Missing the Point on WAMMA and Rankings
There's been some serious failure to communicate in the whole WAMMA/ESPN vs Bloody Elbow/USA TODAY thing.
Fightlinker, gets the point and then dismisses it and wanders off into a comparison of the rankings:
I’m not going to disagree that WAMMA’s ranking schism is little more than a front for trying to get their stupid sanctioning body scheme up and going. And perhaps I’m not recognizing the danger WAMMA represents when it comes to muddying up the champion waters. But I simply can’t take an organization that gives out velcro-strap belts (or no belt at all, in Shinya Aoki’s case) seriously. So I can’t join up with Bloody Elbow in their anger.
If you strip away the preposterous idea that WAMMA will somehow succeed at creating a inter-promotional belt recognized by all to be the one true belt, there’s not much left to get pissy about. Bloody Elbow’s rankings are meta-rankings that take into account what all the other sites are saying. WAMMA’s is a similar system where they collect the rankings of a bunch of well-respected MMA journalists.
Truth be told, when you line the two systems up, I think WAMMA’s might actually come out on top. It has a wider range of legitimate participants, while the Bloody Elbow meta-rankings are bogged down with a number of websites I’ve never heard of. While MMARocks.pl and MMA4Real.net might have some very legitimate top 10 lists, guys like John McCarthy and Pat Miletich just might have an edge on them. I dunno. That’s my thought at least.
Then Cage Pototo does the same:
"MMA Live" has begun incorporating rankings from WAMMA recently. This has the guys from Bloody Elbow in a twist because they just partnered with USA Today to feature their "meta-rankings," and because they generally hate WAMMA.
I’m one of WAMMA’s rankings pollsters, so I can understand some frustration and confusion with some of WAMMA’s moves. Naming Shinya Aoki champion, for instance? I love the Man in Tights as much as anyone, but he’s not the world’s best lightweight and everbody knows it.
WAMMA seems intent on giving out fairly meaningless titles to the best fighters not in the UFC, and that’s kind of dumb but it's also not really hurting anybody. And just because WAMMA's executives make some stupid decisions and appear in hilarious photos from time to time, it's not any reason to invalidate the actual rankings, which the executives have nothing to do with.
He also makes an "appeal to authority" argument and adds a lecture about rankings being just for fun.
This is great. Since we launched the Meta-rankings we've had to explain over and over and over again that 1) rankings are basically subjective 2) we don't believe its really possible to rank fighters in any truly definitive way and 3) our goal is to reflect as accurately as possible how the greater MMA community ranks the fighters not impose some perfect ranking from on high.
Now we get to explain that to our fellow bloggers as well.
But that's not the point. The point of our problem with WAMMA is that they're self-dealing and want to muscle their way into MMA just like the sanctioning bodies did in boxing. Remember boxing? It used to be the world's greatest combat sport. The heavyweight champion was the world's leading athlete for most of the 20th Century. No one has done more to damage boxing than the sanctioning bodies.
Its not about whose rankings are better or whose dick is bigger, its about who is trying to make an honest effort to improve the sport and our understanding of it.
BloodyElbow doesn't have a self-interested agenda. WAMMA does.
To recap: both Fightlinker and CagePotato admit up front that WAMMA are self-dealing and manipulate their rankings to further their own sleazy agenda. But then they say it doesn't matter because WAMMA uses a bunch of celebrity judges and BloodyElbow uses a bunch of obscure jerks and losers (neglecting to mention that we use the rankings of every WAMMA judge who makes their rankings public).
The biggest advantage the USAT/SBN Consensus MMA Rankings have over WAMMA is this: our process is transparent and impossible to manipulate; theirs is closed and they manipulate it to benefit their business agenda.
The point is, WAMMA is a cancer on the sport. Right now they're a tiny tiny speck in the prostate, but the ESPN deal is the first indication that they are beginning to spread throughout the body of MMA.
If WAMMA wins, we can look forward to the atomization of MMA by the corrupt just like what happened to boxing.
This commenter at CP makes the case better than I can:
And Brent Brookhouse adds this:
WAMMA's rankings are fine...the people involved are generally on the level and are well respected. But WAMMA is using these rankings to fuel their own goals, not to provide an accurate representation of where divisions stand. Were these rankings simply used to show who deserves to be thought of where in the division that'd be great. Instead they exist so that the first chance there is for 2 fighters to be in the top 10 and not in the UFC they can sanction a fight and claim that the winner is then "undisputed." They're taking these legitimate rankings and mangling them into twisted self-serving bullshit.
0 recs |
214 comments
|
Comments
I think the hardcore fans somehow think that rankings and crazy title belts such as WAMMA will hurt the sport.
For the vast majority of fans….. It is the UFC, and that is it. UFC Champions are the #1 in the world. UFC fighters are the best in the world. If it’s not in the UFC, it is either secondary, or it doesn’t even exist.
These ranks won’t change that at all.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Mar 30, 2009 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They wouldn’t really hurt the sport if it was done in a way that actually worked but the WAMMA belt system is broken and they portray themselves as “official” and “undisputed” when they are neither. Right now it is an humourous annoyance but when casual fans of the sport hear that they are “official” then it will confuse things and could become a real issue (them being attached to MMA live will get them a lot more exposure, particularly once that show gets a tv timeslot). WAMMA is a for profit organization and with that comes a built in bias (it exist to make money), there is nothing wrong with wanting to make money but you can’t pretend to be unbiased when you have a huge built in bias like that. It’s not about organizations it’s about fighters, you can’t be a sanctioning body for just part of the fighters in the sport and call yourself “official” or “undisputed”.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the WAMMA system stinks. However, I disagree with how it will effect the sport.
1. Just because it is called official, really means nothing.
2. MMA Live isn’t going to be on TV anytime soon. And if it is, it won’t get enough coverage to matter. The guys in Bristol, CT don’t understand combat sports.
Don’t get me wrong. I see WAMMA as a virus. They are corrupt and self serving. A guy like Sam Caplan should be ashamed to be part of them. Heck, I think it says a lot that he is involved with him. The concept of WAMMA just won’t work in this sport. First, it would need to allow all organizations to be eligible, whether they want to work with WAMMA or not. Secondly, they would have to be non-profit. Lastly, there just sin’t interpromotional events that happen. Pat Miletich talks about how Shinya Aoki can be a WAMMA Champion and BJ Penn can’t because Penn works in a company that doesn’t work with others. I highly doubt Shinya Aoki is fighting outside of DREAM anytime in the next 2 or 3 years. No major star for any top organization will work outside of their group.
Either way, WAMMA isn’t going to effect anything. If anything, if people stop talking about it….. It will eventually go away. Giving it attention, in a way, builds it up.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Mar 30, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The buys in Bristol may or may not understand fight sports but one thing they do understand is money, when MMA has enough eyes behind it (particularly enough eyes in the right demographics) then they will give it more airtime. WAMMA being mentioned on Sports Center or by any of the talking heads on ESPN does give it coverage. I don’t think that it would go away if people on the internet stopped talking about it as most of the people on the internet already know what is what with this but if it ever does get any traction with casual fans then there will be a mess.
There is danger in thinking that they won’t ever effect anything because they could in the future. Who would of thought the UFC would change the future face of fight sports so drastically back in the late 90’s? Who would of thought that the Japanese market Pride FC would of had the effect it has had on the US fight sport scene? Things will change, they always do, but that doesn’t neccessarily mean they will change for the better. If the guys putting up all the money for WAMMA didn’t think they had a real shot at getting entrenched in the sport they wouldn’t of started it to begin with.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This idea that if we all just ignored WAMMA then they’d go away is pure fantasy. Do people not understand how motivated they are to make WAMMA some kind of industry standard? They will continue whether we talk about them or not. They are incredibly self-motivated. I admit we’re giving them publicity, but being critical of what they are doing is critical. They will either try to succeed with or without criticism. We might as well issue our complaints.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 30, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
People are also severely underestimating how important the MMA Live thing is. Yeah, it’s just an internet show. But WAMMA convinced the national sports leader that they are worthy enough to partner with. That means that using things like “official” and selling themselves as important is working with the people who matter in the media. The guys making the decisions for what goes on air aren’t going to know a ton about MMA, but if they buy into the sanctioning body concept they’re going to give WAMMA credibility that they’ve not yet earned
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This idea that if we all just ignored WAMMA then they’d go away is pure fantasy.
Nail on the head, Luke. I really do think that if we’re opposed to what WAMMA is trying to do, then we should voice this opposition as vocally as possible. They’re making headway, IMO, and I for one was quite disturbed to find they had partnered with MMA Live. Eventually this show, or some version of this show will be on TV, and the last thing we want is for them to be considered “official.” Every step they take towards the mainstream means that’s one step closer to their goal. Before you know it, those little steps they’ve been taking add up to one big cluster fuck.
by pud333 on Mar 30, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you Luke, but should we not do more than just write articles? That is mostly just preaching to the choir.
What about boycotting MMA Live due to their inclusion of WAMMA rankings? Maybe a petition that we could send their way?
"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 30, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think boycotting is the right answer. My sense is that ESPN strategically made a mistake here. I believe they could be a valuable asset to the community and over time correct that error, so it behooves us – at this stage anyway – to explain the case for why WAMMA should not be included. Outright stiff arming is a little strong.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 30, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore...
the last thing we want is ESPN to misread the number decline as not an action against WAMMA but as “see, people don’t care about MMA as much as some people thought”
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, but as viewers our best method of voicing our displeasure is by not watching. Nonetheless, would we not be better served by perhaps sending a note/petition/etc. with a list of names attached that made clear our distaste for WAMMA and why MMA Live/ESPN shouldn’t be in bed with them?
"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 30, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vote...
that everyone write ESPN and say that I should be on as a guest the next time Miletich is on presenting their rankings for a friendly debate.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I’m so there. Somebody should write up a fanpost to get out the word.
"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 30, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I nominate subo. :)
"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 30, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posts like this keep me coming back to BloodyElbow. Good work.
by dumbwhiteguy on Mar 30, 2009 9:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Even shamwow wont be able to wipe up the mess they create for the sport.
by DirtyML on Mar 30, 2009 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Of course not – he’s in jail.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NNNNOOOOOOO!
Say it ain’t so Vince!
Shamwow is the greatest product ever
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whats so hard to understand with "consensus" rankings?
it is not bloodyelbow’s opinion.. It is the opinion of all the other sites who give out rankings, INCLUDING WAMMA.. so i dont get whats the problem with it…
and how is WAMMA’s rankings “better”??
they are part of the several websites BE considers there, so i don’t get how 1 site can be better than the consensus.. especially if that 1 site has an ulterior motive..
and again, people hate on wamma’s policies, motives and biases, not their rankings..
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 30, 2009 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fightlinker needs to get it right
It’s mmaforreal.com
http://www.mmaforreal.com
by Kelvin Hunt on Mar 30, 2009 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I find that WAMMA’s rankings are more self promotion than anything else. They are controversial for the sake of being controversial with having Aoki as the #1 lightweight. They can’t get BJ Penn… so… name someone else. As soon as Robbie Lawler strings together a couple more victories and anderson silva retires, they’ll put his as the undisputed #1 middleweight. What about Hendo, Marquardt, or Maia? Thats my personal opinion atleast.
I like 4 rankings. Bloody Elbows’, Sherdog’s, MMA Weekly’s, and my own personal opinion. Each offers a different perspective, while I don’t see any of those making an attempt to become a sanctioning body any time soon. I do see WAMMA attempting to copromote shows in the near future. This again is just pure opinion on my part. I wouldn’t care about official UFC rankings other than to see who would be next in line for a shot, because the UFC would taint them to promote certain fighters. Likewise with WAMMA. If all the #1 fighters are in the UFC, then WAMMA loses all relevance. And who wouldn’t fight or taint rankings to remain relevant?
by MicahW on Mar 30, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing...
their own rankings would have Penn ahead of Aoki. I’ve heard several members of WAMMA’s own ranking board say that Penn would be ranked ahead of him but because Aoki is champion he isn’t ranked at all. You can’t “vote” for Aoki in any position, he just gets to sit atop the division as “undisputed lightweight champion” without it being exposed that he wouldn’t even be #1 in their own rankings.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well hopefully Aoki and his magic pants run through the Dream WW GP and keep him out of the LW division for the whole year, so WAMMA will have to strip him of the belt that they never gave him.
by Phildo on Mar 30, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s about to happen to BJ anyway. But his is by choice. He chose to not fight between May 2008 & January 2009. Word is he has injuries that are withholding him from fighting again at LW until August 2009. But 15 months between LW fights should remove a person from the rankings. It’s really unknown how good he’ll be when he’s back. Sorry to go so off topic.
by MicahW on Mar 30, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In their own ranking guidelines
they say that if you hold a major belt you can’t be dropped from the rankings for inactivity. So that SHOULD prevent him from getting dropped
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he holds a title and chose to not defend it. i still believe he is the #1 light weight, but i don’t believe that he has proven his rank as an active fighter. he simply hasn’t allowed his rank to be challenged or his title to be challenged.
I would say the same thing for Fedor though with a twist. He consistently fought people who didnt matter. I’d say you need to fight someone in the top 10-15 to stay ranked. Imagine if he starts to feel himself slow and fought nobodies until he is 65 (which he could probably do). Theoretically, he’d never lose his WAMMA title, and never lose his #1 status?
by MicahW on Mar 30, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get what you're saying...
I’m just saying that WAMMA’s guidelines for how people are supposed to rank should prevent BJ from dropping off.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn I love BE
Also, people need to get it. WAMMA apologists’ main claim appears to be that WAMMA is harmless. They are not. Nor are they altruistic. These shenanigans (aka WAMMA) need to stop before they get out of hand.
Kuwabara Kuwabara
by J. B. Maddox on Mar 30, 2009 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One of my biggest problems with WAMMA is that they claim that their goal is to bring clarity to the sport, but adding extra belts to the mix does the opposite.
by Jahbulon on Mar 30, 2009 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand why an promotion
would want one of their fighters to be a “WAMMA Champ” in the first place. Its a title that they inheriently don’t control (e.g. it can walk out the door at any time and the promotion gets nothing for building it up).
You would think that any self-respecting promotion would want to have their own promotion champions and be able to promote them for big fights.
Right now Affliction has the HW WAMMA Champ in Fedor…but lets say something happens to that, something that removes the title from Fedor and then WAMMA annoints some guy outside of Affliction as the new HW WAMMA Champ…Affliction just spent how much time and money building the prestige of that title just to have it benefit some other promotion? Stupid business model, so no wonder Affliction is on board with it.
by Razreshat on Mar 30, 2009 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
that is another odd thing...
in that situation Affliction would not only lose the WAMMA title…they would then have to create their own heavyweight belt (should they still be around and wanting to have champions) which is immediately worth less than the belt that they previously had. It’s…bizarre at best
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“BloodyElbow doesn’t have a self-interested agenda. WAMMA does.”
Is this really the case? It seems pretty evident that Bloody Elbow has an anti-WAMMA agenda. The competing national ranking system just makes the reason why more explicit. While many of your points are valid, the power of your argument seems to be dilluted by an obvious conflict of interest. BE, simply put, has a dog in this race.
“they are part of the several websites BE considers there, so i don’t get how 1 site can be better than the consensus.. especially if that 1 site has an ulterior motive..”
