MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[DanC]

EDIT: FIRSTLY, SORRY FOR THIS POST BEING SO LONG. I APPRECIATE THE TIME OF ANYONE THAT READS IT.

Okay so I waited until now to post this, because I didn't want it to get lost in amongst the pre and post-UFC 140 threads, as I really want to know what you guys think.

The question at the centre of this thread is: Should MMA introduce official rankings?

Almost every commercial sport operates with some kind of ranking system, whether it be golf, and tennis, which tend to base their rankings on the recent achievements of particular players, or football/soccer/rugby, which are based upon their position in a league table during a particular period of time (the season).

The latter base their rankings upon point systems, with certain amounts of points awarded for wins, draws and losses. An example of this is soccer, which in the UK (and I believe worldwide) awards the winning team 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and zero points for a loss.

Now, as we all know, MMA does not have an official rankings system, and with a number of top fighters fighting in organisations outside of the UFC (Barnett, Alvarez, Melendez, Diaz until recently, etc.), it's not sufficient to simply rank UFC fighters higher than non-UFC fighters. So, should, and could, some kind of ranking system be introduced?

I most definitely do not have a perfect system in mind, but rather I want to use this thread to discuss some ideas, pick them apart, offer suggestions, and just think about whether an official rankings system in MMA could work.

So, I'm not sure where this post is going to go, so I'm just going to go ahead and start writing and see where it goes.

Basic overview of the points system
One system I have in mind is a points-based system, similar to those used in other sports, as mentioned above. I think that a system such as this could actually change the outcome of a number of fights, and in some ways, help to overcome some of the aspects of the sport that currently cause some casual fans to switch off, which I'll come to a little later.

So, how would/could this system work? For a points-based system, fighters would be awarded either 3, 2, 1 or 0 points based on how the fight ends. A win by finish (TKO, KO or submission) would be worth 3 points, a win by decision would award 2 points, a draw would give both fighters 1 point, and a loss would, obviously, not warrant any points to the loser of the fight.

Alternatively, the loser of the fight could actually be deducted 3 points, as this would allow the rankings to change more often, as they should, with the amount of fights taking place.

In theory, this could motivate fighters to work for finishes, as they would be awarded more points than winning simply by decision. I'm sure some fighters would still be happy to lay and pray or grind out a decision and take the two points, but it would certainly be much harder, and take much longer for them to climb the rankings ladder this way.

Another potential idea would be for the winner by decision to be given 2 points, and the fighter on the losing end of the decision to still be awarded 1 point, as, whilst they lost in the eyes of the judges, their opponent was not able to finish them.

How would the points system translate into rankings?
The idea I have in mind is that on top of the points awarded to the fighter (as detailed above) if they get a win, they are awarded a certain amount of bonus points which are dependant upon the ranking of their opponent before the fight. For example, if Fighter A is ranked at #15 before the fight, and their opponent (Fighter B) is ranked #9, and Fighter A wins, then fighter A is given 1 bonus point for each ranking place between themselves and their opponent, which in the case of this example is 6 places. As such, Fighter A is given 6 bonus points.

On the other hand, if the higher ranked fighter gets the win, he should only be awarded half a point for each place, resulting in 3 bonus points (6x0.5) for Fighter B if he gets the win.

If the underdog gets a win over a much higher ranked fighter, the amount of bonus points he would receive may not allow him to 'leapfrog' the higher ranked fighter, but they would certainly allow him to propel up through the rankings in a way that is realistic.

The key difference between MMA and other sports
To lead into one of the main potential criticisms of this system, I want to look at one of the main differences between MMA and other sports. Fight records are far more important in the world of Mixed Martial Arts than other sports. I cannot think of one time that I've ever even heard about the 'records' of any sports teams or individual sportmen/women. For example, we're unlikely to hear that Manchester United are coming into a given game with a record of 2000wins-400losses-350draws or something to that effect, and the same goes for people like Tiger Woods.

Anyway, you can tell a lot from an MMA fighters record, but they can also be quite deceptive. Two guys that spring to mind to illustrate this are, Cain Velasquez, and Jimi Manuwa (a British prospect). Both guys (until recently) were 9-0. On paper, they had had similar experiences, earning the majority of their wins by TKO/KO, and were undefeated in 9 fights.

However, their careers are at completely different stages. Velasquez had beaten a number of UFC fighters and won the title, yet Manuwa was still fighting under the radar of most fans on the UK circuit. So, how would we differentiate between these two guys in terms of rankings?

Well, this is where the difficulty is, but I think that the bonus points system would have put Velasquez up in the top tier of the rankings based upon the initial rankings of his opponets (Rothwell, Kongo, Lesnar, Nogueira), whereas Manuwa would not have received as many, if any, bonus points for his wins, as his opponents are likely to be outside even the top 100 in terms of rankings.

If this system were to be introduced, how would initial rankings be calculated?
Here is where some issues become apparent. How would a guy like Overeem, who is very experienced and has had a lot of MMA fights, rank up against a less-experienced guy like Lesnar? Well, based on this system, Overeem would have 103 points (33 wins by finish, so 33x3=99 + two wins by decision so 99+4=103), before 3 points were deducted for each of his 11 losses, which would bring his total points to 70.

Now, Lesnar would have 12 points for each of his wins by finish (4x3points), plus one win by decision (2 points) = 14points. Minus his two losses, and he is only left with 8 points.

Such a HUGE difference in points between Overeem and Lesnar really would not reflect their current position in terms of their rankings at this moment in time, and even with the huge amount of bonus points that Lesnar would be awarded for wins over Carwin, Mir, Herring and Couture, who were all highly ranked at the time that he beat them, it's likely that he would still trail Overeem in a big way after awarding Overeem all of his bonus points.

Conclusion
I think that this system would work in theory, and would most likely work out quite nicely if it were introduced, BUT introducing a thing like this would be extremely difficult given the deceptive nature of MMA win/loss/draw records. It'd be difficult to to introduce an initial ranking list that everybody agrees on, and if you guys can think of any way that initial rankings could be calculated then I'd love to hear it.

Here's a couple of other issues for you guys to consider:
- Should a fighter be awarded more points if they get the W in round 1, rather than round 5, as it is assumed that both fighters are physically well earlier in the fight
- Should fighters be awarded bonus points if one or more judges score a given round as a 10-8?
- At what point do fighters become ranked? Do they need to beat a top-20 fighter before they can be considered for the rankings list? It would be impossible to rank every fighter in the world, so where's the cut-off point, and what's the criteria for becoming a ranked fighter?
- Would there need to be a 'season' in MMA for this system to work? Even if the season went from January to December and then began again in January with a brief break for christmas/new year, what effect would this have?
- Would an official system remedy issues faced by guys like Condit and Evans where they, in the eyes of most, qualify for a title shot, but events beyond their control mean they have still not been able to face the champion. An official system would make it very clear who was 'supposed' to fight for the title, and if the champion was injured then they would have no choice but to fight the official number one contender as soon as they are fit, without any exceptions.

I'm sorry this thread ended up being SO BLOODY LONG, but I think it sort of deserved a massive article, and I'd love to get the thoughts of you guys, so feel free to chime in tell me what you think (good or bad!).

Thanks guys,
DanC

[MMAtt]

I skimmed through real quick and saw the scoring part but I don't like the idea of a split decistion win being worth just as much as someone clearly winning but not being totally dominate to the tune of 30-27

[DanC]

Originally Posted by MMATT

I skimmed through real quick and saw the scoring part but I don't like the idea of a split decistion win being worth just as much as someone clearly winning but not being totally dominate to the tune of 30-27

Yeah man, that's an issue I have as well. Maybe half a point more could be awarded for a UD win (eg: 2.5) over a split (2).

[lwbrewer]

I skimmed through quick too. I don't see this as a total way to judge but part of it yes. Problem is if I was to fight bot 30 caliber fights it would give me = points as those fighting top 5 calibers.
Adding to your idea. the points need to be higher than that to judge fairly. give a point per round won. Split dec = 2-1 win verses dec = 3-0 offer bonus's for finishes 1 for finish and extra 1 for each round eliminated example 1st round sub would get 2pts for no 2nd or 3rd rd. Their needs to be points for fighting a top 5 verses a bot 20
after all of this typing more inclined to brackets were new fighters fill in at the bottom and work their way up.

[DanC]

Originally Posted by lwbrewer

I skimmed through quick too. I don't see this as a total way to judge but part of it yes. Problem is if I was to fight bot 30 caliber fights it would give me = points as those fighting top 5 calibers.
Adding to your idea. the points need to be higher than that to judge fairly. give a point per round won. Split dec = 2-1 win verses dec = 3-0 offer bonus's for finishes 1 for finish and extra 1 for each round eliminated example 1st round sub would get 2pts for no 2nd or 3rd rd. Their needs to be points for fighting a top 5 verses a bot 20
after all of this typing more inclined to brackets were new fighter fill in a the bottom and work their way up.

I like the idea of extra points for each round eliminated, it would motivate guys to keep pushing the pace of fights.

I also agree that there needs to be an increased number of points given so that we can really reflect (accurately) what happened in the fight.

[The Donosaur]

Dan Severn, Travis Fulton, Jeremy Horn & Shonie Carter would all be ranked top 5 forever. Randy & Penn wouldn't have ever even touched to top 50 even the point bonuses for fighting higher ranked fighters wouldn't make up for the 100+ fight disadvantage they have in comparision to the first list of guys. Although I do like that you don't give anybody to huge of a drop for a loss. I hate the "Back of the line nonsense". This is gonna sound stupid but if there was some horrible event and GSP, Fitch, & 20 random barely functional muntants were the only survivors, and they decided to start a fight league. Well when Fitch lost to GSP according to the way everyone ranks currently after that fight the rankings would look like this 1.GSP 2. Most functional mutant 3. 2nd most functional mutant 4. Fitch...I know thats ridiculous but I do really think that a loss hurts your ranking to much. Take Sonnen for instance i've read alot of comments on here about how he has to earn it how about the fact that he earned it and then barely lost. Yeah he shouldn't keep getting title shots but he also shouldn't have to win 5 straight like some would argue. Thats just my rant on the rankings issue. Honestly I think that far to much time is spent focusing on who "Deserves" the shot which takes fights away from the champs. I think the fight should go to the highest ranked guy whe the CHAMP is healthy. The current title holder should never wait on a challenger in my opinion.

[DanC]

Originally Posted by DH19

Dan Severn, Travis Fulton, Jeremy Horn & Shonie Carter would all be ranked top 5 forever. Randy & Penn wouldn't have ever even touched to top 50 even the point bonuses for fighting higher ranked fighters wouldn't make up for the 100+ fight disadvantage they have in comparision to the first list of guys. Although I do like that you don't give anybody to huge of a drop for a loss. I hate the "Back of the line nonsense". This is gonna sound stupid but if there was some horrible event and GSP, Fitch, & 20 random barely functional muntants were the only survivors, and they decided to start a fight league. Well when Fitch lost to GSP according to the way everyone ranks currently after that fight the rankings would look like this 1.GSP 2. Most functional mutant 3. 2nd most functional mutant 4. Fitch...I know thats ridiculous but I do really think that a loss hurts your ranking to much. Take Sonnen for instance i've read alot of comments on here about how he has to earn it how about the fact that he earned it and then barely lost. Yeah he shouldn't keep getting title shots but he also shouldn't have to win 5 straight like some would argue. Thats just my rant on the rankings issue. Honestly I think that far to much time is spent focusing on who "Deserves" the shot which takes fights away from the champs. I think the fight should go to the highest ranked guy whe the CHAMP is healthy. The current title holder should never wait on a challenger in my opinion.

Fair points man. I think that the flaw in the system that I propose is that in theory, pure quantity of fights could allow fighters to stay at the top, and I guess the only way around that would be to award a much greater number of bonus points to fighters based upon the current ranking of their opponent, say 25 points for each ranking place.

That way, fighters like Randy, who only had 30 fights, would be much higher in the rankings than guys like Severn because the rankings of Couture's opponents were far far higher than any of Severns have been in the last few years.

[beau420]

I don't think there should be an official ranking.

Because styles makes fights, different bodies sizes and styles totally make fights.

If we look at boxing and their rankings, check this:

Boxing News

There are 4 different commissions/associations/organizations/federation (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO) And each have very different ranking to their fighters.

It sucks, but what I do enjoy, is that it is agreed that those rankings really don't mean much. What are important are reporters rankings. Reporters and websites/media outlets.

I think those are more important. They don't show bias.

A ranking system, if it was run by the UFC....I would never trust. If they were done by FOX, I would never trust it. But if they were done by a respected MMA reporter, like a Jon Annik or even a Bas Rutten, I would be more likely to trust their opinions, then to people who may or may not have arterial motives.

There are some websites that I have grown to kind of agree with.

The site I kind of trust that does use a point system like you are describing is:

Fight Matrix | Current MMA Rankings

Now, nothing is perfect and it never means that a guy who is 10th will definitely beat a guy who is ranked 20th, but I don't think anyone will ever agree on 1 site to trust. Or one system.

And if people do start using 1 source for their ranking....I guarantee the UFC will disagree with it and try and poke holes in it. Same as DREAM fighters....or whatever other organization says.

If we look at GSP vs Hardy. GSP had way more on the line and he dominated Hardy. But Hardy's next opponent, Condit KOd him in the 1st. Should that be worth more? No....Hardy's confidence was low, Condit didn't have a belt that Hardy was trying to take away from him....he didn't have as much pressure as GSP has on him (or any champ)

That site I posted actually says for some of the big title fights:

There is a special factor involved in UFC title and tournament championship bouts, due to the increased length of the matches, opposition obligations, and prestige of the lineage. It also helps with problems caused by global talent pool separation. The same factor applies to historical PRIDE title bouts, Shooto (115,123,132,143) , DREAM (155,185), Strike Force Women (135,145), Tachi (125). This factor CAN (but not always) result in a higher amount of combined total points. This factor was strongest prior to 2006, but has been weakened progressively since, due to the decreased need for it.

And there are some other things that come into play:

A bout’s winner can lose points, if for example, they only manage a close win over a much lower rated fighter. In addition, the loser will gain points in this scenario.

Most sites use some sort of ELO system:

MMA-ELO Current and All-time Fighter Ratings

There is no system that is perfect of works. I think the publication is the one to look at...that separates the real rankings from the fakes. Where some guys are over rated....I try and make note of those people or sites, and try not to use them.

[DanC]

Originally Posted by beau420

I don't think there should be an official ranking.

Because styles makes fights, different bodies sizes and styles totally make fights.

If we look at boxing...

Sorry I clipped the quote man, just to keep the space to a minimum. Awesome post as also Beau, really great. I think that you definitely have a point about reporters rankings meaning the most, and whilst I agree in part, I think that an objective, impartial body would exercise even less bias than reporters, as we have to remember journalists have their favourites, and their main motivation is not to offer impartial ranking listings, whereas an independent body would work hard to make sure their rankings would based upon 'mathematical' calculations.

Sure no one will ever agree, but I think that a systematical approach to rankings would help clear up a lot of the arguments about whether particular fighters 'deserve' their shots.

[Trodden]

the losers fate should be in the hands of the attending audience

a thumbs down, and the fighter is retired and exiled to sitcoms and reality TV