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.
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.
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.
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.