MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[disposableassassin]

I would move Belfort to around 7 or 8. He beat Johnson and akiyama. Those are his only two wins at MW in the UFC if I remember correctly. I wouldn't put him over guys like okami and boetsch. I do understand it being difficult to properly place him. On the flip side I fully understand sak's frustration with his placement. Based on his wins at MW prior to entering the UFC his title shot off of a catch weight win. Getting starched by Anderson silva. And only besting lower tier comp since then. It is hard to say that his name didn't have anything to do with his high placement.

[Sakara=Excitement]

Its utter horse shit to say oh well he's extremely softly ranked (i.e. he in no way deserves to be ranked there) and the rank him there.

Bullshit.

[Dr. MMA]

Softly ranked does NOT mean he does not deserve to be ranked. It is the instability of that particular ranking. A great example of this has been Brock Lesnar who shot up the rankings based on his 1-2 wins against top opponents but was also dropping significantly because of how he lost to opponents. The instability is largely caused by the opponents the fighter faces and also in the fashion they win. Vitor shot up the rankings based on his wins against Lindland and Franklin (now 3 years ago), and his instability has increased greater with each lower ranked opponent he faces and with the inactivity he has. The problem is he keeps winning (and impressively aside from his loss against Anderson) so his placement (not stability) doesn't get as jeopardized. If he loses his next fight, he drops significantly as the former [finally] takes over. Maia was in a similar situation in the MW division.

Boetsch, on the other hand, is currently ranked lower but his ranking is getting more stable that a loss to a top ranked opponent doesn't drop him as significantly.

[SWIFTboy]

Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement

Its utter horse shit to say oh well he's extremely softly ranked (i.e. he in no way deserves to be ranked there) and the rank him there.

Bullshit.

You can disagree with the ranking and your initial reasons for doing so were indeed valid. They were reasons most of us took into consideration, we just didn't weight them as heavily as you do.

Dismissing the reasoning as horseshit (or bullshit? get your story straight!) just makes me think you don't really understand the concept. Nuances have never been your strength though.

Originally Posted by Dr. MMA

Softly ranked does NOT mean he does not deserve to be ranked. It is the instability of that particular ranking.

If he loses his next fight, he drops significantly ...

In the same vein, a win by Vitor against anyone ranked lower than him probably wouldn't make him rise. It would just solidify his current ranking.

SAKARA DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE!!!!!!



ESPN has Vitor ranked #2 and Boetsch #8. Now THAT'S just crazy talk.

[disposableassassin]

Sweet jeebus #2?????? Morons.

[Sakara=Excitement]

Vitor at number two?

Alright where's my gun? I'm going to Bristol.

[disposableassassin]

Sak you were told not to read that sentence. Now we are going to have a body count all because you can't follow directions.

Here I hope this helps for next time.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement

Very softly ranked?

If any fighter is VERY SOFTLY RANKED then they DO NOT deserve there ranking.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Dr. MMA

Softly ranked does NOT mean he does not deserve to be ranked. It is the instability of that particular ranking. A great example of this has been Brock Lesnar who shot up the rankings based on his 1-2 wins against top opponents but was also dropping significantly because of how he lost to opponents.

Exactly.

I'm literally the fool who coined the terms "soft ranking" and "solid ranking," and this is a perfect way to illustrate the concept.

I agree that Vitor trades off his name, and that he's due for a dramatic swing with even a single loss, but you could say that about a lot of fighters, particularly at MW. Belfort, Bisping, Rockhold and Stann would probably fall entirely out of my top 10 with a single loss. Lombard, Belcher, Souza, Palhares and Kennedy can potentially all drop entirely out of the top 15 with a loss in their next bout.

But for right now, they're softly ranked.

rh

[dbader08]

Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement

SO?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Belfort has exactly as many wins over top 10 MWs as I do. None. Tim has two. Belfort isn't undefeated at MW, Tim is. Belfort got absolutely STORCHED against Anderson already.

Tim is getting raped here.

What looks better? The Patriots blowing out Miami by 45 points or The Patriots beating the Giants in the Playoffs by 3?

Sure, he has 2 wins over top 10 opponents on paper, but I don't actually buy that he beat Lombard. Even if you think he did, IDK how you could say it was impressive. I will say his win over Okami was very impressive...

Though Vitor didn't beat Rich at 185, he did beat him at 195, which has to hold at least some weight as to where he's ranked now...and imo Rich is a better fighter than Okami and Lombard and Vitor destroyed him...whereas Boetsch got picked apart before knocking out Okami.


I just don't at all look at things in black and white when it comes to rankings. Some people love paper rankings. They say "Oh, x beat y, he should be ranked this high" without at all factoring in how they did in each performance. I'm not the kind to just blindly look at a fight, like Boetsch lombard, and say "Yup, Boetsch beat a top 10 opponent in that fight." I look a bit deeper into things...

But really, we kinda need to see Vitor fight again to see where he's really at, as others have been saying.

[Sakara=Excitement]

The reason why all this factoring shouldn't be weighed heavily is that factoring is SUBJECTIVE.

Wins and losses are factual truths.