Logic behind Mixed Martial Arts rankings
Posted on December 24, 2010, 06:12 PM by overhand rightRankings. They're addictive and endlessly debatable, or are they? One of the great features of Low Kick is the option to submit your rankings for the respective weight classes and of course, the revered and glorified "pound for pound" list.
The question I have been asking myself for weeks now is what gives a fighter the right to be in the top 10? Should it be based on skill alone, the physical abilities that fighter appears to exhibit against his opponents? if so then the likes of Alistair Overeem, Hector Lombard and Gegard Mousasi would all be deserving of a spot in the top five of their division.
Over the past year or two, an overwhelming amount of hate and abuse has been aimed at the president of the UFC, Dana White, and his opinions on the great Fedor Emelianenko's standing in the heavyweight rankings. White claims (possibly for the good of his company or maybe it is his own view) that Fedor has not fought top competition since 2005 when he beat another heavyweight great, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira. Not only that Fedor didn't fight competitive opposition, but he hasn't fought regularly either. In the past four years, Fedor has fought a mere six times. Still the greatest of all time, but what about right now?
I have come to the conclusion that although Dana's opinion is controversial and maybe even spiteful, I wholeheartedly agree with him. When it comes to rankings there can be no definitive answer if they are based on opinion. It seems the most popular or hyped fighters tend to grace the top of people's rankings. This is all well in good for the vast majority of practice to a point. But in theory, that would be to say that there is nothing stopping me from ranking my favorite fighter, Frank Mir, at number one in the heavyweight division, a spot he does not deserve based on recent losses. Taking a more hypothetical example, someone could have ranked James Toney in the top ten heavyweights as well prior to his fight with Couture.
In reality, anyone who has followed MMA and most sports for long enough will be aware that anything can happen. I could rank Jon Jones as the number one light heavyweight in the world based entirely on my opinion that he could beat anyone in his division. But this does not diminish the possibilities of Jones losing to Bader in the new year and if he does he would probably drop out of many people's lists completely.
So we must rank by the facts, for those are the only things that are undeniable and absolute. Put simply, it's MMA math. The UFC has the deepest talent pool so therefore winning a UFC championship must be worth more in ranking value than winning a Strike Force belt. Quality of opponents is another major factor. I've noticed Alistair Overeem comes in at number four in the heavyweight rankings and ten in the pound for pound. This is ridiculous if you look at it logically. While Alistair Overeem does deserve to be in the top ten, he is merely on a win streak against cans or UFC rejects, with his last and most credible win coming in May against Brett Rogers, a questionable top 10 opponent who had already lost to Fedor.
Another inconsistency in the rankings can be found if you look at number two on the heavyweight rankings: Fedor Emelianenko. Surely having lost to Werdum he should be behind him? It seems that people have instead gone with the usual excuse, "dude, it's Fedor! he'd kill Werdum in a rematch". That's a fine theory, but does that mean that Fedor deserves to be ahead of Werdum? Surely not, i think people are falling into the all too easy trap of ranking their favorite fighters above those that have earned the spot, like Cain Velasquez, who defeated the guy who became number one after Fedor's loss: Brock Lesnar.
So I would recommend you to reassess your mindset before ranking these modern day gladiators and really ask yourself who deserves to be called pound for pound or the best at their weight. Don't just put your favorite fighter up there or the guy you think would KO the entire UFC roster if he ever got signed to it. Rank the guys who've fought the best regularly and deserve their spot, for the good of the sport.
Picture: Esther Lin
Comments
MMA rankings are like the BCS in college football where they team ranks are decided by wins and losses of other teams that they never played.
I don't pay attention to rankings anymore. It's to exhausting. There are so many variables that there is no decisive way to rank.
Also i think there is a difference between p4p and a "current" ranking system.
The only clear way ranking should be done is within their own organization. And use last fight as basis.
