
2. The ranking is an order of fighters in terms of a champion and a list of challengers. I think this is probably more useful in terms of MMA.
The problem in MMA (as Michael Rome mentioned) is that styles make fights and the sport is very unpredictable. Everything Rome wrote about rankings was true. Also – particularly at the top end of the game A>B>C>A is a very possible and often occurring scenario.
Fagan – the problem with your argument (apart from 5.) is that MMA is fragmented. The fact that Shinya Aoki is the No.2 ranked lightweight should mean that he is the No.1 contender for BJ Penn’s lightweight title. But he can’t fight BJ Penn. Period.
I like rankings but for the above reasons I’d love to (the subo theory) see all the best fighters under one roof. I would love for the UFC to become the only place for top fighters (but not in it’s current structure) with a bunch of ‘feeder leagues’. However, the UFC would have to substantially change the way they do business.
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully MMA will move in the direction that there will be one clear and established leader and no competitors will spring up. Following this then organisations such as Strikeforce and other orgs become ‘stables’ of sorts. When a strikeforce fighter fights for the UFC then Strikeforce will take a cut of revenues. Of course Strikeforce can still run their own shows but everyone understands that the UFC is the one and only place for top level MMA. It’d be pretty difficult for the UFC to adopt this model though.
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe BE
should consider promotion only rankings? Just divide the meta-rankings up by promotion and publish them. It might make things a lot clearer for those who can’t see past the surface.
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i dont think there’s a need for that.. The promotion their fighting for is already there in the meta rankings, anyone can see who would be the best fighter in their promotion and would see how they are ranked compared to the other guys.. Having separate rankings for promotion would just add even more debate on the accuracy of the rankings.. Imagine people saying hey why is 0-2 in the UFC guy ranked higher than the 1-3 guy??
and so what if bj cant fight aoki.. If its impossible to fight the #2 guy, hen he fights the number 3 guy, no big deal.. The rankings would still show who the #1 fighter should face next..
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 13, 2009 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously I agree with you.
But I have a feeling some people look at the rankings and don’t put that together in their heads.
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The meta rankings are good though b/c it is a snapshot in time as to what the average consensus of the top ten in each division are.
This is the way I see it: too much emphasis gets put on rankings. In most cases they are purely speculative and serve no real purpose besides giving people something to debate, so in that sense, they are fun. In terms of trying to figure out who is better than who they are pretty much garbage. We can use MMA Math as best we can to conjure up a top ten, but we all know that until the fights are actually made they don’t mean much.
Both Fagan and Rome make great points, and they are both right to an extent. The truth is in the creamy-middle.
by mmafiend on Mar 13, 2009 3:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not disagreeing with you but for the record when you say ‘top ten’ you are saying ‘top ten’ based off ability and talent? or based off achievement? or based of their contendership status in relation to their (promotional) champion?
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I think top tens are based mostly off of achievements, but the authors’ own biases for who they perceive to be more talented definitely plays a factor.
by mmafiend on Mar 13, 2009 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep. it should be more about achievements rather than biases on who the author thinks is better..
like with the frank mir fight.. Some people dont give him much credit because they think nog was just off that night..
its a logical argument sure, but he still beat the guy, got to give him credit for that..
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 13, 2009 3:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
coming to think of it – rankings as a snapshot of the Champion and a sequential line of contenders are problematic in terms of title shots.
Anyone care to help me out with this. I’m taking the WW rankings as an example because they are UFC dominated.
Thiago Alves is a clear No.2 due to his victory over then No. 3(?) Josh Koscheck and Jon Fitch’s loss to No.1 GSP.
According to the rankings (minus Jake Shields – who should get an immediate title shot if he came to the UFC (according to the rankings!! – not according to me!!) the person next in line for a title shot would be Carlos Condit.
This would be due to Koscheck losing to Paulo Thaigo (he would have had a shot had he not lost).
My question is – when you lose to the number one in your weight class, should that affect your ranking? I think it should if you are top 2-4.
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
thinking about it this way
WW is really screwed if Alves loses to GSP. There are no challengers. The challengers need to sort themselves out which means:
Fitch, Alves, Condit/Kampmann, Mike Swick, Koscheck need to fight each other to determine the No.1 contender.
The problem is the business side….Fitch/Alves will probably win that round robin (and Kos, Fitch and Swick won’t fight each other) and then you’d have to have a rematch that probably nobody wants to see.
Sigh….GSP needs to go to MW.
by rainmaker6 on Mar 13, 2009 3:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rankings cause cancer.
And by cancer I mean arguments between people on the internet that go in circles because neither will convince the other side.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 13, 2009 4:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
However honest discussions caused by rankings are good.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 13, 2009 4:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THANK YOU
I strongly disagree with Rome’s take.
by klown on Mar 13, 2009 4:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a subject where I can agree with you both depending of the ranking and my own mood _.
by spectaa on Mar 13, 2009 8:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
actually all of the points listed are false except for the final point.
by #5mmafan on Mar 13, 2009 8:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for your deep and insightful analysis
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 13, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i actually was typing out a longer reply this morning but i have to leave for work during the middle so i made it short and sweet, i was up very late watching 6 overtimes. so here is my analysis i dont know how deep it is though.
1. Rankings provide a champion/contenders -this isnt true, the promotions provide both the champions and challengers. unranked or i should say low ranked opponents get title shots on a regular basis. Lesnar, Serra, Leites, post retirement Couture, Sinosic, Horn etc. etc….
2. Rankings provide accountability for promotions -this everyone knows is laughable
3. Rankings provide structure with no offseason -the only structure provided is through the promotions themselves, and are not rankings in MMA also superfluous if by virtue of winning the UFC title one becomes ranked #1 in the vast majority of rankings
4. Rankings offer blueprint for matchmaking -a blueprint is to be followed closely, rankings in realtiy offer nothing more than a mere suggestion for the matchmakers to follow,with other factors appearing to be considered more important.
5. Rankings are fun -this i am in 100% agreement. but to me this is because of the very nature of rankings, subjective and open to a myriad of interpertations.
by #5mmafan on Mar 13, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there any way in which rankings guide any of the UFC divisions? It’s more like the UFC’s booking guides the rankings. The UFC doesn’t care where Mir and Lesnar are on rankings, they have their own internal way of booking fights. Seeing as they basically are the entire MMA industry, they really don’t do much at all for matchmaking.
Further, you can’t claim rankings aren’t predictive and then say they should be used for matchmaking. What do Shogun’s wins a few years ago have to do with matchmaking now? If anything a ranking like Shogun at 5 gives the UFC an excuse to make a mismatch and hope to give Liddell faux credibility when he beats Shogun. If they’re being used for matchmaking, they must be at least partly predictive, since goals in matchmaking are to have competitive fights that tell us something about where the fighters stand.
by Michael Rome on Mar 13, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy
by thetakeover on Mar 13, 2009 11:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good article but I have a question:
I can’t seem to get past this point (which is essentially the problem I raised in commentary to Rome’s article): How do I establish the original tiers/rankings?
Method 1: I start with a set of rankings already established and go on from there (kinda like a lineal championship). This has problems because if those rankings were decent, we wouldn’t need this set of rankings in the first place.
Furthermore, if one follows this path, rankings are completely relative and comparative (i.e. one’s ranking is wholly dependent upon the rankings of those he/she has beaten or lost to and so on). This has a couple problematic ramifications. Firstly, the only rankings that can be done are within each promotion. Secondly, it would seem to create an infinite regress of rankings unless we start arbitrarily with some random set of rankings, which would seem to undercut the point of this grand enterprise.
Method 2: Set up new rankings based upon perceived merit/talent/ability etc. This seems like it might take us right back to the "fighter X would beat fighter Y".
Furthermore, while it accounts for the fractured promotional problem and the infinite regress problem, it has a couple more problems associated with it. Firstly, it’s predictive, which while useful in setting betting lines, seems like it detracts from the actual fights. It would seem to downplay the importance of the actual fights and sets the focus on rankings and predictive models and speculation (which would probably make everybody so damn happy they wouldn’t care; hardcore MMA fans love bitching endlessly about rankings apparently). Secondly, the rankings would become infinitely more contentious, rather than less. Thirdly, technically isn’t an objective truth to argue over here, which pretty much means, it’s worthless to talk about.
How do you solve this issue?
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Mar 13, 2009 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not following how you justify making the leap to the point where rankings can only be done meaningfully on a promotion-by-promotion basis. What is your argument for that? Are you suggesting promotional division makes division-wide rankings either incoherent or unhelpful?
by Luke Thomas on Mar 13, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you suggesting promotional division makes division-wide rankings either incoherent or unhelpful?
It makes it very difficult to say the least, but not necessarily impossible, I suppose. But sometimes it certainly does make them impossible. Here’s an example that shows what I’m talking about: How in the world does one rank the world’s lightweights?
There are roughly two camps, Zuffa and non-Zuffa (Sengoku, DREAM, Strikeforce mostly), with very little competition between the members of the two. If the rankings are based solely on a relative or comparative understanding of rankings, how can one rate members from one either above or below members of the other? E.g. do Shinya Aoki’s wins/losses mean the same as Tyson Griffin’s? Less? More? The comparison can only go on if there is enough common ground.
The best way to alleviate that problem in my mind is to say, “well, clearly fighter X isn’t on the same level as fighter Y because Y’s game is more complete/better/etc.”; however, that just goes back and appeals to talent/ability and that other stuff which is one of the things we’re trying to get away from.
Honestly, my biggest problem is the infinite-regress/arbitrary-ranking bit. It really bugs me and I can’t think of a decent way around it.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Mar 13, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody think I'm pointing out a real problem or am I just crazy?
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Mar 14, 2009 4:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. No they don’t.
2. No they don’t.
3. No they don’t.
4. No they don’t.
5. That’s your opinion.
You’re living in a fantasy world. Rankings should do all of those things, but everybody KNOWS that they don’t.
All they are are something for fanboys to bicker over. The promoters pay them no attention.
by pumaman on Mar 13, 2009 12:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I love...
that guys like you can’t be bothered to explain your points because you’re so amazingly superior to everyone else.
I’m assuming the reason you didn’t expand on any of your bullet points was that you have no argument beyond “nu uh!”
Rankings absolutely DO all of the things Mike mentioned and I fail to see how something like “providing a blueprint” can be brushed off with a simple “no they don’t.”
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 13, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not going to dignify the retarded notion that businessmen care about who the internet says is #1 and #2 in a weightclass. They do what they want without regard to fan/press rankings, no matter what your inflated sense of self importance tells you.
by pumaman on Mar 15, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty simple...
Backup arguments with supporting statements…
- My English Teacher in 8th grade
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 13, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The original writer didn’t support arguments 1-4 with fact, so why should i need any to refute them.\ They’re all ridiculous bare assertions. There is no evidence to support the idea that any promoter uses anyone’s rankings as a bluepprint for matchmaking, for example. Anybody who follows this sport and isn’t full of crap knows promoters make a matchup first and THEN make a statement regarding the fighter’s. Or did you really believe they guy who said cung le vs frank shamrock would determine the #1 slot? Or the guy who said Lawler Vs i-forget-who would be the wamma world champ?
Fact: promoters ignore your rankings. Deal with it.
by pumaman on Mar 15, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rankings are both good and bad and the problems with them arise when people become too attached and put too much stock in them. They should only be taken with a grain of salt and not treated like Bible (as if the Bible is concrete but I digress).
Rankings can be fun, they do give a general idea, they are one opinion based on a bunch of other opinions and shady logic. Promoters DO pay them attention. Dana White often proclaims his opinion on P4P etc. If he didn’t pay them attention, he wouldn’t do it.
by Dooda on Mar 13, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
