Independent World MMA Rankings, August 2009: My Personal Ballot
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 12:35 PM EDT
Email
Print
In an effort to bring a hive mind to my own personal IWMMAR ballot, this is a continued effort to disclose my own personal ballot to the BloodyElbow.com community in order to discuss the various facets of ranking fighters. While I believe rankings are probably one of the toughest things you can do without some subjectivity, these rankings work off the principle that ranks are primarily based on fighters’ actual accomplishments in the cage/ring (the quality of opposition that they’ve actually beaten), not based on a broad, subjective perception of which fighters would theoretically win fantasy match-ups.
The project is headed up by former MMAWeekly writer Ivan Trembow, and the panel includes Zach Arnold (FightOpinion); Nicholas Bailey (MMA Ratings); Jared Barnes (Houston Chronicle); Jordan Breen (Sherdog); Jim Genia (Full Contact Fighter, MMA Memories, and MMA Journalist Blog); Jesse Holland (MMA Mania); Robert Joyner (MMA Payout); Todd Martin (CBS Sportsline); Zac Robinson (Sports by the Numbers MMA); Leland Roling (Bloody Elbow); Michael David Smith (AOL Fanhouse); Jonathan Snowden (Author of "Total MMA: Inside Ultimate Fighting"); Joshua Stein (MMA Opinion), Ivan Trembow (Freelance); and Dave Walsh (Total MMA).
This is the second time I've disclosed my own ballot, and I'll continue to do so in order to gain a better understanding, through debate and discussion, as to where fighters actually stand in comparison to my ballot. On a side note, this month's ballot was done fairly quickly without a tremendous amount of thought. I may have truly missed a few things regarding where some fighters should stand.
Important points to take from the previous article were lengthy discussions involving the ranks of Frank Mir, Josh Barnett, and the bottom 7-10 spots in the heavyweight division. Griffin and Jardine were subjects of conversation along with Okami and Lawler in the MW ranks. Lightweight is pretty much a shot-in-the-dark without crossover battles, so it will truly never have relevance until that happens, but Sherk, Maynard, and Edgar were big conversation points.
|
Heavyweight |
Light Heavyweight |
Middleweight |
Welterweight |
|
Lightweight |
Featherweight |
Bantamweight |
I'm not supremely confident in some of these placings, but the most notable drop is Josh Barnett, due to his steroid positive. It was deemed by the IWMMAR that he cannot be ranked.
What would I like? I want criticism. I want logical arguments for ranking someone somewhere else, but ONLY based on who that fighter has beaten. This is supposed to be a objective ranking. The current IWMMAR rankings will be posted after the jump, and you'll see that there is some objectivity to them in some areas. I want to eliminate that possibility from my own ballot. I believe there are some areas I can improve this rankings, but criticizing the Lightweight area of my ballot is a bit tough since there really isn't any crossover fights to compare.
August 2009 Independent World MMA Rankings
Heavyweight Rankings (206 to 265 lbs.)
1. Fedor Emelianenko (30-1, 1 No Contest)
2. Brock Lesnar (4-1)
3. Frank Mir (12-4)
4. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (31-5-1, 1 No Contest)
5. Randy Couture (16-9)
6. Alistair Overeem (29-11, 1 No Contest)
7. Shane Carwin (11-0)
8. Brett Rogers (10-0)
9. Andrei Arlovski (15-7)
10. Fabricio Werdum (12-4-1)
Light Heavyweight Rankings (186 to 205 lbs.)
1. Lyoto Machida (15-0)
2. Quinton Jackson (30-7)
3. Rashad Evans (13-1-1)
4. Anderson Silva (25-4)
5. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua (18-3)
6. Forrest Griffin (16-6)
7. Gegard Mousasi (26-2-1)
8. Rich Franklin (25-4, 1 No Contest)
9. Keith Jardine (14-5-1)
10. Dan Henderson (25-7)
Middleweight Rankings (171 to 185 lbs.)
1. Anderson Silva (25-4)
2. Yushin Okami (23-4)
3. Dan Henderson (25-7)
4. Nathan Marquardt (28-8-2)
5. Demian Maia (10-0)
6. Jorge Santiago (21-7)
7. Robbie Lawler (16-5, 1 No Contest)
8. Vitor Belfort (18-8)
9. Chael Sonnen (23-10-1)
10. Yoshihiro Akiyama (13-1, 2 No Contests)
Welterweight Rankings (156 to 170 lbs.)
1. Georges St. Pierre (19-2)
2. Jon Fitch (19-3, 1 No Contest)
3. Thiago Alves (16-4)
4. Jake Shields (23-4-1)
5. Matt Hughes (43-7)
6. Josh Koscheck (12-4)
7. Martin Kampmann (15-2)
8. Mike Swick (14-2)
9. Carlos Condit (22-5)
10. Paulo Thiago (11-1)
Lightweight Rankings (146 to 155 lbs.)
1. B.J. Penn (14-5-1)
2. Shinya Aoki (21-4, 1 No Contest)
3. Eddie Alvarez (17-2)
4. Kenny Florian (11-4)
5. Tatsuya Kawajiri (24-5-2)
6. Diego Sanchez (21-2)
7. Gray Maynard (7-0, 1 No Contest)
8. Frankie Edgar (10-1)
9. Josh Thomson (16-2)
10. Mizuto Hirota (12-3-1)
Featherweight Rankings (136 to 145 lbs.)
1. Mike Brown (22-4)
2. Urijah Faber (22-3)
3. Wagnney Fabiano (12-1)
4. Jose Aldo (15-1)
5. Hatsu Hioki (20-3-2)
6. Leonard Garcia (13-4)
7. "Lion" Takeshi Inoue (16-3)
8. Raphael Assuncao (13-1)
9. Dokonjonosuke Mishima (19-6-2)
10. Josh Grispi (13-1)
Bantamweight Rankings (126 to 135 lbs.)
1. Brian Bowles (8-0)
2. Miguel Torres (37-2)
3. Takeya Mizugaki (12-3-2)
4. Masakatsu Ueda (9-0-2)
5. Dominick Cruz (14-1)
6. Akitoshi Tamura (14-7-2)
7. Joseph Benavidez (10-1)
8. Will Ribeiro (10-2)
9. Rani Yahya (14-4)
10. Damacio Page (11-4)
Rules:
Inactivity: Fighters who have not fought in the past 12 months are not eligible to be ranked, and will regain their eligibility the next time they fight.
Disciplinary Suspensions: Fighters who are currently serving disciplinary suspensions are not eligible to be ranked.
Changing Weight Classes: When a fighter announces that he is leaving one weight class in order to fight in another weight class, the fighter is not eligible to be ranked in the new weight class until he has his first fight in the new weight class.
Catch Weight Fights: When fights are contested at weights that are in between the limits of the various weight classes, they are considered to be in the higher weight class. The weight limits for each weight class are listed at the top of the rankings for each weight class.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
125 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Still combing over these picks and I’m in agreement on most of them. I don’t think Lawler should be in the top ten, particularly with the philosophy behind these rankings. One win in two years against a gatekeeper type of guy. And some questionable victories preceding that. He’s gotten too much credit for too long for doing too little. But I’m glad to see Akiyama appear on the bottom end.
I STILL poop rainbows.
Yeah, I actually had that written down as an area of improvement, but I didn’t get to it. I’ll have to write it down for September. Lawler needs to be critiqued.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
No doubt
Here’s a hypothetical inquiry.. What sort of activity will have to occur in the foreseeable future for you to consider switching Fedor and Brock? I agree with their rankings currently. But given the nature of this system, Brock, in my mind, could seemingly vault him with two victories over Carwin and Couture, if during the same time, Fedor only defeats a Rogers or Werdum (though, defeating both could potentially keep him there). Thoughts?
I STILL poop rainbows.
Hypothetically
if Fedor beats Rogers, Werdum, and Overeem in his next 3, and Brock beats say… Carwin, Randy/ Nog winner, and potentially Crocop/ Dos Santos or Velasquez/ Rothwell winner, then I say Fedor still trumps Brock as #1.
What this does mean, though, is that we can start talking about Lesnar in terms of p4p. But honestly, Fedor has accomplished so much already that something drastic will have to happen for the 2 to switch places (as in Fedor not fighting top competition for a while. This shouldn’t be a problem though, as all 3 of his potential opponents are top 10).
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.
'09 is the year of the FW's.
by ElliotMatheny on Aug 23, 2009 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions
as in Fedor not fighting top competition for a while. This shouldn’t be a problem though, as all 3 of his potential opponents are top 10
#8, #10, #14
He also said he didn’t feel the need to fight top opponents anymore. That makes me not care at all about Fedro. He can just go back to being that Russian dude.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Yeh ok
According to Leland’s rankings:
Carwin – 7
Cain – 10
Crocop/Dos Santos – 11 at best
Rogers – 6
Overeem – 9
Werdum – unknown
So basically it’s pretty even in terms of ‘level of competition’ if we’re going by rankings.
Question on someone like Ribeiro, when the person will not ever compete again (and with the eye injury I don’t think he will ever be cleared to fight again), how are you gonna handle that?
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Yeah, the consensus vote put him at 8, and I debated on just dropping him from the list. I probably will in September.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Only thing i don’t like is Aoki at 3. i would rank him around 7 but that just my opinion.
I also would have Cheick Kongo in there at 10 with Werdum at 9 and AA right outside the top 10
by SouthAlaBamaRampage on Aug 21, 2009 1:09 PM EDT reply actions
Also i would have Diego Sanchez in the rankings somewhere
by SouthAlaBamaRampage on Aug 21, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but he hasn’t beaten anyone in the top ten. Skill-wise, sure. But the rankings are based on record alone.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Has AO?
He is 5-4-1 since 06. No impressive wins.
I’m dropping AO.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s too simplistic to just look at one fighter’s record. Also, why are you including fights at LHW? He’s 5-1-1 at HW.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
AO still doesn’t deserve to be in the top ten at all, regardless of how you look at it in any way.
Unless you actually give him a win over CC instead of ignoring the NC, in this type of ranking… AO is not in the top ten and realistically, he’s only a top ten fighter if people simply go on hype at HW.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There’s no real analysis for me to debate here. Saying someone isn’t or doesn’t deserve to be a top ten fighter without lining up win/loss records is useless.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
That’s true, but even if you do that…. AO isn’t a top ten fighter at Heavyweight. Hence why the Werdum fight was so pivotal in proving that.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Aoki probably shouldn’t be at #3, but there isn’t any crossover… hence why the LW rankings are kind of pointless at this point.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I am gonna disagree again on the ranking of the UFC lightweights in relation to the others. I think that Edgar has had better wins and strength of schedule the last 3 years than Florian, and personally I think his last two wins have been better than the competition Maynard has faced since beating him. Personally would have it Maynard=Edgar>Florian.
just as a disclaimer, I think that recent activity should weigh a lot more, and keep it at about a 2-3 year area. I also think that the UFC and non UFC Lightweights should be ranked separately before any comparison between the two should be done. And to finish off a blathering comment, I am not a fan of the numerical rankings and instead think that ranking in tier format would be a better system.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Bleh.
Meant the UFC lightweights in relation to each other.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Tier system
sounds very interesting and definitely makes sense.
You would only have one guy at the top tier (the Champ or Fedor).
Then second tier would be i.e. WW – Fitch, Alves. Next tier would include Shields and Koscheck and maybe Kampmann (depending on next fight).
Fedro is in the “I don’t care anymore” tier. He doesn’t care about fighting the best, he can go sit in the corner.
But I think it would cut down on the “#6 ranking is bullshit, he is #7 at best” kind of arguments, which are pretty pointless. It is already used somewhat, in categories like top 5, top 10, top 20 etc.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
We had this discussion, and the argument that came up was how wins should or shouldn’t be progressive over a period of time.
The debate was with Sherk, Maynard, and Edgar. Edgar beat Sherk, but Maynard beat Edgar. Hence the rankings.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m curious why Hughes continues to get so much love in the rankings. He’s 2-2 in 3 years, and many feel he lost his fight against Serra. I don’t see him clearly winning against anyone in the Top 10 WW – maybe LnP to a decision, but that’s about it. It just seems like he ranked on his past dominance, not current (in)activity.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Aug 21, 2009 1:13 PM EDT reply actions
Noted...
Hughes should probably be scrutinized. I’ll have to write that one down.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
The people who feel he lost that fight should watch it again.
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 Aug 23, 2009 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Nice to see this wasn’t on the OP’s ballot, thankfully, but from the overall rankings:
9. Masanori Kanehara
10. Michihiro Omigawa
11. Marlon Sandro
Fuck you Sengoku.
That was on my ballot. While there were quesitonable decisions, the ranking is based on results, so Kanehara is in there along with Omigawa. Of course, this will likely be remedied. I don’t think Mishima or Grispi should be in there at all at this point, but right outside of that.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry for misreading that. And Omigawa’s win over Sandro was far more than “questionable.” It was ridiculous, and it was racism, as was the decision to not put Jung in as Hatsu’s replacement.
I think Kanehara’s win over Omigawa was legitimate but I honestly would not rank any of them, including Sandro. If you’re going by official results alone, then why on earth are you ranking Overeem in the top 10? No one ranks him based on that. People rank him based on him beating the crap out of Cro Cop before it was called a DQ, beating the #2 ranked kickboxer in the world in a kickboxing match, and winning the ADCC European heavyweight trials, and basically looking like a murderer. Going by his record alone, since going up to HW, he lost to Sergei Kharitonov, and then beat Buentello, Mark Hunt, and couple of scrubs. Hunt hadn’t been knocked out by Melvin Manhoef yet when Overeem beat him, but he also wasn’t even quite in the top 20, going by the BE Meta Rankings from the time.
I’m sorry, but it really seems like a double standard here.
Again, no one is ranking Overeem based on his record, so why are you ranking Overeem?
Actually, I completely dropped Overeem in my redo in the comments.
Overeem is actually one of the major reasons why I know there are plenty of people not following the guidelines on the rankings.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions
klowns comprehensive HW ranking :)
Based on the principle that
Ranks are primarily based on fighters’ actual accomplishments in the cage/ring (the quality of opposition that they’ve actually beaten), not based on a broad, subjective perception of which fighters would theoretically win fantasy match-ups.
1. F. Emilianenko
2. Lesnar
3. Mir
4. Nogueira
5. Couture
6. Sylvia
7. Rogers
8. Arlovski
9. Dos Santos
10. Werdum
11.Carwin
12. Gonzaga
13. Velasquez
14. O’Brien
15. Herring
16. Kongo
17. CroCop
18. Barnett
19. A. Emilianenko
20. Monson
21. Kharitanov
22. Overeem
23. Yvel
24. Rizzo
Self-criticism:
Tim Sylvia: He should definitely be ranked above Arlovski for holding two wins over him. I just don’t know what to make of the Mercer fight. There’s no way I’m putting Mercer in there. My rankings just pretend that fight never happened…
Jake O’Brien: He is no longer a HW but I believe in ranking someone in all weight classes in which he has competed in the last three years. He will steadily drop in my rankings as time goes by and eventually disappear.
Problem
There is a debate regarding the leapfrog notion of the rankings. I preferably hate to do that, but I see it as something that needs to be done in order to maintain consistency. Sylvia would be gone from the rankings obviously.
Also, there has to be some sort of outline for inactivity and actual recent wins. I think that’s why Carwin and Velasquez get amped up. Gonzaga at 12 isn’t a bad move though.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
1. Fedor Emelianenko
2. Brock Lesnar
3. Frank Mir
4. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
5. Randy Couture
6. Brett Rogers
7. Andrei Arlovski
8. Shane Carwin
9. Junior Dos Santos
10. Fabricio Werdum
11. Gabriel Gonzaga
I think this is actually ideal. Overeem should be dropped, and I should slap myself for not reading my previous post’s notes. Overeem is out. I rank Carwin above Dos Santos because Dos Santos was given Struve after Gonzaga. Werdum’s win over Gonzaga sticks him at 10.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t get it—why penalize Dos Santos for being given an easier opponent after Werdum? Struve is as good or better than anybody Carwin fought before Gonzaga, and he beat Gonzaga only after Werdum did it first, and Werdum was subsuequently knocked off by Dos Santos.
The only argument I can see for ranking Dos Santos below Carwin is the loss to Joaquim Ferreira in 2007.
by JRN on Aug 21, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point...
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s just look at wins over the past 3 years for the sake of simplicity.
Fighter A: Carmelo Marrero, Mirko Filipovic, Justin McCully, Josh Hendricks
Fighter B: Michael Knaap, Paul Buentello, Lee Tae-Hyun, Mark Hunt, Gary Goodridge
Fighter C: Rick Slaton, Rex Richards, Sherman Pendergarst, Christian Wellisch, Neil Wain, Gabriel Gonzaga
Fighter D: Eduardo Maiorino, Joaquim Ferreira, Edson Paredao, Jair Gonclaves, Geronimo dos Santos, Fabricio Werdum, Stefan Struve
Rank these four fighters.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
For what reason? Losses have an effect as well. Also, rankings at the time of each fight.
But for sake of argument:
DCAB
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn’t want to format for wins and losses, but I think that would help the argument for Overeem over say dos Santos who has a loss to Joaquim Ferreira (WHO?) or Gonzaga who has one significant win at HW, but three losses.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
And Carwin being a “top ten” guy shouldn’t say much for Gonzaga as it’s that win that vaulted Carwin into the rankings.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Really, the only losses that matter are those that have fought others involved in the ranking and had an opposite result.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait, to clarify, you’re saying dos Santos’ loss to a relative nobody shouldn’t count against him?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
It was before he defeated a ranked opponent in Fabricio Werdum. It really has no bearing because of the leapfrog effect.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 6:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Tim Sylvia...
last beat Arlovski 7 fights ago. He’s now lost four of his last five, beating only Brandon Vera while losing most recently to Ray Mercer. Just because someone beats someone once or even twice in a row doesn’t mean they should be ranked above that person for years. Arlovski did just get knocked out by Brett Rogers but that’s hardly as embarassing, and since Sylvia’s last win over a top HW in Jeff Monson, Arlovski went on a five-fight win streak, beating Werdum, Ben Rothwell, and Roy Nelson in the process, before both he and Sylvia both lost to Fedor and there subsequent falls from grace after that. Arlovski may not have a chin anymore, but the reality his he never had much of one. It’s just more well known now. He’s not particularly worse than when he lost to Sylvia. Sylvia, on the other hand, gained over 30 pounds of pure fat and looked like a mess even before Ray Mercer took him down like a falling sequoia.
klown's comprehensive LHW ranking
1. Machida
2. A. Silva
3. Evans
4. Griffin
5. Jackson
6. Henderson
7. Rua
8. Liddell
9. Franklin
10. W.Silva
11. Jardine
12. Ortiz
13. Jones
14. Coleman
15. Bonnar
16. T.Silva
17. Irvin
18. Shafer
19. Alexander
20. Musasi
21. Sobral
22. Cane
23. Sokoudjou
24. Nogueira
Notes:
It seems jarring to have Houston Alexander ranked right above Gegard Musasi, I know. Houston’s spot is a leftover from his stunning knockout of Jardine.
It’s likely that Musasi, Sobral and Nogueira have potential to ranked a lot higher, if only they would get the opportunity to fight some top tier fighters. That’s unfortunate, but it’s not a problem of the ranking system. The only way to rectify the situation is for them to face top fighters, either by joining the UFC, or by facing top fighters who defect from the UFC.
There’s a few anomalies but I like the way your rankings work, wouldn’t mind seeing how this turns out in the other divisions, particularly MW and LW.
Only question I have is if, say, Rampage defeats Evans, is the loop of Evans beating Forrest beating Rampage beating Evans now ignored or does Rampage move ahead of Evans just because it’s the most recent result? Similarly, should Shogun be ahead of Rampage because he defeated him or do you only consider results in the last few years?
Liddell shouldn’t even be in the top ten due to length of time issues since his last legitimate win IMO, and his last legitimate win was against Wanderlei, who has equally dropped.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
My system prioritizes more recent wins over older ones
And that’s how loops are broken. So if Rampage beats Evans, he gets ranked above Evans. That puts Rampage above Griffin too, even though he lost to him not long ago. That’s how the rankings stay dynamic and it keeps an old loss/win from haunting a fighter after its relevance has faded.
I think prioritizing the most recent fight makes more sense than taking loops out of the equation altogether, like in Fagan’s (excellent) Fight Lines.
Trying to look at my rankings more in-depth, these rankings really have no modifications for length of time. It has to be in the present. Alexander’s KO was so long ago, not sure I can actually justify him above Mousas, but Mousasi has only fought once at LHW.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Looking over my own ballot...
The LHW division has the same dilemna at the lightweight division at the 9-10 spots. Technically, Wanderlei would still be in the running.
1. Lyoto Machida
2. Rashad Evans
3. Quinton Jackson
4. Anderson Silva
5. Forrest Griffin
6. Dan Henderson
7. Mauricio Rua
8. Rich Franklin
9. Wanderlei Silva
10. Keith Jardine
That’s how I have it broken down. The problem is that Sobral was ranked previously, and people assume that since Mousasi crushed him, he should now be ranked, but Sobral didn’t beat any world beaters in the UFC or even recently.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
It is amazing
how deep this division really is but isn’t. 2-10 can all beat each other but I don’t see anyone beating number 1. God I love MMA.
Keeping Wanderlei ranked that high seems strange. He’s 1-3 at 205 in the last 3 years, 1-4 since you count the Rich Franklin bout at 195. You have to go back to 2005 to find any good wins other than Keith Jardine. Granted, Jardine was coming off the Liddell win at the time, but his last fight before that was the Houston Alexander loss, so given that you don’t leapfrog I’d be surprised if Jardine was even in the top 10 at the time.
There isn’t anyone outside of the top 10 that really stands out at all, and Silva still managed to defeat a Jardine that managed to hang around at the 10-15 range.
Mousasi beating Sobral doesn’t say much at all since Sobral really didn’t beat anyone recently.
This ranking makes the most sense by way of only records.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Luis Cane?
It’s really hard for me to understand how a guy with LLWLL on his resume is ranked in one of the most deep divisions in MMA.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Actually, it’s really easy to understand.
His win over Jardine keeps him up in the top ten, but those losses were to some stiff competitors as well. Mirko (open weight), Hendo (different weight class), Liddell (wasn’t ranked low at all when it happened), Jackson, Franklin.
Hendo and Mirko actually don’t count in this ranking. And again, all you’re looking at is LLWLL instead of the names and their positions as of now. That has no bearing.
Cane beat who? Cantwell, Sokoudjou (who is barely top 20 now), and Lambert. That’s hardly a top ten performing fighter at all. I like Cane, but that doesn’t warrant a top ten position whatsoever.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe I’m missing something, but why is Henderson/Silva not count in this ranking?
Regardless, we’re just going to disagree if you think a single win to a marginal top 10 fighter with multiple losses (to quality opposition) outweighs a resume like Cane or even Mousasi.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Cane’s wins aren’t even close to top ten material regardless. Most of Mousasi’s wins are at MW, so you can’t even count them in the realm of a LHW ranking. Wanderlei was already at a top ranking when he lost multiple fights to equally highly ranked opponents. It’s a fairly easy concept to me as to how he COULD still be ranked. A
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions
“Cane’s wins aren’t even close to top ten material regardless. "
What does this even mean?
With that logic, what has Mike Swick done to deserve a ranking?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
What has Swick done? What has anyone done at the bottom of the top ten in that weight class? Kampmann is 2-0 in the weight class, and Condit’s wins are tough to gauge. Sakurai hasn’t fought really anyone in very good in his most recent years.
It’s tough not to rank Swick.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 6:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Why have Paulo Thiago so low? He was undefeated with a win over top-10 Josh Koscheck, until his only loss, to #2 Jon Fitch. How much can losing to the #2 hurt your ranking? Seems weird to have him behind Josh Koscheck (who he beat 6 months ago and who hasn’t fought since) and especially Marius Zaromskis, who doesn’t have any top 10 wins (unless you used to have Sakurai in the top 10).
Because that is working on the basis that he was completely unranked. I didn’t even put him above Koscheck after his win over Josh because I don’t believe in leapfrogging guys. In the context of these rankings, I’ll have to make a decision on whether I should leapfrog, which I’m leaning toward just for consistency. In that case, I would make that change.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I understand your reluctance to just leapfrog as a rule… in a situation like this I would slot Thiago above Koscheck, but drop Koscheck down a bit first for losing to a virtually unranked guy. So if you had Koscheck at #5 or so, drop him down to #9 and put Thiago at #8 (arbitrary numbers, but you get the idea).
I would also cut Thiago some slack for being undefeated as an unranked guy. When he beat Koscheck he had no blemishes on his record to complicate things.
Nah, I wouldn’t do that.
I would work off what some ELO systems use if I wasn’t leapfrogging. Your theory would work if say Thiago was actually ranked in the top 25, but he wasn’t even in the top 50 I believe. He’d move maybe to 15, then Koscheck would drop to 8-9 realistically. Thiago would need another solid win to put himself in the top ten.
No blemishes means nothing if your strength of record is garbage. Ask Jason Reinhardt.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that no blemishes means nothing… UNTIL you beat a top 10 guy. Then the fact that you’ve been active with no losses prior to your big win means a lot IMO.
I guess I just don’t understand not ranking a guy above somebody he just beat.
The problem is that if you weren’t leapfrogging, his competition that he faced up until then matters.
If you don’t leapfrog, it is basically a way to stop from ranking fluke wins above legitimately good fighters. Because once you leapfrog a guy into the top ten, it will take a while to take him back down to his actual level with subsequent losses. If you don’t leapfrog, he has another few fights to legitimately stake his claim in the top ten.
It’s a debate that always comes with rankings in MMA.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm I guess I was thinking of “leapfrogging” as a case where if a guy beats the #4, he necessarily becomes the #4, and so on. But I suppose what I advocate is just another version of the same thing.
I don’t worry too much about “fluke wins” because if a win is a really a fluke, I think things will sort out sooner rather than later. I am not of the mind that Josh Koscheck needs to rematch Paulo Thiago and beat him to get out from under him. If Paulo loses to Alves and Koscheck gets a quality win or two, he could be back above him in no time.
But setting all that aside… below Zaromskis too, really?
Yeah, they work themselves out, but at a ridiculously slow rate.
I’ll probably make some changes to the ranking. Not sure if I want to leapfrog or not here.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
MW outlook
1. Anderson Silva
2. Nathan Marquardt
3. Yushin Okami
4. Demian Maia
5. Dan Henderson
6. Jorge Santiago
7. Chael Sonnen
8. Vitor Belfort
9. Robbie Lawler
10. Yoshihiro Akiyama
Here’s what I think looks better. Hendo is dropping right now because he’s only high in the ranking due to his past wins, but he’s slowing heading into the territory where those won’t be considered current. Santiago may drop as well since Misaki was his big win. At the time, the win over Misaki was against him as a top ten guy.
Sonnen’s win over Filho is the main basis for his ranking, and Belfort after him is because of his win over Lindland, although it loses ground due to Lindland’s level of competition and ranking dropping. I dropped Lawler due to only really taking on Smith, Ninja Rua, and Trigg recently. He’s barely top ten at best.
I think this is a bit better, but the back of the top ten runs into huge TIME problems. What wins are against guys who have rankings that were actually based on recent fights? Not a whole lot, at least for those who have beaten solid competition.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I like this list
And I think Sonnen further bolsters his ranking with his complete domination of a very tough Dan Miller.
I STILL poop rainbows.
I like this but Okami needs a title shot.
Lawler is just a strange fighter. Shows devestating power and then get choked out by a smaller shields.
Why isn't Misaki ranked at all?
I guess you don’t count his ‘win’ over Akiyama. Does he get no credit for beating Kaz? Where does he rank now?
Misaki? He didn’t beat Akiyama. It was ruled a NC, so it has no bearing. Misaki is probably 11 or 12
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 24, 2009 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions
WW overview
1. Georges St. Pierre
2. Jon Fitch
3. Thiago Alves
4. Matt Hughes
5. Paulo Thiago
6. Josh Koscheck
7. Jake Shields
8. Mike Swick
9. Martin Kampmann
10. Carlos Condit
11. Dan Hardy/Marius Zaromskis?
After re-looking over the entire ranking, I’ve decided to simply leapfrog Thiago for a simpler ranking. This way, he’ll continually drop off the map as he continues to lose or defeat way worse competition than he’s faced. It isn’t like it drops someone significant out of the top ten.
A lot of people complain about Hughes at 4, but the problem is that he lost to Alves (now #3), and GSP twice (#1). If we go by a three year limit, he did defeat Penn and former champ Serra, so… it’s justified considering Koscheck just dropped to Thiago, and Yoshida, Lytle, and Hazelett are all barely in the top 20.
Shields’ rank was over-inflated. Daley, Thompson, Pyle, Verissimo, Pariente, Condit, Okami, and Menne within a three year span, but that really only keeps him above Condit for this year. Next year, he’ll drop if he hasn’t moved to the UFC.
Swick and Kampmann are 8, 9 since Swick has been in the division longer with 4 wins against okay competition. Kampmann beat Condit, but Condit’s competition is tough to gauge as it’s all WEC competition. So, Swick, Kampmann, Condit.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I still don’t like Hughes that high, but it looks like you’re going strictly by their W-L records. I play the “who-beats-whom” game, which is why I put him lower.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Aug 21, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, did you read the commentary above in the post?
That’s the point of the ranking. W-L only. I thought everyone knew this.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Reading's easier when you skip the details.
Now, when going by W-L, I assume you factor in quality of opponent, yes? What about method of win, comparing finishes & decisions? Are those factors also?
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Aug 21, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
If you go by W-L, you would factor in opponent’s rank.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
So essentially, that is quality.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
It is
a statement to Hughes and his talent that he is in the top 5. He is too good to be in the bottom half of the top 10 but not good enough for the top5. I would have him in my top 5 just for the reason you stated. When and if he gets man handled by lower tier guys then we will see him drop.
I have big issues with Lesnar and Mir being ranked so highly. I dont feel either has earnt anything and both have been artificially ranked highly as they have beaten each other.
I notice that you havent ranked Werdum at all yet Mir is at 3. If we compare the two guys…..both have 12 wins and 4 losses with Werdum having a tougher SoS according to mma-elo.com. In their most recent fights, Mir came off a one sided beating against Lesnar whilst Werdum took care of business early and ended the fight against Kyle.
Since the beginning of 2006 Werdum has gone 6-3 with wins against aleks, overeem, gonzaga and vera whilst the losses coming against nog, arlovski and the flash KO to dos santos.
In the same period, Mir has gone 4-3 with wins against Nog, Lesnar and Hardonk and losses to Cruz, Vera and Lesnar.
These guys on paper are pretty even. Mir beat Nog, Werdum lost to Nog. Werdum beat Vera, Mir lost to Vera.
I have no idea how you can rank Mir at #3 and Werdum unranked. Mir has a lower SoS, fewer recent wins, losses to lesser fighters and the most recent loss. Mir and Werdum, in my opinion, should both be ranked somewhere around the 7-15 mark.
My question over Lesnar is then a logical one. If we accept that Mir is not the 3rd best fighter in the world, but rather the 10th, and much of Lesnars ranking is based on his results against Mir (2 of his 5 fights) then why does Lesnar sit in 2nd? Hell, even if Mir is the 3rd best fighter, why is Lesnar in 2nd? He is 4-1. Where is the room for him to grow and time for him to climb the ranks through consistent results? He’s gone straight to the top.
Lesnar beat Herring which was a solid win (dont forget 14 others have also beaten herring) and Couture and Mir who sit around the tail of the top 10. Even ignoring his loss to Mir, how do these results catapult him to #2. I understand people ranking Lesnar at number 2 based on potential, sure, but you are advertising these rankings as based on results and I cannot understand how results have the 4-1 Lesnar at number 2.
Please explain why Mir desersves to be at #3 whilst Werdum is unranked.
Please explain why Lesnar deserves to sit at #2 on a rankings based on results.
Thanks.
SoS doesn’t matter at all.
Werdum lost to Dos Santos, that’s why he’s ranked low. That’s all you really need to know.
Mir beat Lesnar and Nogueira, Nogueira being ranked very high at the time he won
You didn’t take ANY of that into account. Werdum is actually #10 on my reformat in the comments.
And in your analysis, you didn’t take into account the rankings of the opponents they defeated at the time of the match-up.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Werdum lost to Dos Santos, that’s why he’s ranked low. That’s all you really need to know.
I dont see how that explains anything, unless your somehow basing your rankings on leapfroggin and had couture at #3 or something when Lesnar beat him. I sure hope thats not the case cos leapfroggin is a ridiculous way to rank.
Mir beat Lesnar and Nogueira, Nogueira being ranked very high at the time he won. You didn’t take ANY of that into account.
Of course I took those wins into account. If anything hasnt been taken into account its Mirs losses to Cruz, Vera and Lesnar, all unranked. Does that not have any cumulative effect on his rankings or are those losses simply forgotten when he beat Nog?
SoS doesn’t matter at all.
The calibre of opponent is crucial in my opinion. If 2 fighters are 12-4 and one has been fighting cans in regional comps and the other has been fighting the best the UFC, Dream and Strikeforce has to offer, surely the level of the opposition matters a whole lot.
Whilst you did manage to criticise the basis of my questions, you didnt actually answer them, so Ill ask again:
Please explain why Mir desersves to be at #3 whilst Werdum is unranked.
Please explain why Lesnar deserves to sit at #2 on a rankings based on results.
The rankings have to have some sort of leapfrog concept in them to remain consistent or they don’t at all. The problem with not leapfrogging is that it’s an individual’s perception of how much value each fighter gets, and that’s too tough to gauge as a pleasing factor for everywhere. I don’t like leapfrogging, but for this purpose, almost everyone on the committee leapfrogs. I’ll do the same for this argument.
Mir’s loss to Cruz and Vera were before Lesnar or Nogueira. He beats Lesnar, and at the time, Lesnar was ranked top ten due to his win over Herring. Lesnar beats Couture, attains a higher rank that Lesnar, but Mir beats Nogueira. Lesnar then jumps because he beats a Mir who leapfrogged Nogueira. Not very tough to see that if you watch the historical aspect of the rank.
SoS still doesn’t matter. The problem with SoS in this case is that it can be skewed by a huge win over a guy who has a lot of fights over solid competition. If you are basing SoS only on opponent’s records and not opponent’s opponents records… it’s even more of a problem.
Please explain why Mir desersves to be at #3 whilst Werdum is unranked.
I just explained why Mir is ranked higher. Mir was already top five. Werdum lost to an up-and-coming non top ten opponent in Junior Dos Santos.
Please explain why Lesnar deserves to sit at #2 on a rankings based on results.
What’s the argument? Are you arguing that he should be #1, or that he’s too high? He beat Couture and Mir when they were ranked very high. Top five high.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 21, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
[Mir] beats Lesnar, and at the time, Lesnar was ranked top ten due to his win over Herring.
Brock fought Herring after losing to Mir.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Aug 22, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Correct, that was a mistake on my part.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 6:35 AM EDT up reply actions
For the record, you’re a brave soul for putting your rankings out there like this. Subjecting yourself to “OMG why is X ranked Top 5, loser!!!” can’t be fun.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Aug 22, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
GeeDub: you say Lesnar is ranked so high based mainly on potential, but
Who would you rank above Lesnar? Other than Fedor I mean. I could see an argument for Barnett, steroids or not, but anyone else seems like a stretch. He just crushed Mir, so Mir’s out. He beat TKO’d Couture, so Couture’s out. Nogueira’s last fight was a pretty bad loss to Mir, he was actually losing to Sylvia before finally choking him out three rounds into that fight, and he had a much harder time beating Herring than Lesnar did, so I can’t see a good argument for Nogueira. Carwin looks like an absolute monster but the biggest name he’s beaten by far is Gabriel Gonzaga. Velasquez is undefeated and has a world of potential but his highest ranked opponent was Kongo. Rogers has a devastating flash KO over Arlovski but nothing else. I don’t know if that’s really enough to raise Rogers above Lesnar. Overeem is ranked almost entirely on potential. His highest ranked win since moving to HW is Buentello. Even if you include the Cro Cop fight as a “win” though, Cro Cop isn’t the world-beater he used to be at all. The only top fighter Dos Santos has beaten was Werdum. Arlovski has a few wins over top 20 guys since losing to Sylvia, but, again, he got ktfo’d by Rogers. Werdum’s recent major wins have been over Gonzaga, Vera, and Aleksander Emelianenko, along with Mike Kyle, Overeem when Overeem wasn’t even a top 15 LHW, and three losses. Is Gonzaga, Vera, and Aleksander really more impressive than Couture, Herring, and Mir?
Anyway, my point is, HW is kind of a mess and so people rank based on “potential” and circumstance for a reason.
If people want to rank based on potential, thats fine, but I just dont see the point. I want to be able to look at rankings and see which fighters have been winning against good opponents. All those fighters you mentioned should be ranked ahead of Lesnar.
Carwin, Gonzaga, Couture, Mir, Overeem…..etc. All of them. Lesnar is 4-1. He is in the process of climbing the rankings ladder. If he beats Carwin, he should move to around about #10 in my eyes, then a second title defense against a legit challenger should see him move up into the top 5. So he will have a record of 6-1 and be ranked top 5. That would be an incredible achievement and a ridiculously quick ascent up the ranks.
Alternatively, he loses to Carwin, leaving him 4-2 and the man never had any business being anywhere near the top 10. You dont move from obscurity to top 5 with 3 or 4 wins, especially when you have a loss in there. Look at Rogers. He has gone 10-0 and just beat a legit top 10, maybe even top 5 in AA and STILL isnt top 5……rightfully so imo.
Personally, I think Lesnar has a good chance of making it to the top 5. I’d just like to see him win some more fights before putting him up there.
So let me get this straight
You look at Lesnar’s MMA career so far and see a fighter who MIGHT be a Top 5 fighter, someday? Wow.
Jim Palmer: "I said to Nolan, 'Why do you run every ball out like that?' and he said, 'Why wouldn’t you?' "
Mir’s loss to Cruz and Vera were before Lesnar or Nogueira. He beats Lesnar, and at the time, Lesnar was ranked top ten due to his win over Herring.
Lesnar was a top 10 when Mir first fought him?!?!?!?!?! Lesnar was 1-0 when Mir beat him. Mir should get the same rankings credit for beating Lesnar that Fedor got for beating HMC. HMC and Lesnar were both big, heavy, inexperienced rookies who got caught in submissions early due to their inexperience.
SoS still doesn’t matter. The problem with SoS in this case is that it can be skewed by a huge win over a guy who has a lot of fights over solid competition.
SoS isnt gospel but the one calculated at mma-elo.com sure does give you a pretty solid indication of the calibre of opponent a particular fighter has faced. Its a useful little tool. I dont want to get into a discussion on the various ways of calculating SoS and how imperfect it may be but I used it as support to show that both Mir and Werdum have faced a similar class of opponent in achieving their identical win/loss records. You could argue one has had it tougher than the other, but its hard to argue their is much daylight between the difficulty of the opponents they’ve faced.
I just explained why Mir is ranked higher. Mir was already top five.
Mir was already top 5? When? After he beat Lesnar? There is no argument at all to support Lesnar being top 10 when Mir beat him. Prior to the Nog fight, Mir had gone 3wins and 2losses all to unranked opponents. A 3/2 record against unranked opponents doesnt put you in the top 10 in my book.
Are you arguing that he should be #1, or that he’s too high? He beat Couture and Mir when they were ranked very high. Top five high.
I wont argue Lesnar as it stems from the disagreement about Mirs ranking.
Anyways, good luck to you and the rankings team. I just personally cant subscribe to the rankings system you are using.
No, actually… Lesnar’s huge ranking stems from the Herring and Couture battles. Mir was pushed up due to the Nogueira bout.
Give the SoS rating a rest. I calculated my own some time ago, and I know exactly how it works, and how it would skew that logic completely. It can’t be a factor because it can be heavily skewed.
I can make it simpler…. Mir beat Nogueira while Werdum lost to Dos Santos. That justifies Mir’s rank easily.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 6:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Mir was pushed up due to the Nogueira bout.
I understand the Nog win was a good one and could have perhaps pushed Mir into the top 10. But I dont know how a guy can have 1 win against a top 10 fighter and multiple recent losses to unranked opponents and sit at #3, especially on the back of a loss.
I can make it simpler…. Mir beat Nogueira while Werdum lost to Dos Santos. That justifies Mir’s rank easily.
Are Mirs losses to Cruz, Vera and Lesnar not important? Do Werdums wins over Aleks, Overeem, Gonzaga and Vera have any impact?
It seems very selective to pick one fighters career high point and anothers low point to justify current rank.
I don’t understand where the logic is screwed up at. Wasn’t Nogueira Interim champ at the time? He was likely ranked #2 or #3, so Mir immediately leapfrogged to the top.
All of your scenarios involve non-leapfrogging. We aren’t doing that here because it wouldn’t be consistent across all individuals. Leapfrogging at least brings out a consistent way of doing things so everyone understands, even though I hate it.
Mir’s loss to Cruz and Vera are not important at all because he beat Nogueira, who was #2 or #3 at the time of the win. Mir leapfrogs to the top in the #2 or #3 spot because of that win. Lesnar was already at the top.
From what it sounds like, you want to drop Mir completely because he lost. That makes no sense when Lesnar was top ranked already. A loss to a top ranked opponent while you were already BELOW that opponent won’t move you and it shouldn’t. The guys below you need to win in order to move you down. That’s how it has always worked.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess I just dont understand how the leapfroggin idea can work. It just seems to ignore so many crucially important things.
But you’re right, once you subscribe to the leapfroggin concept I can see how you come up with your rankings. Mir beat Nog…..he’s top 3. Lesnar beat Couture, hes top 5. Wham bam thank you ma’am. Sure, it may be predictable, but I just think it fails to acknowledge the importance of consistency. If Anderson lost to Cote, Id dont see the value im having Cote at #1. If Werdum were to beat Fedor, I dont think there would be any validity in him holding the #1 position.
And I dont want to completely screw Mir over coz he lost. But it seems fair to move mir down maybe 50% of the places he gained from beating Nog. So if Mir moved from say #18 to #8 (10 positions) as a result of beating Nog, he should drop down maybe 4 or 5 places to #12 or #13 after losing to Lesnar.
Well, the problem here is that if you don’t leapfrog… it becomes this huge issue of individual assessment of each ranking. It’ll never be relevant to the next person when it is to you because your idea or their idea of how each fighter should drop or gain rank is different.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Or rank using a points based system that works around a set of consistently applied rules. Doesnt have to be elo or anything in particular but most rankings in sports work off the awarding of points. The team or individual with the most points sits at the top and then it runs down based on the total points. Tennis, sailing, moto gp, basketball, soccer, darts, snooker……etc. Everything. Why would a points based system not be best for MMA?
ELO doesn’t work, period. FightMatrix is probably the best one that’s based on ELO, but even that has it’s own set of subjective rules built into it such as more points for championship bouts, etc.
I’ve dabbled heavily in ELO systems and even Microsoft’s Trueskill ranking system for MMA. It just won’t work without some subjectivity.
Point-based systems could work, but really…. a modified ELO system with subjective rules is the best. We have that already.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve dabbled heavily in ELO systems and even Microsoft’s Trueskill ranking system for MMA. It just won’t work without some subjectivity.
Theres no problem if there is subjectivity in creating a ranking system that then ranks consistently and objectively. Every rankings system on the face of the planet has some subjectivity in it……thats a good thing. An objective system that says you get 1 point for every win and lose a point for every loss is clearly no good as it fails to acknowledge the difficulty of your opponent. A system that awards 10 points for beating anybody ranked above you and 5 points for beating somebody below you is better but still doesnt sufficiently acknowledge the varying levels of difficulty of opponents. That rational process of subjectively deciding how to assign points is fine. The criteria then needs to stand up to scrutiny. The subjectivity required to create a system isnt the enemy for me. The subjectivity used in actually ranking fighters when no real system exists is my beef with 95% of rankings.
a modified ELO system with subjective rules is the best. We have that already.
Then whats the point of these Independent Rankings?
Trembow and Stein created these… I believe in order to have a vast amount of experienced writers put their input into play. The validity of them is up to everyone…
The problem is that an ELO system with subjective rules is still flawed to many people, just as any other ranking is.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 23, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I kind of feel like Maia should be higher. Despite obvious weaknesses he hasnt been beaten which is more than i can say for Okami who definately has been shown to worse than opponents in the past. I find it hard to argue that he should be higher than marquardt but luckily they are matched up next.
Or maybe im just a sucker for an undefeated record.
August 2009 Independent World MMA Rankings
Heavyweight Rankings (206 to 265 lbs.)
1. Fedor Emelianenko (30-1, 1 No Contest)
2. Brock Lesnar (4-1)
3. Frank Mir (12-4)
4. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (31-5-1, 1 No Contest)
5. Randy Couture (16-9)
6. Alistair Overeem (29-11, 1 No Contest)
7. Shane Carwin (11-0)
8. Brett Rogers (10-0)
9. Andrei Arlovski (15-7)
10. Fabricio Werdum (12-4-1)
Holy shit! If Overeem is ranked #6, that means some people are putting him in the top 5. Pathetic.
Yeah, this is the major problem I have. I can’t really believe it to be honest. It’s obvious that bias is playing a huge role when it shouldn’t at all.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 22, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Zaromskis at no.10 is a bit silly. Actually its a lot silly. He knocked out Sakurai which is nice, but Sakurai is on the back end of a career and wasn’t in the top ten before. Zaromskis lost to Che Mills…twice.
This shirt is "dry clean only", which means it's dirty.
That really doesn’t matter if Sakurai is on “the back end of his career” or that he lost to Che Mills twice. Both were far in the past. Presently, he was still ranked quite high, hence why Zaromskis moved up.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 23, 2009 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions
The fact remains that no one in that whole tournament was a top 10 welterweight. How does beating them get you a spot in the top 10?
This shirt is "dry clean only", which means it's dirty.
Sakurai actually was on some lists, or at least 11.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Aug 23, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
