Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: MMANews FORUMS Rankings - May 10, 2011

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    The fighters Fedor beat may be currently irrelvant now, but what happened to them after they lost to Fedor is moot. This is the same reason why people dismissed Fedor's wins to Sylvia (#5 at the time) and Arlovski (#2 or #3 at the time), because they continued to lose after.
    I totally disagree with this line of thinking. Rankings are supposed to represent who the best fighters are right now. The best fighters are determined by wins and losses (which are definitive), not by where someone was ranked at any given time (which is subjective). If a fighter like Sylvia, Arlovski, Overeem, whoever, goes on a losing streak it means he is no longer (or never was) elite. Thus defeating him does not make any of his victors an elite fighter, because so many have proven capable of doing it. The losses mean he either declined significantly, was never that good, or the rest of the division got that much better. In any case a win over him is no longer relevant, because it’s obvious he is not in the top echelon of the division.

    For example, contrast GSP’s wins over Jon Fitch & Dan Hardy. The Fitch victory is incredibly impressive because Fitch has not lost since that night. We know Fitch is one of the best guys in the division because he proves it consistently. GSP’s dominant victory over Jon Fitch proves he is just that much better than everyone else at 170.

    The Hardy victory on the other hand is practically meaningless. After getting shutout against GSP, he was KO’d by Condit and dominated by Rumble. Obviously Hardy was overrated (and overanked) at the time of his title shot. In a vacuum, GSP’s win over Hardy gives us relatively no indication of how GSP would perform against the elite of the division.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    For example, if Overeem loses to Werdum, should he fall out of the rankings because he doesn't have a victory over a current top 10? If Mir loses to Nelson, should he still be ranked because of his victory over Brock who is currently a top 10 but at the time was not even top 50? If Brock loses to Dos Santos and falls to (let's say) #10, does it devalue Cain's victories over both Nog (currently unranked) and Brock?
    I’m not saying a win over a current top 10 guy is a must to be ranked, but to be in the top 5 it should be. Each scenario you listed is a little different, but to take them one at a time:

    1. Yes, Overeem could easily fall out of the top 10 depending on how bad a hypothetical loss to Werdum is. Honestly his competition has been a joke up to this point, but he has been utterly dominant in disposing of them. He’s a hard guy to rank, but obviously isn’t top 5 material yet unless he beats Werdum.

    2. If Mir loses to Nelson he would no longer be ranked in the top 10 because his win over Brock lost significant value after Brock avenged it in one-sided fashion. Mir also was destroyed by Carwin, and has recently looked unimpressive against mediocre competition. A loss to Nelson would drop Mir out and put Nelson in to replace him.

    3. Yes, the value of Cain’s victories over Brock & Nog would be diminished somewhat, but they were still dominant and are therefore impressive. The guy hasn’t lost a round in his career so it would be hard to remove him from the top spot. Even if Lesnar loses to JDS he won’t be dropped out of the top 10, so Cain’s victory will still have relevance. However, if in his next fight Lesnar gets KO’d by Sean McCorkle, then Cain’s win over Brock becomes irrelevant. In that scenario clearly Brock was overrated, and Cain would need to beat someone in the top 10 to keep that #1 spot.

    To sum up my point, wins and losses are definitive reality and should be given the most weight. Where someone is ranked at any given time is totally subjective, and therefore means little or nothing. If a fighter goes on a losing streak his previous high ranking was clearly incorrect, even if it was logical at the time. The losses prove there are a multitude of fighters better than he is, and defeating him isn’t anything special.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    Our rankings are not just based on head to head matches. Otherwise, we would face dilemmas such as the Machida-Rampage-Rashad triangle. We rank according to how fighter A and fighter B are ranked at the time of the fight. A #2 fighter losing to a #10 fighter causes #2 fall in the rankings and #10 to rise, but not necessarily above the previously ranked #2 fighter. That's when we factor in track record, and based on that, Big Foot (a fighter with no track record of beating ranked opponents) wouldn't move ahead.

    So in other words, you ignore the most definitive evidence available? I understand the dilemma in theory, but why not just give precedence to the most recent performance? Most recently Rashad beat Rampage who beat Machida. The oldest fight between the three is simply thrown out, as it least reflects their current abilities here and now. [Personally I think Machida got robbed against Page and is better than both of them, but he lost the decision which has to be used as definitive evidence]

    Also, how is there any sort of trinity conflict in this scenario? Fedor & Bigfoot both lost to Werdum who is ahead of them, and neither have fought Cain or JDS. Behind Bigfoot is Brock, who neither of them faced. It seems obvious that there is no conflict. Based on Bigfoot’s big win over Fedor and his lack of defeats (only to Werdum within the last 4 years) he deserves to be ranked one spot ahead of Fedor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    If Fedor's only ranked wins were in 2003 (much like Randy's), he would be removed. As mentioned in criterion B, "Recent victories hold more weight than historical, however, it doesn't negate it". Fedor has beaten plenty of ranked opponents from 2003 to 2009.

    There are also other factors that come in to play such as the strength of the LHW division to the fairweather division in HW (where many are softly ranked).
    “Softly ranked?” You use previous rankings to justify current ones (Arlovski & Sylvia were top 5 at the time, therefore Fedor is #4), yet give some of your previously subjective rankings more weight than others? Everyone is “softly ranked” because a ranking is nothing more than an opinion or belief. The fights themselves are what prove those opinions/beliefs to be right or wrong.

    Overall I think your rankings are quite good, my only point of contention is the heavyweight division, which brings into focus the perceived flaws in your system. As it is now they seem to be ranking who has accomplished the most within a progressive timeframe, as opposed to who is the best.
    Last edited by Adambomb; 05-11-2011 at 06:10 PM.
    “Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,613

    Default

    Gegard might not have fought a top 10 LHW,but either did Bader, Lil Nog wasnt ranked top 10 when they fought,and he certainly isnt ranked top 10 now. Not to mention Bader just lost,while Gegard only fought to a draw.

    I did forget about BJ beating Hughes,my bad.But he is still hard to rank atm. He is still 1-2-1 in his last four.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trojan Fight Club View Post
    well now I've seen War Machine's dick. fantastic.
    Quote Originally Posted by GL Jeff View Post
    Ill go against the grain.
    Werdum via triangle
    Someone needs to cheer for those poor souls.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GL Jeff View Post
    Gegard might not have fought a top 10 LHW,but either did Bader, Lil Nog wasnt ranked top 10 when they fought,and he certainly isnt ranked top 10 now. Not to mention Bader just lost,while Gegard only fought to a draw.

    I did forget about BJ beating Hughes,my bad.But he is still hard to rank atm. He is still 1-2-1 in his last four.
    Bader KO'd Jardine, who Gegard just fought to a draw with. Lil Nog may not be top 10, but he's also significantly better than anyone Gegard as beaten.

    As for Penn, those losses came in another division, and to the #1 fighter in that division. Based purely on his performance at 170, I'd say he deserves to be ranked higher.
    “Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”


  4. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    11,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adambomb View Post
    I totally disagree with this line of thinking. Rankings are supposed to represent who the best fighters are right now. The best fighters are determined by wins and losses (which are definitive), not by where someone was ranked at any given time (which is subjective).
    Well, there are a variety of ways of looking at rankings. Some philosophies take history into account, and some place all the weight on the last fight the fighter was in.

    The committee discussed this and decided that a fighters resume would be weighed as well as current fights.

    Generally, when I see rankings that only weigh current fights, I don't bother reading them, and dismiss them as irrelevant because I don't agree with the philosophy. You're welcome to do the same with these.

    For the record, I initially ranked Fedor #1 in every weight class [except for LW, where I ranked Penn #1, 2 and 3] but I was shouted down by the rest of the committee.

    rh
    All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.

    Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
    The Rum Diary

    Yeah, Bye.

  5. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,283

    Default

    wow siver and sotiroplous over wiman and guilliard? dont forget it wasn't to long ago that siver was picked apart by ross pearson.
    "DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"


  6. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    Well, there are a variety of ways of looking at rankings. Some philosophies take history into account, and some place all the weight on the last fight the fighter was in.

    The committee discussed this and decided that a fighters resume would be weighed as well as current fights.

    Generally, when I see rankings that only weigh current fights, I don't bother reading them, and dismiss them as irrelevant because I don't agree with the philosophy. You're welcome to do the same with these.

    For the record, I initially ranked Fedor #1 in every weight class [except for LW, where I ranked Penn #1, 2 and 3] but I was shouted down by the rest of the committee.

    rh
    Ideally there'd be a balance between the two, which can admittedly be difficult to achieve.

    I see no problem with Penn 1-3. He beat Frankie in the first fight and would win again if they ever had a trilogy.
    “Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.”

  7. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adambomb View Post
    Ideally there'd be a balance between the two, which can admittedly be difficult to achieve.

    I see no problem with Penn 1-3. He beat Frankie in the first fight and would win again if they ever had a trilogy.
    Ideally, we were trying to have a balance between the two. I do appreciate where you are coming from with your previous post, but as rh mentioned there are a variety of ways people look at the rankings, and we won't all perfectly agree on each other's line of thinking. We formulated a committee with individuals who have different opinions to come up with a set of criteria that could accomplish that "ideal" balance we are looking for. We went back and forth for a couple of months and there was tons of disagreement in between. It was not an easy task by any means, and although there wasn't perfect consensus every time, we feel that we came up with a respectable set of rankings. Although there are some disagreements from posters regarding certain ranking positions, I do feel that people are generally content with what we have in an overall sense.

    Also to note, I am looking forward to the HW fights in the summer to sort some stuff out. I don't feel the fighters in that division is as solidly ranked as some of the other divisions. The fights in the next few months could iron out a few things.

  8. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Itasca, IL
    Posts
    1,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adambomb View Post
    I totally disagree with this line of thinking. Rankings are supposed to represent who the best fighters are right now. The best fighters are determined by wins and losses (which are definitive), not by where someone was ranked at any given time (which is subjective). If a fighter like Sylvia, Arlovski, Overeem, whoever, goes on a losing streak it means he is no longer (or never was) elite. Thus defeating him does not make any of his victors an elite fighter, because so many have proven capable of doing it. The losses mean he either declined significantly, was never that good, or the rest of the division got that much better. In any case a win over him is no longer relevant, because it’s obvious he is not in the top echelon of the division.

    For example, contrast GSP’s wins over Jon Fitch & Dan Hardy. The Fitch victory is incredibly impressive because Fitch has not lost since that night. We know Fitch is one of the best guys in the division because he proves it consistently. GSP’s dominant victory over Jon Fitch proves he is just that much better than everyone else at 170.

    The Hardy victory on the other hand is practically meaningless. After getting shutout against GSP, he was KO’d by Condit and dominated by Rumble. Obviously Hardy was overrated (and overanked) at the time of his title shot. In a vacuum, GSP’s win over Hardy gives us relatively no indication of how GSP would perform against the elite of the division.
    I understand your point, but think it's invalid, because Hardy was MAYBE 9 or 10 at the time, where Sylvia and Arlovski were both solid top 5 fighters. So I would say your point is moot.


    3. Yes, the value of Cain’s victories over Brock & Nog would be diminished somewhat, but they were still dominant and are therefore impressive. The guy hasn’t lost a round in his career so it would be hard to remove him from the top spot. Even if Lesnar loses to JDS he won’t be dropped out of the top 10, so Cain’s victory will still have relevance. However, if in his next fight Lesnar gets KO’d by Sean McCorkle, then Cain’s win over Brock becomes irrelevant. In that scenario clearly Brock was overrated, and Cain would need to beat someone in the top 10 to keep that #1 spot.
    So how do Cain's dominant victories over opponents ranked the same or lower as Fedor's opponents outweigh Fedor's victories?

    To sum up my point, wins and losses are definitive reality and should be given the most weight. Where someone is ranked at any given time is totally subjective, and therefore means little or nothing. If a fighter goes on a losing streak his previous high ranking was clearly incorrect, even if it was logical at the time. The losses prove there are a multitude of fighters better than he is, and defeating him isn’t anything special.
    So are GSP's wins over Hughes meaningless? Or how about Rampage's victory over Chuck Liddell? You're falling into dangerous territory with your logic, man.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •