The March USA TODAY/SBN Consensus MMA Rankings Are Now Live

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 6:31 PM EDT in Rankings Comment 56 comments

And we're live. Click the sexy badge above to see the March rankings. I'll be frontpaging the commentary over the next 12 hours but you can go ahead and see the top 25 in each weight class at the BE Rankings page.

Like Luke said, this is a big deal for Bloody Elbow, SB Nation and, we like to think, MMA as a whole. USA TODAY is the biggest national daily paper in the country and they're especially known for their sports coverage and their rankings. Having MMA rankings in the country's biggest paper every month, right there with the other major sports, is a big step forward. The fact that they're our rankings is just icing on the cake.

In addition to the folks Luke thanked this morning, I'd like to thank everyone here at the BE who helped me develop and refine the concept of the rankings, Richard Wade who's been doing the hard work of compiling the stats for several months now, SB Nation CEO Jim Bankoff who made this deal happen, Sergio Non at USA TODAY who advocated for the rankings early and often, and especially my good friend Trei Brundrett and his team of tech wizards at the SBN labs.

The press release from SB Nation and USA TODAY is below:

SB Nation Partners with USA TODAY To Offer Definitive MMA Rankings
Top-Selling Newspaper and Largest Sports Blogging Network Team Up to Centralize Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Rankings
For Immediate Release March 25, 2009

Washington, DC - SB Nation, the fastest-growing network of fan-centric online sports communities, in conjunction with America's top-selling newspaper, USA TODAY, announces the launch of the "USA TODAY/SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings" which will collect and average fighter rankings of the top MMA publications.

The rankings, which will offer a definitive perspective of top MMA fighters across all weight-classes, will be released monthly and published in the Sports section of USA TODAY, online at USATODAY.com and on SB Nation's MMA commentary and community blog, BloodyElbow.com at theURL www.bloodyelbow.com/rankings.

The consensus perspective will help to inform MMA fans, encourage debate and seek to quantify subjective opinions within the broader MMA community.

"Fans have been turning to USA TODAY for different sports rankings since our launch 26-years ago," Managing Editor/Sports Monte Lorell said. "This partnership with SB Nation helps us expand our reach into the high-growth area of mixed martial arts."

"SB Nation is committed to enabling high-quality fan conversations across all sports," said Jim Bankoff, Chairman and CEO of SB Nation. "Partnering with USA TODAY further validates the voices and opinions of MMA fans everywhere. We are sure it will stimulate strong debate and analysis throughout the MMA community."

The USA TODAY/SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings are compiled each month by Nate Wilcox and Richard Wade of BloodyElbow.com. The rankings utilize each of the top MMA rankings from multiple unique sources. A weighted-formula is applied to normalize and distill the various rankings into one consensus ranking per weight class.

"This collaboration presents another step forward for MMA," said BloodyElbow.com's Editor-in-Chief, Luke Thomas. "The consistent ranking of MMA fighters will give readers a comprehensive picture on the sport. We are thrilled to be working with USA TODAY to offer this centralized ranking for avid fans of MMA as well as new converts."

About SB Nation
SB Nation is an owned and operated network of nearly 200 (and growing) individually branded web communities that reach nearly five million monthly unique visitors. Each site offers high quality year-round coverage and conversations led by professional bloggers who are passionate fans of their favorite teams, leagues or sports. SB Nation takes a different approach to online sports media by giving audiences distinct team and sport-specific experiences. A complete directory of SB Nation's websites can be found at SBNation.com.

0 recs | Comment 56 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is so cool!

A huge step up in graphic professionalism. I especially love the little “Kid Nate says:” boxes at the bottom!

"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy

by thetakeover on Mar 25, 2009 6:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Are you guys ever going to do anything about some of the ranked fighters like Rich Franklin, which appears in 2 different classes? He is probably the #3 MW but he kind of suffers because a lot of publications moved him to LHW.

Also this is a good time for me to say that anyone that thinks Robbie Lawler is a top 10 MW is retarded.

by dumbwhiteguy on Mar 25, 2009 6:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was just about to say something like that. There really should be a normalization process in which BE picks a weight class and normalizes rankings between classes for that class.

by Michaelthebox on Mar 25, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that would distort things

Because each ranking site is given so many points per division to distribute, if they choose to rank Franklin at middleweight and not light heavy it would be giving them extra points to teleport his status across divisions.

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In my perfect world, a guy like Franklin is taken out of consideration for 185 if he has not fought in that division for a year and has no fight upcoming/announced/scheduled in that division.

Kind of like teh 1 year inactivity thing going around.

If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.

by BJJDenver on Mar 25, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the methodology of the rankings

kind of prevents us from doing that.
we’re reflecting what the MMA community thinks, not making decisions for them based on how we think things ought to be.

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we’re reflecting what the MMA community thinks

Uh, no, you aren’t.

You’re taking what the MMA community thinks, filtering it through a system that has a clear and obvious flaw, and then claiming to represent what the overall community thinks. The overall community thinks Rich Franklin is a better fighter than the BE system says, however they disagree with what division he should be placed in. Averaging the results and claiming that Rich Franklin is an inferior fighter who belongs in two different divisions is not a result any site would agree with.

by Michaelthebox on Mar 25, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about

we’re doing our best to reflect what the mma community thinks?

Why don’t you come up with a system that works better to solve that flaw?

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could average the rankings for fighters listed in multiple weight classes by the number of polls that rank them in a given class rather than by the total number of polls. To compensate for the fact that they might legitimately be unranked on some polls divide the total number of polls they are ranked (all weight classes) in by the total number of polls (capping the maximum at 1.0) and multiply that by the average of each weight class.

by thekiltedwonder on Mar 25, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I don’t think that would work.

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 25, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are. It’s not perfect, but it seems to make things a bit fairer. I’ll email you an example workup of Rich Franklin.

by thekiltedwonder on Mar 25, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on now, Kid Nate. You want to run a website with rankings that claim to be “concensus,” you need to be prepared to accept criticism that the rankings aren’t actually concensus.

If there is a flaw in the system, acknowledge it or correct it. I would, but I have better things to do and I don’t have any stake in your system.

by Michaelthebox on Mar 26, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we recognize

that that is a bit of a distortion of the intention of the rankings.
Its also a bafflingly difficult math problem to solve if not outright impossible.
The original metas concept was developed in the BE comment threads with inputs from our readers. I was hoping to continue that process with this problem.
If you don’t want to help that’s fine, but there’s no need to be a dick.

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 26, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m open to some tweaking around the issue of a fighter competing in two weight classes, but that’s it. The other issues being raised by some members here still fail to grasp the fundamental premise of the rankings: if there are only 6 or 7 sites that rank 11 to 25, oh well. All that means is that the MMA ranking community is not exhaustive or developed enough to have thorough rankings across consistently produced to that extent. These rankings reflect that reality.

To the mathematical extent possible, we are trying to hold a mirror up to the ranking community – warts and all – and let people look into what image is created. The idea that there is some obvious mathematical formula right around the corner that can adjust these “obvious flaws” is nonsense. Changing the formula we have is neither easy nor bereft of opportunity cost. We owe it to ourselves to take a second look at the methodology to see if there’s a repair we can make, but if you think it’s a simple procedure that can easily correct what we already have, then produce it. Because all of the stat guys were consulting and all of our homework tells us your vision of things seems illusory. We’ll work on it, but we ask those who seem to have all the answers to come forward. If you don’t have any answers, then I don’t know what to tell you.

by Luke Thomas on Mar 26, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

If you pose an actual solution, I’ll implement it.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Include a poll of fans as part of the calculation?

Computer and coaches rankings?

BCS?

Tape the names of the fighters to turtles and race them?

/jokes

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the last one.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the first :-O

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I’m asking for is a disclaimer. Preferably one that says “Rich Franklin is the for real #3 MW and is better than Robbie Lawler”.

by dumbwhiteguy on Mar 25, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rankings are not a measure of who is the “better” fighter.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 25, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is a thing of beauty.

by who me on Mar 25, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The page looks fantastic… just need to add a tab up top beside Schedule or Home.

by Nick Thomas on Mar 25, 2009 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like the page alot.

I will play my game beneath the spin light.
Absurd Meridian

by Eugene Schelfaut on Mar 25, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's pretty cool.

But why is Eddie Alvarez said to be signed by K-1 as opposed to DREAM (or DREAM/Bellator)?

"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 25, 2009 7:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

his last fight was on a k-1 card

but I’ll change to reflect the move to Bellator, which I believe is exclusive.

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All fighters are listed by the organization they last fought for.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or rather they were when I initially made the tables. Nate decided to update them to be their current promotion.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah talking with the USA Today guys

we decided to go with current promotion even if that creates some ambiguities.

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some minor differences

In the paper, you’ll see a couple of minor differences. We’re going to list a couple of guys as unsigned if we have no idea what the heck they’re doing.

The rest of the differences are to make it easier for our readers. We’ll probably (last I heard) go with Sengoku rather than WVR. And we wanted to have Alvarez at Bellator because we have a story running next to the rankings that mentions Alvarez fighting for Bellator. Didn’t want to throw people off, even though going by last organization is, of course, completely valid as well.

It’s going to be tough at times, no doubt. We’ll have guys who are in between, guys who say they’re signing but really haven’t, etc. We’ll work through that as best we can — and, of course, the people here will generally know where all the top-10 guys are going, anyway.

by Beau Dure on Mar 25, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I only went with “most recent” because I actually have that information available to me.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t go soft on me, now.

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great job, guys! Keep up the good work.

by AnonymousA on Mar 25, 2009 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you're going to do that with CC and Alvarez

Shouldn’t Caol Uno be a UFC fighter?

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 7:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and what the French is ‘Ultimate Glory’ (Overeem’s org)?

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good catch!

thanks

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

by Kid Nate on Mar 25, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Congratulations, this is definitely pretty rad. I don’t suppose we’ll get regular rankings for Feather and Bantamweight though? Maybe not a top 25 yet, but like a top 20 for FW and maybe a top 15 for BW?

by Chromium on Mar 25, 2009 7:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We have Feather and Bantamweight rankings for March. They’re just not part of the USAT/SBN deal.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, there’s always next time.

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea subo had.

Have the posters from BE do a ranking. We have a lot of informed readers who could rank top 20 fighters. I would love to see where we would put fighters as a collective community.

by Riney on Mar 25, 2009 8:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m thinking about it.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man, really?

I suppose it would be fun and ultimately allow the ban hammer to drop a couple of times, but as much as people bitch about BJ/Fedor nuthuggers and so on, could you imagine some of the things we would see, lol??? Yeah that was all one sentence!

If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.

by BJJDenver on Mar 25, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to follow that up with a BJ Penn NOT in the top 10 would ruin it. I see more BJ haters than nut huggers. Maybe make it a Vote ONLY pole. no comments allowed.

by Riney on Mar 25, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man, anything that brings the crazy out of people is good by me. I think it would make an excellent addition – NOT replacement – for what our boys have cooked out here. Let the unwashed masses smooth out the rough edges a little bit.

by subo on Mar 25, 2009 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

alright subo and riney, you convinced me. I’m IN!!!

If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.

by BJJDenver on Mar 25, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You wouldn’t be posting your rankings in the comments if we did it. You’d be using a widget of some sort created by the fine people at SB Nation to vote.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I want 2 votes, just to make people mad, lol

If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.

by BJJDenver on Mar 25, 2009 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even better, vote to unrank fighters =D

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on Mar 25, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think I have enough knowledge to Rank fighters 1 thru 25. Maybe stop at 15 for us uninformed tards :-).

by Riney on Mar 25, 2009 8:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That was my other thought. Not that you are an uninformed tard, but so many of the fans lack knowledge of guys beyond top 10, or outside the UFC or of the lighter weights, or of Asian fighters, and so on.

But like I said, I’m in!

If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.

by BJJDenver on Mar 25, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might be best to make something like that more of a multiple choice, give a list of the top 25 and let people rank the top ten out of that. There would still be some odd stuff but it would at least stop people from Justin McCullying up the list. it would also allow people who don’t know all the names put a bit of research to their rankings.

by who me on Mar 25, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’re kicking around a number of ideas. What you mentioned is certainly a possibility.

by Richard Wade on Mar 25, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In general it sounds like a lot of fun I would just worry about a bunch of wise crackers skewing the results or Stephen Colbert ending up the number one welterweight in the world, having a preset list of canidates would stop that for the most part.

by who me on Mar 25, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Having anyone whose a Bloody Elbow member being able to vote on this probably would be a bad idea. I fully admit I’m not qualified to attempt to rank the top 25 in any division, or even the top 10 in most. I couldn’t pick Nick “The Goat” Thompson out of a lineup, much less have I seen any of his fights, and according to the meta-rankings he’s the world’s #11 Welterweight. If you want to add a BE-created list as an additional source for the meta-rankings, selected by editors and some regular posters deemed to be absolute experts who watch every major promotion worldwide regularly, that would sound fine to me.

by Chromium on Mar 26, 2009 2:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs