FightLines: UFC Light Heavyweights

by Mike Fagan on Mar 15, 2009 9:42 PM EDT in News Comment 17 comments

GRIFFIN > BONNAR > JARDINE > GRIFFIN & JARDINE > GRIFFIN > JACKSON > JARDINE *

JARDINE > LIDDELL > W SILVA > JARDINE

* - The ampersand indicates a "double loop." In this case the Griffin/Jardine fight was an equal part of two separate three fighter loops.

As always, click the link for the full-scale version. Lossless version available by e-mailing me. I took out the TUF 8 fights because they have next to no relevance. I also made a mistake with two Jason Lambert nodes, but it's of no consequence.

Notes:

The loops really hurt Keith Jardine and Forrest Griffin who lose their victories over Chuck Liddell and Quinton Jackson respectively (and consequently are stuck with their losses to Houston Alexander and Tito Ortiz).

On merit alone, it looks like Quinton Jackson and Lyoto Machida are both worthy of their title shot guarantees.

I'm not a huge fan of Stephan Bonnar taking on Mark Coleman, though that's rooted in my feeling that Coleman shouldn't be fighting. I'd rather see Bonnar fight Thiago Silva or a rematch with Jardine.

Chuck Liddell gains nothing if he defeats Mauricio Rua at UFC 97. Though it's still an interesting and relevant fight.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This division is too circular to really do this sort of chart.

by AlwaysRelaxing on Mar 15, 2009 10:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know if I would say circular. I think logjammed is a better description.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 15, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fight Lines for Dummies?

Would someone smarter than I explain to me what I’m looking at? It looks interesting, but I feel like I’m in Spanish class again sitting in the back wondering what the fuck everyone is talking about.

http://www.mma-collective.com/

by schizosmurf on Mar 15, 2009 10:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

essentially

the Fight Lines document who’s beaten who.
Fighters in green haven’t been beaten, blue fighters have only been beaten once, yellow fighters have multiple losses.
The loops list fighters who are in A beats B beats C beats A situation. In those cases, none of the fights are listed on the fightlines.

"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"

by Kid Nate on Mar 15, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Here’s an FAQ I did on it: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/7/23/577161/fight-lines-the-faq

If you have any questions, please ask.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 15, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thx

ahh it makes a bit more sense. gracias amigos

http://www.mma-collective.com/

by schizosmurf on Mar 16, 2009 7:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

JARDINE > LIDDELL > W SILVA > JARDINE

Lets add Rampage too that loop. Cause why the hell not.

JACKSON>JARDINE > LIDDELL > W SILVA > JACKSON>W SILVA>JARDINE

Keep firing Assholes!

by Ubernoober on Mar 15, 2009 11:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know if this is a bad joke or bad criticism.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 15, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hard to say.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Mar 15, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think...

it’s a guy not understanding how this works

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 16, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

= Asterisk. & = ampersand

Ridiculous? I think Not.
Upside? Plenty.
RidiculousUpside

by Scott Schroeder on Mar 16, 2009 4:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That sure looks more like a bullet point than an asterisk.

by Richard Wade on Mar 16, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was referring to the ampersand in between the two loops. Not the asterisk that I used to point out what the ampersand was about.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jardine’s inconsistency makes this chart all messed up

by EazyEismydad on Mar 16, 2009 4:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Did Machida’s win over Soku get missed?

by Dooda on Mar 16, 2009 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m still curious about how Fight Lines can be resolved into linear rankings. (It’s because I believe rankings should be merit-based, that is, based on actual victories, not speculation and subjectivity.)

I don’t know if “flaws” is the right word, but the 2 things that make Fight Lines incompatible with rankings are loops, and the element of time. One intervention about the time factor is setting a cut-off point, which Fight Lines does already, but it’s not enough. There needs to be a further intervention to ensure the rankings are more reflective of reality.

The simplest way: recent fights need to be weighted over older fights. It’s just wrong to have Griffin ranked over Ortiz considering all the fights they each have gone through since then. The very same tweak (weighting more recent over older fights) can also eliminate loops.

Whether this can be visually implemented on the charts, I’m not smart enough to figure out, but it certainly helps transform Fight Lines into rankings. And with those principles in mind, I humbly present you with my merit-based ranking of the LHW division.

1. Evans
2. Griffin
3. Jackson
4. Henderson
5. Liddell
6. W.Silva
7. Jardine
8. Rua
9. Machida
10. Ortiz
11. Cane
12. Sobral
13. Sokoudjou
14. Nogueira

by klown on Mar 16, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs