MMA RANKINGS - CHAPTER 2...

Ludo wrote:

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?

Personally no I do not. I would not currently rank Werdum over Fedor the same way I didn't vote Serra over GSP at any point. In that situation I think events that followed just confirmed that. But to be fair I have been wrong before. For example I waited until both Faber and Torres lost for the 2nd time to drop them in the rankings. I believed they were still the best in their weight classes so my votes reflected that.

I just don't see how wins and losses don't play as big a role as "potential". How do you discount the intangibles in concrete losses and concrete wins for what you feel in your gut as to who is the better fighter? Thats just the part I'm having trouble understanding. I realize potential is part of it. Thats why Mo and Mousasi were in the top top and in some cases top 5 for Mousasi at one point.

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.

That's because your views aren't based on the history of and reason for rankings. His are. Now, Golbez did show that Freak wasn't exactly being consistent with how it should be done by ignoring losses he didn't agree with, but Freak and Ludo are mostly describing it correctly. It is only supposed to be based on wins and losses, and since not everyone can fight each other, that's where the debates and differences happen. You then have to decide for yourself whose wins are stronger. This is the reason you'll probably never have someone outside of the UFC ranked number one. It's not because the person outside might not be a better fighter, but because he hasn't consistently had to fight the best competition. Again, It's about who you beat, and how you beat them. It's always been that way. I don't know why people want to ignore the entire point of rankings, but it dillutes the process.

Ludo wrote:

I just don't see how wins and losses don't play as big a role as "potential". How do you discount the intangibles in concrete losses and concrete wins for what you feel in your gut as to who is the better fighter? Thats just the part I'm having trouble understanding. I realize potential is part of it. Thats why Mo and Mousasi were in the top top and in some cases top 5 for Mousasi at one point.

He should never have been in the top 5 of anybody's rankings, and I doubt he ever was for anybody who does legitimate rankings.

So where does Jake Shields fit into this whole 'rankings are only based on wins and losses' logic?

Quote :

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.

But they didn't ignore those losses or those wins. Serra or Werdum may not have gotten automatic bids in the rankings at number 1 or even above the fighter they beat, but they did move them way up the rankings for everyone here.

So technically the wins and losses were not ignored were they? The only difference is the way those wins and losses were factored into the equation.

HW
1. Cain
2. Werdum
3. Fedor
4. JDS
5. Overeem
6. Carwin
7. Lesnar
8. Barnett
9. Mir
10. Nog

LHW
1. Shogun
2. Evans
3. Rampage
4. Machida
5. Franklin
6. Jones
7. Bader
8. Mousasi
9. Cavalcante
10. Gump

MW
1. Anderson
2. Sonnen
3. Vitor
4. Okami
5. Marquardt
6. Hendo
7. Wandy
8. Santiago
9. Bisping
10. Maia

WW
1. GSP
2. Fitch
3. Koscheck
4. Shields
5. Nick Diaz
6. BJ
7. Hughes
8. Hieron
9. Condit
10. Alves

LW
1. Edgar
2. Maynard
3. Alvarez
4. Melendez
5. Aoki
6. Sotiropoulos
7. Jim Miller
8. Gomi
9. Florian
10. Henderson - Almost put Jadamba Narantungalag because I like to say it... lol

FW
1. Aldo
2. Bibiano
3. Hioki
4. MTB
5. Omigawa
6. Grispi
7. Manny
8. Sandro
9. Takaya
10. Warren

BW
1. Cruz
2. Bowles
3. Faber
4. Jorgensen
5. Benavidez
6. Imanari
7. Torres
8. Wineland
9. Maeda
10. Makovsky

How would Bones vs Bader be ranked with only wins and losses as the deciding factor? basically they have the same record (12-0 vs 11-1 really 12-0) but Bader has a win vs a top 10 LHW and Bones has a couple more quality wins. Everywhere you look Bones is ahead of Bader though, something else is being viewed in on his rank position.

What about Frankie and Gray? Frankie has wins over BJ, but Gray has a win over Frankie, wouldn't you rank Gray ahead of Frankie?.....

Would Reem even be ranked as a HW without opinion coming into play on potential?

Everyone has their own way of ranking fighters, nobodies way is technically wrong, some will just be more logical then others.

LA wrote:

How would Bones vs Bader be ranked with only wins and losses as the deciding factor? basically they have the same record (12-0 vs 11-1 really 12-0) but Bader has a win vs a top 10 LHW and Bones has a couple more quality wins. Everywhere you look Bones is ahead of Bader though, something else is being viewed in on his rank position.

What about Frankie and Gray? Frankie has wins over BJ, but Gray has a win over Frankie, wouldn't you rank Gray ahead of Frankie?.....

Would Reem even be ranked as a HW without opinion coming into play on potential?

Everyone has their own way of ranking fighters, nobodies way is technically wrong, some will just be more logical then others.

+1

LA wrote:

How would Bones vs Bader be ranked with only wins and losses as the deciding factor? basically they have the same record (12-0 vs 11-1 really 12-0) but Bader has a win vs a top 10 LHW and Bones has a couple more quality wins. Everywhere you look Bones is ahead of Bader though, something else is being viewed in on his rank position.

What about Frankie and Gray? Frankie has wins over BJ, but Gray has a win over Frankie, wouldn't you rank Gray ahead of Frankie?.....

Would Reem even be ranked as a HW without opinion coming into play on potential?

Everyone has their own way of ranking fighters, nobodies way is technically wrong, some will just be more logical then others.

Bader should be ranked higher because he has a top 10 win. Any rankings that has it the other way around, either doesn't do a proper rankings, or they may be ranking Hamill pretty highly.

Frankie is ranked higher than Gray because his recent resume is better than Gray's, I don't know what the problem here is. Gray didn't beat Frankie last year or anything like that. I don't know that looking at a loss from 2 and a half years ago would discredit his recent string of wins. Again, the point of rankings is to see what's going on right now as if we stopped time and tried to see who has been doing the best. Not who is the most talented.

With Overeem, if it was based on potential, he'd be top 5, but since it's not he's just cracked the top 10 in most good rankings. This is based on having a long run of wins with a few wins against decent fighters. If he had the same type of run in the UFC, he'd be very close to the top.

EDIT: I just checked 2 websites' rankings, and neither of them had Bader below Bones, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say that "everywhere you look, Bones is ahead of Bader". BTW, the 2 I checked were Sherdog and MMAWeekly. I didn't check some bummy site or anything.

GDPofDRC wrote:

So where does Jake Shields fit into this whole 'rankings are only based on wins and losses' logic?

Well, he's won a ton of fights at welterweight recently, but he hasn't really beaten any of the elite fighters. I'd say that puts him right outside of St. Pierre and Fitch. I'd say at best 3rd, at worst 8th. It depends on how good you think his wins and losses are compared to everyone else, that's the point.

You have five fighters he's beat ranked ahead of him.

GDPofDRC wrote:

You have five fighters he's beat ranked ahead of him.

First, who are we talking about? Second, when was the fight?

I was talking to you of course. Shield's has been on a streak yet is ranked behind 5 ranked fighters he's beat during that streak.

GDPofDRC wrote:

I was talking to you of course. Shield's has been on a streak yet is ranked behind 5 ranked fighters he's beat during that streak.

No he's not.

He was before you just edited it that way.

I was wondering if he edited his choices

GDPofDRC wrote:

He was before you just edited it that way.

I know. I accidentally forgot to put him on my list at all. What happened was I was trying to figure out where I wanted to put him, because of the argument we're having now. It's difficult to figure out where to put him exactly, so I was going to wait until I had the others ranked and figure out where to put him. Then I forgot. Sorry.

A simple mistake, your welcome.

Man it's hard to believe Chork is soo robotic about his rankings, but he has deviations from this rank style in his own rankings. Just at a glance, Brock ahead of Fedor, Kampmann ahead of Alves, Hendricks top 10 at WW, KenFlo ahead of Aoki, all these rankings require something other then win/loss.

With Bader/Jones, that was just an example, I could list others, some of which are in your own rankings which deviate from win/loss.

On Gray/Frankie, Frankie has impresive wins since that loss to Gray, but at the same time Gray hasn't lost aswell and whether 2 years ago or not still UD'd Frankie convincingly, both have improved equally.

Reem is pretty much solely ranked in the top 10 due to potentially, he has one win at HW of any note against still nobody, and other then that his wins at HW aren't much different then Struve.


I'm simply pointing out rankings should be based off more then win loss.

Heavyweight

01. Fabricio Werdum
02. Cain Velasquez
03. Fedor Emelienanko
04. Junior Dos Santos
05. Brock Lesnar
06. Shane Carwin
07. Allistair Overeem
08. Antonio Silva
09. Roy Nelson
10. Brendan Schaub

Light Heavyweight

01. Mauricio Rua
02. Rashad Evans
03. Quinton Jackson
04. Lyoto Machida
05. Ryan Bader
06. Jon Jones
07. Rafael Cavalcante
08. Antonio Rogerio Nogueira
09. Rich Franklin
10. Forrest Griffin

Middleweight

01. Anderson Silva
02. Chael Sonnen
03. Yushin Okami
04. Nate Marquardt
05. Demian Maia
06. Ronaldo Souza
07. Vitor Belfort
08. Chris Leben
09. Wanderlei Silva
10. Michael Bisping

Welterweight

01. Georges St Pierre
02. Jon Fitch
03. Josh Koscheck
04. Thiago Alves
05. Nick Diaz
06. Jake Shields
07. Martin Kampmann
08. Diego Sanchez
09. Carlos Condit
10. Paul Daley

Lightweight

01. Frank Edgar
02. Gray Maynard
03. Gilbert Melendez
04. BJ Penn
05. Eddie Alvarez
06. Kenny Florian
07. Shinya Aoki
08. Sean Sherk
09. George Sotiropoulos
10. Evan Dunham

Featherweight

01. Jose Aldo
02. Manny Gamburyan
03. Mike Thomas Brown
04. Marlon Sandro
05. Michihiro Omigawa
06. Bibiano Fernandes
07. Josh Grispi
08. Joe Warren
09. Diego Nunes
10. Raphael Assuncao

Bantamweight

01. Dominick Cruz
02. Joseph Benavidez
03. Scott Jorgensen
04. Brian Bowles
05. Urijah Faber
06. Miguel Torres
07. Rani Yahya
08. Takeya Mizugaki
09. Demetrious Johnson
10. Wagnney Fabiano

chorky777 wrote:

LA wrote:

How would Bones vs Bader be ranked with only wins and losses as the deciding factor? basically they have the same record (12-0 vs 11-1 really 12-0) but Bader has a win vs a top 10 LHW and Bones has a couple more quality wins. Everywhere you look Bones is ahead of Bader though, something else is being viewed in on his rank position.

What about Frankie and Gray? Frankie has wins over BJ, but Gray has a win over Frankie, wouldn't you rank Gray ahead of Frankie?.....

Would Reem even be ranked as a HW without opinion coming into play on potential?

Everyone has their own way of ranking fighters, nobodies way is technically wrong, some will just be more logical then others.

Bader should be ranked higher because he has a top 10 win. Any rankings that has it the other way around, either doesn't do a proper rankings, or they may be ranking Hamill pretty highly.

Frankie is ranked higher than Gray because his recent resume is better than Gray's, I don't know what the problem here is. Gray didn't beat Frankie last year or anything like that. I don't know that looking at a loss from 2 and a half years ago would discredit his recent string of wins. Again, the point of rankings is to see what's going on right now as if we stopped time and tried to see who has been doing the best. Not who is the most talented.

With Overeem, if it was based on potential, he'd be top 5, but since it's not he's just cracked the top 10 in most good rankings. This is based on having a long run of wins with a few wins against decent fighters. If he had the same type of run in the UFC, he'd be very close to the top.

EDIT: I just checked 2 websites' rankings, and neither of them had Bader below Bones, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say that "everywhere you look, Bones is ahead of Bader". BTW, the 2 I checked were Sherdog and MMAWeekly. I didn't check some bummy site or anything.

but what does it mean "to look at what's going on right now?" How far into the past does "right now" include?

Personally I have Jones higher then Bader. Im pretty confident in saying he is a better fighter. And wether or not the UFC match makers have allowed him to beat up a top 10 fighter is not relevant imo.

Nevermind that Bader snoozefested his way to a win over his lone top 10 opponent.

Hwy

1)Cain
2)Werdum
3)Fedor
4)JDS
5)Carwin
6)Reem
7)Brock
8)Mir
9)Big Foot
10)Nog

LHWY

1)Rua
2)Machida
3)Evans
4)Rampage
5)Jones
6)Cavalcante
7)Mo
8)Bader
9)Gegard
10)Nog

MW

1)Silva
2)Okami
3)Souza
4)Belfort
5)Nate
6)Bisping
7)Leben
8)Lombard
9)Santiago
10)Munoz