One ranking system can be better than “consensus” if the consensus is a collection of less sophisticated voters. I’m not saying this is the case here, but the consensus opinion is only as good as the polling body. In BE’s case, I think the polling body is a good one. I like the meta-rankings.
WAMMA rankings, by the way, are also formed by the opinions of many. They work much like the BE rankings.
For the sake of transparency, I should mention I am a WAMMA voter.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 12:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It seems pretty evident that Bloody Elbow has an anti-WAMMA agenda.
Well, yeah, because one of the writers came right out and said he thinks WAMMA is bad for the sport and wants to get rid of it. That’s not an agenda, that’s a pretty damn clear statement of intent. But that has NOTHING to do with the “competing ranking system” that you mention next; that’s a complete red herring. Most of the staff here – and to be fair, the community here as well – has been anti-WAMMA since the day they announced themselves because the flaws in the organization are very obvious and potentially damaging to the sport. It’s not as if ANYONE has ever hidden how they felt, before or after the BE rankings were picked up by USA Today. I doubt anyone around BE is sitting around trying to figure out how to compete with WAMMA…
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Mar 30, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What seems to keep falling through the cracks is that this isn’t about the ranking system it’s about what is done with those rankings. BE doesn’t sanction fights or award belts, WAMMA does, that is the whole reason they exist. People want to make this about rankings vs rankings or that this has something to do with competing rankings but it doesn’t, it’s about what they are using the rankings for. BE doesn’t use the rankings for anything at all, they are for informative and entertainment purposes, WAMMA is using it’s rankings for the purpose of determining fights to sanction as a for profit venture. No one is attacking the WAMMA rankings or trying to downplay them they are being critical about what WAMMA does with them.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I welcome you...
to go back and read through my WAMMA stuff. I have been vocally anti-WAMMA since well before our rankings gained any sort of traction beyond just being something people on this site liked to look at.
I started by conducting a phone interview with Dave Szady and Mike Lynch to let them explain their stance even though prior to the interview I told them that I don’t agree with their intentions for the sport. But in the interest of being fair I wanted to let them state things in their own words before I jumped their shit or anything.
I then let our readers ask questions of Dave, Mike and Pat Miletich so that anything people wish had been asked and answered was…it was a town hall type of situation. That one can be found here. It was another attempt to make sure that they were able to address questions so that we weren’t just blindly firing shots.
A lot of things that came up in those two interviews cemented my view on them so I made my stance clear in this piece.
I’ve written several more articles about them. But I should say that I’ve been clear that my problem aren’t with the rankings or ranking board but rather what they are doing with the data coming out of them. My biggest problem right now with the ESPN situation is that the rankings are being presented by a SANCTIONING BODY. That would never fly in boxing or any other similarly structured sport and I’m surprised ESPN would roll with it. I wrote a piece on that which can be read here.
Now do I think our rankings are better? Yeah, if for no other reason than the “champion situation” skews the honest view of the status of the division. Would Aoki really be ranked above Penn were you able to vote for him rather than just listing him as “undisputed champion?” We don’t get to know that because of the structure.
And Nate certainly doesn’t speak for me. I’ve very much in the camp that WAMMA is not a good thing for the sport and I would like to see them go away and am determined to do my part to make that happen. Again, that isn’t an agenda aimed at getting our rankings more recognized than theirs…it’s that I don’t think they are completely honest and above board with what they do and can potentially damage the sport in a lot of ways.
As someone who thinks in business terms, do I want their spot on MMA Live to be filled by our rankings? Hell yeah, I’d be an idiot and a liar to say no. But that isn’t fueling my stance by any means.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
*I'm very much in the camp...
damn lack of an edit button
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
" I have been vocally anti-WAMMA since well before our rankings gained any sort of traction beyond just being something people on this site liked to look at."
I see that. I also see that the pace of anti-WAMMA posts has increased dramatically in the last month. Are we to believe that is a coincidence? That it is unrelated to your own national rankings? Even if that is the case, do you really not see how outsiders might get that impression?
I don’t understand how a sanctioning body is an inherent evil. If the rankings are created honestly, what is the issue? The problem comes with a corrupt sanctioning body.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is a sanctioning body refusing to recognize the people their rankings say are #1 as the champion not corrupt?
by Phildo on Mar 30, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that they aren’t created honestly when you take into account the belt. Shinya Aoki would not be the number one lightweight in WAMMA’s rankings had he not arbitrarily been given a belt that says he is.
Also, there’s an argument that WAMMA is corrupt just based on its refusal to award their belt to the winner of any 1vs2 match up that takes place in the UFC.
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 30, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
the ESPN thing is a very important moment. And it warrants that extra level of attention in my eyes.
I keep going back to the one quote from them but the fact that they would say that Lindland/Lawler would have made their grade for an UNDISPUTED TITLE FIGHT shows that there is a level of corruption or at the very least dishonesty involved. You can not sell yourself as above board and “all knowing” when you would put either of those guys ahead of Anderson Silva and say they are the “undisputed” king of the division.
When shown to people who don’t know better (which we have to consider the majority of ESPN viewers would be should this ever move to the air) it does not provide an honest picture of the division and that is very important.
The problem is, again, that you guys provide good rankings (or as good as you can given fighters like Aoki being removed from voting) and they are used for a goal beyond just showing the status of the division. Again with lightweight we have no clear view of who the WAMMA ranking committee feels is the #1 lightweight in the world (and several voters have said publicly that they’d vote Penn over Aoki). Instead someone viewing the rankings would be led to believe that the ranking committee thinks that Aoki is the best fighter at 155 without dispute.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the critique. I just don’t understand why WAMMA is necessarilly the villian here. Why is there no criticism of the UFC for not allowing their fighters to compete with the world’s best? Isn’t that the issue? Why doesn’t Zuffa want to help determine who the best fighters in the world are? Hasn’t WAMMA been forced into a corner? I don’t see much discussion about the real underlying issues here.
And why, if we are concerned about legitimacy, is there so little criticism of the UFC’s lack of rankings? How are decisions made about which fighters are in title contention? Why is there no transparent ranking of UFC fighters? If they aren’t cooperating with WAMMA, shouldn’t they at least develop a consistent ranking system of their own?
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Over the years, there has been plenty of criticism of the UFC for the way they handle their contracts and how they don’t cross promote. Regardless of what the UFC is doing, they didn’t make WAMMA out to be a bunch of liars. WAMMA did it themselves. Sorry, but I can’t trust WAMMA when they prove themselves to be dishonest by their own actions.
by pud333 on Mar 30, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Showing an agenda of your own maybe? WAMMA says they are above all promotional bias while their actions say they are mired up to their eyeballs in it.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 30, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have an agenda. I think BE’s rankings are great. I am not speaking for WAMMA and don’t have any special knowledge of the group’s operation or intentions. But I think it is clear that WAMMA doesn’t have a promotional bias. They would love to work with the UFC to help clear up the question of who the world’s top fighters are.
I think it is fairly clear that in some weight classes, without a major shakeup of talent, the WAMMA Champion will function as the “Non-Zuffa” Champion rather than the undisputed champion. That is unfortunate, but I don’t see how the blame for that rests on WAMMA’s shoulders.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to see them present the rankings in that way...
Miletich briefly glazed over it on MMA Live, but they have to stop using undisputed championship if there is a healthy amount of dispute. That’s a lot of it. It is being presented in a way that differs from reality and that can skew the views of those who don’t know better
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This. I just want them to own up to their own bullshit.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 30, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course they have a promotional bias, whether it is intentional or not they treat different fighters in different organizations in a different manner. Zuffa doesn’t claim to be unbiased but WAMMA does, heck a sanctioning body sort of has to if they want to have any validity but WAMMA has the built in bias that they are for profit. If they weren’t trying to make money off this they would just call GSP the WAMMA champion and not worry about putting WAMMA belts on him or trying to make money sanctioning his fights. They also have a huge bias against Zuffa fighters whether it is intentional or not, why would Aoki be called a WAMMA champion without a belt when GSP or Anderson Silva isn’t?
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They would love to work with the UFC to help clear up the question of who the world’s top fighters are.
How are they working with DREAM? It doesn’t seem like DREAM acknowledges them at all and didn’t even show Aoki being presented with the belt. How is that different from the UFC’s stance?
"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 30, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well…because Zuffa is successful and it doesn’t make a lot of sense from a business standpoint to put any of their fighters at risk of losing value to someone they don’t control. If a UFC fighter loses to say…an Affliction fighter that UFC fighter became harder to promote with no one in their promotion gaining any value. If that same fighter loses to someone else in the promotion Zuffa has a way to promote that individual. Is it ideal for fans? Not really…but right now it is what makes sense for the UFC and they really have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by getting involved with cross promotion. Not to mention that it could build up competition which is just a dumb thing to do in business.
I would love to see internal rankings from the UFC, but at the same time I don’t really have a lot of problems with their matchmaking. They bring fighters along well and most title fights make a lot of sense in terms of generally recognized rankings (we’ve gotten a slew of #1 vs. #2 or #3 fights from the UFC in the past 2 years) or in terms of business interests. Lesnar/Couture wasn’t a great fight in terms of rankings but it made a ton of business sense.
I fail to see many cases where someone can point to title challengers in the UFC outside of injury plagued situations (Cote) or the rare case of someone like Leites getting a title shot. Okami was offered a shot that was thrown off due to injury back in ufc 90 in what would have been another #1 vs. #2. And at least with Leites we’re getting a guy who is top 10 and holds a win over the #3 guy in Marquardt.
The other big difference is that a sanctioning body has different responsibilities from a business. Zuffa is a business whose job isn’t really to promote the best interests of MMA but rather to promote the best interests of the UFC and WEC. Like it or not it’s a very different concept than what WAMMA claims to be doing.
WAMMA hasn’t been forced into a corner, they came into a sport out of nowhere and tried to say “We want to be the deciding factor for who the best fighters in the world are!” and Zuffa has the majority of clout in the sport that allowed them to say “well…do it without us.” That isn’t being forced into a corner which implies that they ever had any ground to stand o to begin with, that’s getting shot down.
What I’m getting at is that sure…there are things to criticize the UFC for….but a business acting like a business isn’t nearly as shady as a sanctioning body selling rankings that they are manipulating as “the end-all-be-all” in terms of fighter worth.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Of course I understand why Zuffa doesn’t want to have anything to do with WAMMA. I’m fairly familiar with the history of the company and their style of promoting. What I don’t understand is your insitence that the people who run WAMMA are “scumbags” and dishonest for wanting to make a profit for their efforts. Why is that the case for WAMMA but you say “Zuffa is a business whose job isn’t really to promote the best interests of MMA but rather to promote the best interests of the UFC and WEC,” and don’t attach the words “scumbag” or “dishonest?”
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Brookhouse call them “scumbags”? Dishonest is easy, things they do go against their own stated goals. Zuffa doesn’t pretend to be anything they aren’t (scumbag might apply to them but they are pretty honest about what their goals are).
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally have never called them scumbags and don’t now think of them that way. I only speak for myself.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 30, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luke even edited my post when I tried to call them names
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
by Kid Nate on Mar 30, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because...
the two situations are extremely different. WAMMA is claiming to be working beyond promotional lines to force the best fights possible in each weightclass and crown undisputed champions. They are willing to do that with Aoki and DREAM when DREAM didn’t even let them in the ring let alone allow them to be involved in the promotion of the event…but they wouldn’t do the same with the UFC when the picture is much more clear than it is at lightweight.
WAMMA is different than Zuffa in that way. WAMMA’s claim is that they’re promoting the best in MMA, not the best in organizations that agree to work with them (or with DREAM, even SOME organizations that don’t). If they change their own promotion to say that “we’re only acknowledging the best who fight for promotions we consider ‘friendly’” then things change. Because then it is acknowledging that the “for profit” section of things DOES skew how they look at fighters.
No one is questioning why Zuffa is doing things…they are doing them for their own benefit. That is clear with Zuffa…WAMMA is pretending otherwise.
Also please point to where I have ever called them scumbags…I do not remember doing so.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Zuffa’s standards for title contention leave plenty to be desired. Brock Lesnar? Cote? Thales Leites? Penn/Stevenson for the Lightweight title? Sherk/Florian for the lightweight title when one was fighting for the first time in the promotion at that weight and the other had never neaten a top 10 fighter?
I love the UFC. I find it very entertaining. But I don’t think their title bookings are as crystal clear as you claim.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Easy
-Cote was in because Okami was injured.
-Leites arguably has a claim because he officially beat Marquardt (though that’s a whole other flame war).
-Who was the other top LW besides Penn & Daddy? Sherk was still suspended. It was also better to have Florian/Sherk for the belt than just give it to some guy – there weren’t many LWs then.
-Lesner was a purely business move – the HW division was muddy, and he would be a guaranteed draw. Nog & Mir were on TUF, and there was no one else to fight. He did have the skill to back it up, though.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
-Cote was in because Okami was injured? So, then clearly Okami would be next in line? Except now he isn’t. Because there is no line. It is arbitrary.
-Who were the other top lightweights besides Penn and Daddy? What had Stevenson achieved that Tyson Griffin hadn’t? Or Roger Huerta? Or Kenny Florian? Or Shinya Aoki? Or Joachim Hansen? I think a tournament would have been a better call
-Lesnar was a business move? Thanks for clearing that up ;) So, wait, if WAMMA makes “business moves” based on the UFC refusing to allow their belts to be recognized, they are corrupt? But the UFC is beyond that?
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was given a tune up fight...
after the injury I assume. Silva is known to want to fight on a regular basis and they make the Leites fight because Okami’s status was not fully known.
Griffin didn’t have the name value yet, Huerta was being protected to a degree, Florian got his shot, Aoki and Hansen aren’t in the promotion.
THE UFC IS A PROMOTION! They are not claiming to do what WAMMA does. The standards for each should not be the same.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the concern is what is good for the sport, shouldn’t the UFC try to promote fights that make sense? Saying it is about BIZ is a cop out. You could make that excuse for anything Zuffa does. Seriously, is there any scenario that can’t cover? Lesnar could fight Pat Berry next, and it would make business sense because Berry is cheaper than everyone else in contention and Lesnar would be the primary draw no matter what.
As for Okami, his spot seems to be drifting further to the back of the line. Maia. Bisping/Hendo. Probably Marquardt. There just isn’t any clear standard and I would like to see one. Mind you, I’m not really talking at all about WAMMA here anymore.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I'm sounding like a Zuffa appologist more than I want...
I’m just wanting to make the distinction that Zuffa’s actions and WAMMA’s actions shouldn’t be held up to the same standards because they don’t represent the same kind of business entity
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that point but then WAMMA isn’t the answer for that either and that is what is being talked about here. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being familiar with Louisiana politics, I can tell you that people will tolerate an open cheat than a deceptive one. Zuffa is openly a business. WAMMA claims to be above that. They aren’t.
Remember, too, people DO complain that Okami isn’t getting a title shot. I don’t like the business angle either (which is why boring Okami is pushed aside).
Also, you’re deflecting. (Nyah nyah)
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dude, seriously: the UFC comes out and says that it’s a business first while WAMMA lies and says that it is above profit and promotional bias. You said it yourself
So, wait, if WAMMA makes "business moves" based on the UFC refusing to allow their belts to be recognized, they are corrupt? But the UFC is beyond that?
If they act the same and WAMMA presents themselves differently then they are lying, and are hence liars.
"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 30, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The UFC is a promotion, WAMMA is a sanctioning body you can’t just compare the two like that because it’s two completly separate things. Zuffa doesn’t claim to be unbaised in their operations, heck Dana White is very vocal about his bias against other organizations. WAMMA claims to be unbaised and wanting to promote the best fighting the best, if they make a business move that is both completly biased and is based on making money instead of their own stated goal of the best fighting the best then there is a problem with their credibility. WAMMA as a sanctioning body isn’t supposed to decide champions and who gets deserves title shots as a business decision they are supposed to do that by their rankings.
Not fair? No it’s not but that is just how it is. WAMMA has to hold itself to a higher standard or they have no credibility where as Zuffa can do whatever the hell they want as long as the fans keep watching. WAMMA can’t change things when they can’t even hold themselves up as an example of doing things a better way, they are in it for the money just like the UFC is.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
-Okami really is next in line, and many people complain about him not getting it. Marquardt would probably be next, then Maia or Hendo/Bisping winner. If there is no line, the Chael Sonnen deserves it just as much. Can one make a defendable position of that?
-Huerta had just beaten scrubs, Florian already had a shot, Griffin couldn’t finish fights, Hellboy & Aoki aren’t even in the UFC.
-UFC is a business. We expect that. He was also the only viable fighter. WAMMA is saying it isn’t a business and transcends that when it clearly doesn’t! I have no doubt you think otherwise, but you’re wrong. It’s the difference between lying and delusion, or as Harry Frankfurt says, “Bullshit”.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually it looks like Maia is getting the next title shot against Silva.
"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 30, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah – I guess since Marquardt already had his shot, Maia is next. I wanted Maia to have one tough fight before fighting for the belt.
“On Bullshit” is a need read – it separates outright lying from giving false info that one sincerely thinks is true, the latter being BS.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Additionally, I can’t stand Frankfurt, but that book seems like it could be pretty good.
"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 30, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One is a content provider, the other is trying to sell itself as the equivalent of the AP poll in other major sports. Except it has a vested and obvious interest in choosing bogus championship matches, so its entire claim is dubious.
by Michael Rome on Mar 30, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
As I said in my other article...
it’s like the AP saying they’ll recognize the one true college football champion…just as long as they’re not from the SEC
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be true if the SEC refused to play teams from the Big 10 or PAC 10 and would only play ACC teams if they joined the SEC first.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if most of the “expert” agreed on best teams were in the SEC? There is no way to have a “undisputed” champion if you ignore even part of the talent pool in your decision for any reason. It’s a tainted result.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that isn’t really the case here. There is legitimate debate as to whether or not the UFC even has most of the best lightweights. They might. But, to put it in the terms of this analogy, they haven’t played Oklahoma in 10 years…
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that isn’t up for debate with welterweights and lightheavyweights. So why not crown them? By WAMMA’s own rankings, they are consistently fighting the best in the world.
"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 30, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t disagree with this. I don’t run WAMMA.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You agree with our primary complaint, yet defend the company? How?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because the conclusion reached isn’t attached to reality?
Has WAMMA has given welterweight or light heavyweight titles out to anyone outside the UFC? Nor are they indicating bouts that would meet their requirements to do so. WAMMA is being imputed with evil intent when they are simply trying to do the best they can with the tools they are allowed to work with.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just say “GSP is the WAMMA WW champ” and all will go away. How has he not met the requirements? Whose face does he need to pound next to earn it? Or has he simply not paid his membership fee? As for your tools, it doesn’t require anything to say that simple sentence.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see the difference in the way that DREAM and the UFC have dealt with WAMMA. WAMMA on the hand has treated the two differently. Yet another example of bias.
"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 30, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I’d really like an answer to this particular critique.
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 30, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prove to me that they are on the up and up with the best of intent.
I’m not holding them to call for being evil I am for having a crappy business plan and for having a lack of credibility due to obvious bias issues(intentional or not).
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, but this is one of the key problems. It is hard to say that WAMMA doesn’t have a promotional bias with a straight face when they won’t recognize champs based on their own criteria and the only discernible reason is a lack of financial profit.
"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 30, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They may not have the most, but they do have the best – BJ Penn. Where is his WAMMA belt? Does anyone really think Aoki is better than Penn?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not? What makes Penn the presumptive “best?” Who has Penn beaten?
Pulver: Old, useless, got KOed by Lauzon
Now a weepy gatekeeper
Stevenson: Never accomplished anything of value. Stepping stone for other guys.
Sherk: Previous wins tainted by steroid use, was returning from year suspension.
I would vote Penn the top guy, but I don’t think his case is as overwhelming as people make it out to be.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a serious question?
He’s what, 4-1 since the last time BJ was in a ring at 155? With a win over a guy who was in the lower tier of the top 10 and a top 5 lightweight?
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And got trounced by Hansen. And if I remember correctly, he was already ranked as the champ before his fight with Alvarez.
"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 30, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aoki/Alvarez was for the title...
unless I am remembering wrong…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aoki, Hansen and Alvarez all went up and down in rankings based on fighting each other, it’s basically the same round about as in the UFC at that weight class.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that's kind of the point...
You’d vote Penn as the top guy along with a lot of other guys on the ranking committee. So the rankings presented to fans are not a fair representation of the division. The guy who would likely be ranked #2 is put on top of the guy who would be ranked #1 because he doesn’t fight for the UFC. That isn’t above board in any world and is simply a dishonest presentation of fighter value
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re making fun of Pulver for crying on camera after his latest loss, that’s low. One of his close friends was killed right before that fight.
Penn is far more dynamic than Aoki and has just as good a ground game. Even if it’s not overwhelming, it is still quite clear.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pulver has cried on television a number of times. I wasn’t singling out any one time. The main point was not his lack of emotional control, but the fact that he was completely washed up.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weepy = washed up? It was an ad hominem attack on him.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which, by the way, we prefer to avoid around here if possible.
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 30, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn’t really an ad hominem argument because it wasn’t refuting a factual claim of any kind. It was merely a descriptive adjective. If calling someone who cries regularly weepy is offensive, I will refain.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a big deal to me...
we can move back to the heart of the discussion.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Much appreciated. Could you please answer why DREAM fighters are treated differently than UFC fighters now?
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 30, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you could find out, that’d be swell. Until we have an answer, that example completely discredits the practices of WAMMA.
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 30, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If you could find out, that’d be swell. Until we have an answer, that example completely discredits the practices of WAMMA.
Richard ends it.
by subo on Mar 30, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You were discrediting Penn’s recent victories and used “weepy” to devalue Pulver. But Brent’s right – this is tangential.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it is tangential, why are you engaging in last word-ism? Crying doesn’t devalue Pulver as an athlete. Michael Jordan cried and cried after he won the title, but that didn’t stop him from being the world’s best.
I wasn’t trying to devalue Pulver with that adjective. He has done that himself with a weak chin. I will leave this alone now.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it is sort of the case here as even based on WAMMA’s own rankings Penn was at number one. How can you have an undisputed champion when your own rankings dispute that fact?
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lesnar made sense from a business standpoint…also…he won in a dominating way. So it’s kind of a difficult thing to argue that he wasn’t deserving in some way.
Cote was a replacement for Okami after Yushin got hurt.
Leites is a top 10 guy in the world and holds a victory over #3 in our rankings. Other than Okami he is probably the best combination of successful track record in the promotion/hasn’t lost to Silva yet. It’s not perfect but with Okami out when the fight was made he was given the guarantee of fighting the winner of this fight.
Penn/Stevenson was kind of a “best available” for the promotion. Again, not ideal but better than nothing.
Florian/Sherk was potential versus a guy who is always at the top of the division.
I mean…these all make sense in promotional terms
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WAMMA hasn’t been forced into a corner, they came into a sport out of nowhere and tried to say "We want to be the deciding factor for who the best fighters in the world are!" and Zuffa has the majority of clout in the sport that allowed them to say "well…do it without us." That isn’t being forced into a corner which implies that they ever had any ground to stand o to begin with, that’s getting shot down.
This, this, a thousand times this. Since when does WAMMA have the god-given right to come out of nowhere and just say ‘We are the king!’? WAMMA didn’t get into this for the pure love of the sport, I don’t care what they say. They got into this for one thing- $$$$$$$$$. Don’t come crying that Zuffa doesn’t want to pay you to bring your bullshit belt around the next time they have a championship fight, nobody asked you to come here in the first place.
by ufc4 on Mar 30, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would that be a straw man or a red herring? People criticize Zuffa for their practices all the time, heck for every BE article about WAMMA there is 100 critical articles about Zuffa around the internet.
You say that Zuffa has forced WAMMA into a corner but that would imply that WAMMA’s goal is to change Zuffa and that makes everything they say or do hugely biased against fighters signed to Zuffa. Making things even more convoluted for the purpose of trying to make a profit off the sport isn’t helping the underlying issue either, nor would the UFC coming up with it’s own rankings for that matter. Honestly do we need even more rankings? Do we need UFC only rankings? The underlying issue here is that the sport uses a completly different business model than boxing does thus sanctioning bodies don’t really work. They aren’t going to change the way Zuffa does business, heck other organizations are doing the same things now.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
J'Accuse...!
People have attacked BE for being hypocrites in criticizing WAMMA while just recently having the metarankings published. So, the anti-WAMMA rhetoric here increased. Simple feedback loop.
WAMMA is a corrupt sanctioning body, which is the problem. If they want to have their own rankings, fine, that’s their business. However, when those rankings go around masquerading as “official” while ignoring the #1 organization, that’s dishonest. Then to receive national credibility via ESPN while knowingly being dishonest is corrupt. If WAMMA really has pure intentions, then why haven’t WW, MW, or LHW belts been handed out even though the best fighters in those divisions are obvious?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
BE doesn’t have it’s own national rankings, they are just doing math to combine everyone elses. No one here is voting or exerting any influence over rankings or who does and doesn’t get title shots. Even if you think the WAMMA rankings are better then it doesn’t really change anything as it’s not WAMMA’s ratings that are what Brookhouse goes on and on about it’s what they intend to do with them. This isn’t a competition between an sanctioning body and a blog, they are two separate things, this is a blog writing critical articles not some kind of business plan pissing match.
Of course the uptick in WAMMA articles this month had to do with them getting on MMA live, but yea there has been a lot of WAMMA hate here since they threatened to sue a fan poster for satire. Still I think they really went above and beyond here when they gave WAMMA the opportunity to state their case and answer fan questions here, it was WAMMA’s own answers and statements that really got the criticism going on this site.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If WAMMA has an agenda...
I think it’s a pretty good one. The biggest problem with MMA right now is that fighters are locked into a particular promotion for long periods of time. As a fan, this is a very frustrating thing, because I want to see my favorite fighters fight each other. WAMMA is doing a very good job of shining light on this problem and furthermore they are starting to apply pressure, albeit small amounts, on ZUFFA (and others) for mandating such restrictive contracts.
Why is this a bad thing?
As for B.E. not having an agenda: That’s laughable!
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Mar 30, 2009 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is this a bad thing?
Because sanctioning bodies destroyed Boxing, and the last thing we need MMA to be, is more like boxing. Not only that, they came onto the scene boasting they would be legit, but I believe Brent showed quite effectively over the past year that they can’t even stay true to their own principles. WAMMA isn’t in it for the better of MMA, they’re in it for WAMMA. The simple fact that they have shown very little transparency, and their deception from the beginning is enough to make them suspect.
Do I want to see BJ fight Aoki? Or Fedor fight Brock? Hell yeah! But not at the expense of the integrity of the sport, which is what’s at stake if WAMMA wins.
by pud333 on Mar 30, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give me a break with this shit. Zuffa cares about one thing, and one thing only — MONEY! Get a grip.
Why the hell is thales leites fighting Anderson Silva? Is that really the best they can do?
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Mar 30, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okami, Maia, Marquardt and Henderson are the only guys who really have a better argument for the shot. Okami already has a fight scheduled. Marquardt and Henderson have already gotten their shots. Maia is next in line. I don’t see the problem.
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 31, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That isn’t a bad thing.
The bad thing is the hypocrisy and bullshit that WAMMA pulls all of the time.
Saying BJ shouldn’t be ranked #1 because of a lack of LW fights but having Fedor ranked #1 when they started when it had been a while before he fought.
Saying they can’t crown a UFC champion (when it’s clear that they are #1 in the division, or when Zuffa runs a fight between WAMMA’s own 1 and 2) because zuffa won’t cooperate with them, then turning around and crowning a Dream champion when Dream won’t cooperate with them.
People hate on Zuffa all they want, but the fact is, they are the only one’s who have been able to do this right. They are the only people that have shown that they can constantly put on shows, and put together any fights over the long haul. Seeing the best fight each other? How many times has that happened outside of Zuffa since the death of Pride?
by Phildo on Mar 30, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BJ is ranked #1. He isn’t the “champion” because he can’t fight out of the UFC. Makes sense to me. A champion should be able to fight the best in the world in order to be a true champion. IMO
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Mar 30, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then it is not a “undisputed championship” and the whole thing is meaningless according to WAMMA’s own stated goals.
by who me on Mar 31, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BJ not being “champion” doesn’t bother me.
Rashad, Anderson, and GSP not being a champion bothers me.
Also the comments made about BJ’s ranking bother me. They seem to have backed off and kept him ranked (mostly because the people talking from WAMMA talk out of their ass most of the time) but it doesn’t change what they said, and how it was bullshit that the standards they said should apply to BJ weren’t applied to Fedor.
by Phildo on Mar 31, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two things
1. It’s a pipe dream that promotions will be allowing fighters free rein or cross promote in the future, this isn’t boxing and it’s getting farther from that every day. Zuffa has no reason to cross-promote and Bellator is signing guys to exclusive contracts, Strikeforce is going to be signing guys to exclusive contracts and Dream isn’t going to let their top fighters fight anywhere they want either for that matter. Even guys who have “non-exclusive” contracts still have to get approval from the promotion to fight somewhere else.
2. WAMMA is a for profit company, they aren’t trying to save the sport they are trying to turn a buck off of it. This is the same system that made such a mess out of boxing, tell me would that be better or worse for the sport of MMA? WAMMA isn’t apply squat for pressure on the UFC they are just being biased against fighters signed to Zuffa and trying to make money off the sport.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Point #1: You are probably right. But WAMMA is hurting no one by trying.
Point #2: Of course they are trying to make money off the sport. So is ESPN and USA Today and B.E. for that matter. What’s your point. How are they being biased when it is an independent commitee responsible for ranking the fighters — just like the god awful meta-rankings.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Mar 30, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The independent committee ranks the fighters but if you had actually been keeping up no one is talking about the rankings being the problem it’s what WAMMA does with those rankings that is the issue here. Their goal is to make money sanctioning undisputed title fights in MMA (they want to sell naming rights to the belt to a corporation and have promotions pay licensing fees for the sanctioning). This isn’t a pro-UFC thing or a UFC vs WAMMA issue it’s just the way things are, WAMMA is trying to make money off other companies fights and decide who does and doesn’t deserve title shots and that is a pipe dream the way the MMA industry works.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah I get it...
WAMMA is offering a product that I actually think will make MMA more enjoyable. Right now Zuffa is deciding who fights who, and this decision is based on MONEY, not on who deserves it. It’s not even based on what will make for a good fight, it’s only based on money. WAMMA is offering that at least the most deserving fighters will be fighting for titles. You’re right: I don’t think they will succeed because ZUFFA currently has nothing to gain by going along with it. But I can imagine that things will change — after the dumbass fans get sick of seeing shamrock/ortiz,
BJ/GSP, kimbo/anyone, leites/silva… etc. These fights were/are very lucrative, but really just a mockery of the sport.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Mar 31, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW...
BJ/GSP was a mockery of the sport…. Many of the goofs who promote this site were on board with it hook, line, and sinker. lol I doubt that WAMMA would have had any desire to be involved with that sham.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Mar 31, 2009 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How are they offering that?
They aren’t making matches.
If they only sanctioned 1 vs 2 matches for titles (and worked to make those matches) than you would have a point. But so far they’ve given belts to a 1 vs 5 match (when 5 was coming off 2 consecutive losses to people ranked above him) and a 2 vs 3 (when #2 was coming off of a loss) while ignoring the numerous 1 vs 2 fights that have happened.
by Phildo on Mar 31, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seriously, someone please defend that. I’d like to hear the reasoning.
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 31, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WAMMA isn’t offering a product. They’re trying to leech off of organizations that are offering a product.
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 31, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carano vs Santos is probably for a WAMMA title
That says enough about them and what they do. Each only has 7 fights on their records, its absurd
by EazyEismydad on Mar 30, 2009 1:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
On a lighter note, does anyone else realize that Cage Potato's abbreviation CP is internet-speak for Child Porn?
Thank you, 4chan, the asshole of the internet.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No reason to bring pedobear into this.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s my surreal comment for the day. Besides, it’s hard to talk about “Pedobear-Approved” in a sport without cheerleaders.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the WAMMA rankings are not very good and are more or less made to help them in the long run.
by mma is #1 on Mar 30, 2009 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Uh oh
our process is transparent and impossible to manipulate; theirs is closed and they manipulate it to benefit their business agenda.
Then you say:
…we use the rankings of every WAMMA judge who makes their rankings public
Something doesn’t add up guys.
by godzillad on Mar 30, 2009 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It can be inferred that not every WAMMA judge makes his rankings public. Those who do are used; those who don’t are ignored.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What aren’t you understanding here exactly? The point is their process for determining champions is completely secretive and arbitrary.
by Michael Rome on Mar 30, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume you are talking about Zuffa here?
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The process of a promotion and the process of a sanctioning body are very different things...
I’m not sure why that point is being argued.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he only has an argument if he ignores that distinction.
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 30, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s quoting Nate’s post and referring to the possible doublespeak with WAMMA being both secretive and public. He’s using an undistributed middle, I believe, confusing WAMMA (the org) with WAMMA (the individual judges). The former is secretive, the latter can be public at their discretion.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah Sam Caplan for example
the capo di tutti capo of WAMMA rankings makes his rankings public on 5 ounces of pain so we use them..
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
by Kid Nate on Mar 30, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He made WAMMA an offer they couldn’t refuse.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...WE USE THE WAMMA RANKINGS!
We also even allow the weighting to be thrown off by the stupid champion concept. We put Aoki as their #1 fighter even though he isn’t VOTED as such, he just holds the position. The problem is what wamma does with the rankings, not that the rankings exist. Good lord…I wish people would get that
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get it, but don’t get why you’ll crap all over how self-serving WAMMA is while using them for your own metarankings. Shouldn’t that automatically DQ them for the purpose of true objectivity?
by godzillad on Mar 30, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there is no such thing as true objectivity
we’re trying to avoid making subjective evaluations of sources so we can reflect the opinions of the MMA community.
Our problem isn’t with their rankings per se.
It that they want to make money sanctioning fights and manipulate their rankings to benefit that agenda and that ESPN is having them on as if they are an unbiased source of rankings.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
by Kid Nate on Mar 30, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
no...
because I personally respect their rankings (other than the mess caused by the champion picture) because I respect the members of the ranking committee. then again it’s Nate and Richard’s call who gets in.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The metarankings are supposed to be an encapsulation of the entire MMA community, which WAMMA is a part of.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not their actual rankings that are really the problem, it’s their process of how they choose champions.
by Michael Rome on Mar 30, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK I give up. I didn’t really care in the first place but you guys have just resorted to double speaking. This place is brilliant for the articles but the metarankings are a joke.
by godzillad on Mar 30, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
and I mean that honestly. What is the problem? That WAMMA is included?
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm getting at...
is that I don’t think it’s doublespeak to say we think their rankings are good. We don’t like what they do with the data created from the rankings and how they try to find ways to crown champions outside of the UFC.
Their rankings have value as a reflection of a part of the MMA community…so they’re included.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes sir. Champions or rankings, WAMMA is out for themselves and the ‘judges’ are biased; Luke himself up above said there are complaints. Including them in rankings that are supposed to represent the MMA community as a whole makes no sense.
MMA Weekly used to do what they’re doing now MUCH better because they weren’t trying to put a belt on Jason Black because Matt Hughes was in the UFC.
by godzillad on Mar 30, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a fair complaint...
and I don’t hold it against you. It’s what I like about the metas though. The extreme views usually cancel each other out and the end result is a snapshot of the general feelings of the MMA community at that moment. But I can see where some people like you have problems. It’s not for everyone…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Until I punch you in the mouth!
oh wait…we’re cool? oh…okay. that’s not fun…but alright
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the internet! You can’t end this amicably! No one’s even called the other “gay” yet!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still don’t understand what the problem is with what WAMMA does with the rankings. If a fighter can’t or won’t fight for their title, how can they do something other than pass him or her over? They are looking for the best possible solution.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I mean, that’s fine and makes total sense, but it’s not reflective at all of who the best really is, so it makes the titles pointless and unworthy of consideration as the equivalent of the AP poll. Their champions are “the best outside of the UFC,” which is a bit like crowning the NIT champion* as your national champion and selling it to ESPN as the true champion.
- Outside of Fedor
by Michael Rome on Mar 30, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
They gave the title to Aoki...
despite not being involved in the promotion of the fight. Why not the same with the UFC? I have never seen Aoki wearing the WAMMA title, talking about the WAMMA title, mentioning the word WAMMA…same with DREAM. Why is it okay in that situation but not with the UFC? That is a part of it…but the other part is that when you place someone like Aoki at the top of the division simply because he’s the best fighter outside of the UFC it doesn’t provide an HONEST picture of the status of the division.
If he was still ranked he would probably be ranked #2 by the WAMMA committee at least per the people on the committee that I’ve heard from or looked at their rankings on their websites. So instead of being shown at #2 he is placed at #1, giving a dishonest view of the status of the division.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what I mean by "why not with the UFC?"
is if you’re willing to crown Aoki without benefiting from the fight he won the title in. Why not the same with GSP/Fitch? Or why not start with Machida/Evans which is #1 vs. #2 in WAMMA and we’re not anywhere close to a day where a non UFC fighter will be near the top of that division…etc
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is GSP telling WAMMA they can’t call him the WAMMA champion? Is Zuffa telling WAMMA they can’t call GSP the WAMMA champion? Zuffa refuses to work with WAMMA but when Dream did the same they just worked around that and called Aoki the WAMMA champion. WAMMA isn’t looking for the best possible solution they are looking for the solution that allows them to make money off of the sport(Ring Magazine in boxing was looking for the best solution to the problem there and if that would most likely work in MMA too).
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Both saloons and medicinemen sold bourbon, but only the medicinemen billed it as a miracle cure. You’re the medicinemen.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
This comment could use some greenery.
"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 30, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m so glad I don’t have to lead the anti-WAMMA charge.
by subo on Mar 30, 2009 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If WAMMA basically ran themselves like Ring Magazine, I don’t think many people here would continue to have a problem with them.
"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 30, 2009 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
That would be the actual best possible solution to ranking fighters and naming undisputed champions but there really isn’t a way to directly make money off rankings that way so WAMMA can’t/isn’t going to do that.. Perhaps if Fight! magazine tried something along those lines?
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RING Magazine is run by an active fighter and promoter. Give me a break.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but they don’t have anything to gain or lose due to their rankings either, they aren’t a sanctioning body and their rankings are more respected due to the lack of a financial motive involved.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I am saying is that if WAMMA didn’t have a financial stake in the rankings, didn’t intend to eventually charge sanctioning fees, and actually showed that they don’t suffer from a promotional bias by crowning champs from orgs they aren’t making money from, then folks would probably be okay with them. There’s your break.
"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 30, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Word.
Comment rec’d – WAMMA wreck’d!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is the entire problem.
There is a promotional bias, when they state that their purpose is to do something without a promotional bias.
Either remove the promotional bias, or stop saying that they are unbiased, either would be fine by me. But they have to do one of those things.
by Phildo on Mar 31, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Golden Boy doesn’t have anything to gain or lose based on how their fighters are presented in RING Magazine?
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“These magazines will be held in an editorial trust where they will be operating totally independent of any influence from me or others from the Golden Boy Companies as it relates to editorial direction or content,”
The editorial trust is very important (and they didn’t clean house and fill it with a bunch of new guys..). I’m sure you’re going to say that this is bullshit. but still…RING remains extremely credible to this day across the boxing community.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not the rankings, its the crowning of a champ. If rings said Manny Pac was the best, but gave a belt to DLH because he would wear it on Leno, then everyone would call bullshit.
by szucconi on Mar 30, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that too...
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Golden Boy supposibly doesn’t control editorial content and more importantly they don’t make money off sanctioning the fights.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really know if that is true or not. I just think it is a strange choice for “how things should be done.”
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...
they’ve been regarded as the gold standard in boxing for years and years and years because of how they handle rankings and their own title
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no perfect solution but that is a better one than a sanctioning body with a a financial stake in the belts.
It should be noted that Fred Levin tried to start a sanctioing body in boxing before he started WAMMA but they couldn’t gain any interest/traction in boxing. I’ve wondered about his reasoning for getting into MMA sanctioning?
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am familiar. But if the Dallas Cowboys bought Sports Illustrated, their integrity might come in to question despite their years of great journalism….
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yea but in the boxing world Ring Magazine’s integrity really hasn’t.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
Ring earned it’s credibility and retains it to this day. If things become obviously skewed to benefit GB fighters they’ll lose said credibility and people will call them on it much as we’re calling WAMMA on their stuff.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think it sould also be pointed out that a big distinction is that the system that Ring Magazine uses as being a better system than WAMMA. You can take Ring Magazine’s ownership out of the equation and just look at how the system works and tell that the system works much better in boxing than the for profit sanctioning bodies do for rankings and so called undisputed champions.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RING's rankings
There’s nothing transparent about them. I’m not even sure they list the voters.
The worst offense in recent memory was Juan Lazcano being given the #9 ranking at 140 just prior to his fight with Hatton. Lazcano was retired almost 2 years before that fight. And had only one bout at 140 in his career, which was a controversial decision win against a journeyman. They aren’t above doing business….
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm missing how they profited from that?
They may have been ranking on potential or something else but I don’t think they made any cash off of Lazcano’s ranking at #9
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also...
here’s the complete ranking board
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And for those that don't know about how Ring's titles work...
Fighters recognized as champions by The Ring are rated at the top of their division, with the top 10 contenders listed below.
Championship vacancies can be filled by winning a box-off between The Ring’s number-one and number-two contenders, or, in certain instances, a box-off between our number-one and number-three contenders.
The only three occasions when a fighter will lose his championship status are when he retires, moves to another weight division, or is defeated in a championship bout.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WAMMA does this and they will get some street cred. But right now there belt means squat.
by szucconi on Mar 30, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh man. Maybe I worked in politics too long. I envy you your rosy worldview.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its something you can see in the metas also, people seem to rank guys higher when they have a fight coming up and even more so when they have a title fight coming up. Its a strange thing, but there isn’t really a way to filter it out. It is going to happen when you have a rankings board. It is human error I think.
by szucconi on Mar 30, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What cash do you think they made?
Promoters gain nothing from paying RING to put a guy in the rankings. They gain money from paying sanctioning bodies which Ring is not. They would have had to have paid enough of the ranking committee to move Laz up to #9 which I sincerely doubt happened. Seriously what reasoning would there have been for anyone to pay to get a guy ranked #9 on Ring’s rankings?
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if they pay a sanctioning body they can have a guy fight for a title which results in a noticeable improvement in money made on a bout. Paying a magazine to rank someone #9 (not even qualifying for a “RING title fight”) would result in no benefit to speak of.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, that was Hatton’s first fight with GBP. Obviously they benefit during the promotion.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They made more money because the guy was ranked 9 in Ring Magazine than they would of if he had been unranked going into the fight?
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just pointing out that the RING rankings are not above reproach. Generally, they are very good.
I’ve enjoyed the lively conversation.
by Jonathan Snowden on Mar 30, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It has been a wonderful and very informative conversation, thank you for coming by and having it with us.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it was a good time. Thanks.
"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 30, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really think...
there is a whole ton of benefit in promotion to saying “the #9 ring magazine ranked…” at least value compared to the potential hit in their reputation if the voters (who are all independent) came out and said “I didn’t rank him” and it was shown that they are manipulating the rankings. Maybe I’m being silly though.
Anyway. thanks for stopping by and hope it’s realized that this was a discussion and not a spiteful argument. Take care
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again it’s not about Ring Magazine it’s about the system they use compared to the sanctioning body system.
by who me on Mar 30, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Sports Illustrated was trying to promote football games, I wouldn’t read the damn magazine.
by subo on Mar 30, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So why don't we start over
and have someone like the AP (credible name) select a panel of judges and do rankings? Or WAMMA could stick to rankings and stop trying to create undisputed titles since we know Zuffa will never accept them or their concept.
by ace328 on Mar 30, 2009 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
:)
Hell, let’s just use Fight Matrix.
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 30, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say fuck the rankings and use subo’s idea of taping names on the back of turtles and have them race.
by Tonley on Mar 30, 2009 4:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...but then...
someone is going to put a construction paper shell on a cat and say that it’s a turtle and then all of a sudden Justin McCully is champ
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 30, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Mar 30, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In other news, I need to buy some construction paper on my way home because that’s a great idea.
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 30, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is so many comment, this might of been commented on but I will say it. I do not see WAMMA gaining any influence on ESPN. All it’s going to take is for someone to ask Dana, hey how come you are not joining up with WAMMA? and that will be the end of it.
Militich can can make a silly statement all he wants, that this will hurt the UFC cause there are fighters want to call themselves undisputed champ. I am still waiting for someone to ask Militich to ask why one of guys in his camp was pushing to fight Ken Shamrock if that’s case. Or better why is he taking non-mma bout against near middle aged, past his prime boxer.
Didn’t Jake Shields says competition is in the UFC and he rather fight there.
-Didn’t GSP re-up with UFC and is proud to call himself the UFC champ.
-Didn’t BJ Penn sue the UFC to get back in
Someone needs to ask Militich who wants to fight for the WAMMA belt.
by The Bronzeville Bully on Mar 30, 2009 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
WAMMA is a joke.
Keep firing Assholes!
by Ubernoober on Mar 30, 2009 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Having been contacted by WAMMA’s legal team I retract my previous statement.
HAIL WAMMA!!
Keep firing Assholes!
by Ubernoober on Mar 30, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Should have labelled it as satire, man. Haven’t you learned ANYTHING?
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Mar 30, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















