MMA RANKINGS - CHAPTER 2...

I invented the piano neck tie, I did.

IMO GDP is right that you can't just use wins and loses for the ranking but when ranking two fighters in the same division who HAVE faught, that fight HAS to calculate or else all logic is out the window.

Ludo wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

Who is completely ignoring wins and losses?

GDPofDRC wrote:

I rank on who is the best not just wins and losses. That's why I can rank Fedor ahead of Werdum, that's why I've never had Serra ranked above GSP, ever, that's why Cain was my #1 HW after Fedor lost that's why Brock isn't top ten. All the best fighters don't get to fight each other so how anyone can argue ranks are only about wins is beyond me and a extremely narrow view to carry into this endeavor.

By not having my rankings based entirely on W's and L's that means I'm completely ignoring wins and losses altogether? Don't do that to yourself dude.

I think what Ludo means is you are ignoring the wins and loses that are relevent to the rankings.

Once again though, those match ups are subject to evaluation beyond just wins and losses alone.

I'm with GDP all day.

All data should be considered. The BCS doesn't go just based on wins and losses either does it?

Wins, Losses, how you win, how you lost, skills demonstrated in the fight, weaknesses demonstrated in the fight all should be factored in. OU a difference in ranking philosophy is no reason not to vote.

OK lets review

I agree that you can't just use wins and loses alone because not all these fighters get to fight each other. That and that alone is the only reason imo that wins and loses can't be the only thing that's looked at. Now lets stop right there, do you agree that if all these fighters faught in the same org and could face each other that wins and loses are the only thing that can be used for the rankings?

I'm actually considering deleting my votes.

Don't get mad guys I think this is a good conversation

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I'm with GDP all day.

All data should be considered. The BCS doesn't go just based on wins and losses either does it?

Wins, Losses, how you win, how you lost, skills demonstrated in the fight, weaknesses demonstrated in the fight all should be factored in. OU a difference in ranking philosophy is no reason not to vote.

Yeah but I contemplate suicide every time I read a rankings thread, so I more or less do it for health reasons. Just the mental approach some take when voting is baffling to me. I face palm so hard it becomes a pimp slap.

MMAEYES wrote:

Don't get mad guys I think this is a good conversation

It's not good at all.

MMAEYES wrote:

do you agree that if all these fighters faught in the same org and could face each other that wins and loses are the only thing that can be used for the rankings?

If that was the case. That all HW fighters could and had fought each other, then weight wins and losses carry would grow exponentially. There would be no reason to do rankings though also.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

I'm actually considering deleting my votes.

Hahahahahahahhahahah!


You wanted to start this whole conversation by calling out peoples ranks because they have the nerve to not have an identical methodology or opinion as you? Now you want to pack it in and run because people won't let you run with that judgmental nonsense? Okay.

GDPofDRC wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

I'm actually considering deleting my votes.

Hahahahahahahhahahah!


You wanted to start this whole conversation by calling out peoples ranks because they have the nerve to not have an identical methodology or opinion as you? Now you want to pack it in and run because people won't let you run with that judgmental nonsense? Okay.

LOL

GDPofDRC wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

I'm actually considering deleting my votes.

Hahahahahahahhahahah!


You wanted to start this whole conversation by calling out peoples ranks because they have the nerve to not have an identical methodology or opinion as you? Now you want to pack it in and run because people won't let you run with that judgmental nonsense? Okay.

No because your rankings are retarded and this whole thing is a joke if yours are included.

OU wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I'm with GDP all day.

All data should be considered. The BCS doesn't go just based on wins and losses either does it?

Wins, Losses, how you win, how you lost, skills demonstrated in the fight, weaknesses demonstrated in the fight all should be factored in. OU a difference in ranking philosophy is no reason not to vote.

Yeah but I contemplate suicide every time I read a rankings thread, so I more or less do it for health reasons. Just the mental approach some take when voting is baffling to me. I face palm so hard it becomes a pimp slap.

OU I agree with this all day and night.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

I'm actually considering deleting my votes.

Hahahahahahahhahahah!


You wanted to start this whole conversation by calling out peoples ranks because they have the nerve to not have an identical methodology or opinion as you? Now you want to pack it in and run because people won't let you run with that judgmental nonsense? Okay.

No because your rankings are retarded and this whole thing is a joke if yours are included.

Why you gotta be an insulting dick? Can't you just disagree?

timthebim wrote:

OU wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I'm with GDP all day.

All data should be considered. The BCS doesn't go just based on wins and losses either does it?

Wins, Losses, how you win, how you lost, skills demonstrated in the fight, weaknesses demonstrated in the fight all should be factored in. OU a difference in ranking philosophy is no reason not to vote.

Yeah but I contemplate suicide every time I read a rankings thread, so I more or less do it for health reasons. Just the mental approach some take when voting is baffling to me. I face palm so hard it becomes a pimp slap.

OU I agree with this all day and night.

You guys should just worry about your own. There are always gonna be some who feel the need to bash you because your opinion isn't the same as theirs. If they do who cares, you know what you know and you know why you choose how you do. Tell'em to shove it or ignore it. By adding your ranking you only bring the cumulative results closer to what you think they should look like.

What I meant was ignoring Serra beating GSP, ignoring Werdum beating Fedor are pretty prime examples of ignoring wins and losses. To have left GSP ranked above Serra was pretty silly even if the win was a fluke. It was something everyone knew could happen even before it did happen. Just like Werdum subbing Fedor was always possible. To act like it could never happen again is ridiculous. Is it likely to happen again? Probably not. But it did happen and thus the rankings should reflect it.

Ludo wrote:

What I meant was ignoring Serra beating GSP, ignoring Werdum beating Fedor are pretty prime examples of ignoring wins and losses. To have left GSP ranked above Serra was pretty silly even if the win was a fluke. It was something everyone knew could happen even before it did happen. Just like Werdum subbing Fedor was always possible. To act like it could never happen again is ridiculous. Is it likely to happen again? Probably not. But it did happen and thus the rankings should reflect it.

I disagree with everything. Your views on ranking are the exact opposite of mine. But since sadly your views seemed to be shared by the majority voting here, I just hang my head in disappointment.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

MMAEYES wrote:

Don't get mad guys I think this is a good conversation

It's not good at all.

Anything that get's people posting is a good convo imo lol

Ludo wrote:

What I meant was ignoring Serra beating GSP, ignoring Werdum beating Fedor are pretty prime examples of ignoring wins and losses. To have left GSP ranked above Serra was pretty silly even if the win was a fluke. It was something everyone knew could happen even before it did happen. Just like Werdum subbing Fedor was always possible. To act like it could never happen again is ridiculous. Is it likely to happen again? Probably not. But it did happen and thus the rankings should reflect it.

Freak is agreeing with what you are saying but he really isn't going by it. I already had him say that Rampage beat Forrest and Shogun beat Machida twice.. which if we are going by what TECHNICALLY is right than both of his views on those fights are wrong.. Freak goes.. "Nearly everyone other than the 3 judges scored it that way" But by you guy's definition of how fights should be ranked than technically what the 3 judges think is the only one that matters.

Ranking is very subjective and can NOT be only based on just Wins and losses.. A good example is of the scenario I gave in the LHW division where everyone has beaten each other.. and with some controversial wins in the mix as well.

If enough people votes that all have a good thought process of how they are ranking.. i feel that we get a more accurate rankings than most.

the Brock vs Carwin fight could have been stopped a couple of times in that first round.. maybe somebody truly believe that Carwin "should" have won that fight but the ref didnt stop it.. just like Shogun "should" have won Machida vs Shogun I (which people ranked that way with him being #1).. and they might believed that if they fought again than Carwin would win.. Why wouldnt someone be able to rank Carwin above Lesnar? i didn't, but I am not going to mind it.

OU wrote:

Ludo wrote:

What I meant was ignoring Serra beating GSP, ignoring Werdum beating Fedor are pretty prime examples of ignoring wins and losses. To have left GSP ranked above Serra was pretty silly even if the win was a fluke. It was something everyone knew could happen even before it did happen. Just like Werdum subbing Fedor was always possible. To act like it could never happen again is ridiculous. Is it likely to happen again? Probably not. But it did happen and thus the rankings should reflect it.

I disagree with everything. Your views on ranking are the exact opposite of mine. But since sadly your views seemed to be shared by the majority voting here, I just hang my head in disappointment.

You don't think that beating the Champ in definitive fashion warrants a ranking even if only until a rematch is held?