SF for example. Should look like this:
1.Overeem (champ)
2.Werdum (beat #2)
3.Fedor
4.Antonio Silva
5.Brett Rogers
6.Josh Barnett ( is probably number 4, but he has yet to fight in strikeforce)
7.Andrei Arlovski (lost last 3, 2 in SF)
the actual heavyweight rankings according to facts and figures conducted by fightmatrix.com are :
1.Cain Velasquez
2.Brock Lesnar
3.Fabricio Werdum
4.Fedor Emelianenko
5.Junior Dos Santos
6.Shane Carwin
7.Frank Mir
8.Alistair Overeem
9.Antonio Nogueira
10.Josh Barnett
which seems the fairest, most people refuse to put brock number 2 based on the cain fight but the fact is he did win 3 title fights against top 10 guys before that
I agree with your rankings almost completely, but would have to say JDS and carwin are interchangeable, either of them could make #5. and big foot silva is also deserving of top 10
These are terrible, you have 2 guys at the top who have barely done anything in the sport ranked as the top 2 guys, while others who have been around and proven themselves year after year are ranked much lower. Everyone in the ufc is ranked highly because 1. they beat Nog or 2. they beat Mir who beat Nog. Nog is the key for all of it. Fedor killed Nog twice, when Nog was in his prime, so by that logic Fedor should be #1 for all eternity.
yeah he's at number 11 and him and barnett are very close so you could easily put him in at 10 if you wanted. a win against fedor will get him in there for sure
Didn't JDS beat Werdum though?
just because a guy has been beaten by another guy, it doesn't mean he can never go above him in the rankings. werdum lost to dos santos but he went on to arguably achieve more than him by defeating the number 1 guy, fedor. it's really all about ranking points and as long as guys are beating top opposition they can go ahead of guys that have beat them
Yea I'm just saying. So many factors that you have to take into account and who is to say what is the value of each.
the truth is the rankings are really just a popularity contest where people rank fighters on where they think the should be as oppossed the where they are and who they think the could beat as oppossed to who the have beaten
Question: How would one know if a fighter is a "can," how would one know if a fighter is a notable win and finally, what is the best tournament format to decide who is number one in the world?
The answers to those 3 things, is basically the foundation of how a person is going to rank people. Is there a wrong or correct answer? Maybe =), but one thing is for sure. None of us are computers therefore even our own standards and opinions we have for our rankings will be skewed unless we had a computer do it for us.
Hence why, I think people who base their rankings off of computerized rankings are more accurate.
But, what is a good computer system to do the rankings?
Also, we've all seen enough MMA to know that anything can and will happen. Don't remind me about judging as well.
fightmatrix.com is an mma ranking website and its rankings are done entirely by a computer that assigns fighters points, factoring in all these details such as wins/losses, championships, quality of opponents etc. so there is no human opinion, just facts and figures. it's what i use for my rankings in order to stay completely unbiased so i'd recommend people to check it out :)
well, that is for you decide. If you feel it is fair to give ufc fighters a 100% boost in rankings and if you feel single elimination tournaments are greater than swiss or round robin tournaments. Then this is the computerized ranking system for you. Even though it wouldn't be for me.
Computerized ranking systems are still based around people's opinion (despite some being outrageous), but it is more consistent, doesn't contradict itself, and adds more "facts" & value to the rankings.
Me and overhand right are probably one of the few people who go by computerized rankings. But I check each website that has computerized rankings (well at least the English ones) and I only go by 3 at the moment. One with priority over the other.
The problem with computerized rankings is that some of the wins and losses accounted for are very dated. I haven't checked them out in some time, but guys that have a ton of wins from the 90's tend to rank high based on sheer volume. Thats discouraging, though I admit they are on the right track.
joey, it depends what computer rankings you are looking at. All of them vary, but they are still more accurate than ones own rankings in which you can easily contradict yourself on a daily basis.
Computer rankings? Seriously guys? You have to use your own eyes! Of course some people are going to be bias but that is totally up to the person. You can't let a computer tell you who is better than who. This is MMA. The sport where anything can happen. So who cares if you rank Fedor a little higher because you like him. Lowkick rankings rock and it's cool to see who people put their faith in.
i used to rank like that but i find my opinion on fighters constantly change and i was having to update the list nearly every day, i mean my actual list is
fedor
cain
reem
dos santos
carwin
lesnar
mir
werdum
silva
nogueira
but a lot of those guys will never fight each other (namely fedor and everyone else) so it's unfair to rank them by what they could do when it will never happen 100% of the time so ranking by what they have done is fairer and the computer is less bias than i
The more recent a result, the more impact it has on a fighter’s ranking.
A fighter must have a professional MMA bout in the previous 450 days to be listed.
As of 11/01/2009, current ranking points are division-adjusted. The exact adjustment varies depending on divisions and direction moved, but a male fighter moving up one division will lose approximately 17%. Male fighters will gain approximately 17% upon moving down a division. This percentage varies slightly depending on the divisions in question. The factor is approximately 1/3rd stronger for female fighters.
A fighter can only appear in one division at a time and is almost always placed in the division in which they last fought. It is rare, but sometimes we make exceptions if we feel that the move is temporary and the fighter accomplishes nothing there (Example: Matt Lindland jumping two divisions to lose to Fedor).
The winner is always placed above the loser, regardless of the outcome.
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.
There is no “blocking”. In other words, if Fighter A beats Fighter B, Fighter B can improve over Fighter A if their following performance(s) warrant this shift in points.
There is a special factor involved in UFC title and tournament championship bouts, due to the increased length of the matches 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) , WEC (135,145), DREAM (155,185), Strike Force Women (135,145).
A ranked fighter may appear to lose or gain points for no reason at all. The reasons for this may include: historical bout additions & changes and/or quality performance decay penalties.
Injury-related TKOs are not treated any differently then standard TKOs. A TKO is a TKO.
Rather than being overly concerned with the actual placement of the fighters, take a look at their points. Often times, the point differences between two rankings are very slim, and this means that their placements are really a “toss up”.
Its a great system, but as with any other set-up, there are human elements involved. The system itself still has to be programmed by a human being who decides how much one element should impact a fighter's ranking as opposed to another. For example, why 17% when a fighter moves up a weight class? Why is that a decrease and not an increase in points? Who decides why that is a negative factor? Just an example...
cutting weight facing faster opponents etc is an important and difficult factor in moving down in weight, agree on that but moving up in weight would mean potentially facing opponents with greater strength and power, and larger chances of being finished and taking more damage
yeah of course there will be flaws in any system. but on the whole i think it's the fairest out there, although i do enjoy seeing other people's opinions on the rankings, it's just the occassional few that put their favourites in the top 3 that annoy me and made me look for something more concrete and legitimate
As cheesy as it sounds, but time will tell. As time passes critics and media usually do get it right. That goes for most things, music, art, sports etc. Again, i think rankings should stick to their organizations unless there is a unification fight between two organizations. You could easily argue that HW division in SF is better than UFC and vise versa. And that Gilbert Melendez is the best LW in the world because he defeated Aoki from Dream. Now i know most people won't agree and I agree that you do not agree with the above statement. This is why i think ranking systems should stick to their own organizations, until two champs fight.
You can never get an accurate ranking unless you late all the fighters fight each other across promotions. There is no other way. How can you rank a fighter above another when they have never fought before, it doesn't make any sense. When Fedor loss to Werdum why wasn't Werdum put as number one since he just beat the number one.Instead Brock was put at no.1 and that's fair.Let them fight one another if not the rankings are just promotional ranking not universal
problem is the ufc will never cross promote with dream or strikeforce so you kinda hafta just rank them by what they've accomplished if you're ranking across the board. edgar lost to maynard, but he still deserves to be number 1 because he went on and achieved more than maynard by winning the belt and defending it.
They don't need to co-promote.just let the fighters fight.UFC did this when pride was around.They sent Chuck Liddel to Pride and he got his ass handed to him.Overeem recently said the same thing when Dana White said he wasnt top 10.he told Dana white to bring the best in the UFC to fight in the strikeforce against its heavyweights so we can know the true no.1;you don't need to co promote that.just send the fighter.Dana White is scared bcos it will expose the fact that UFC doesnt have the best in the world and pple will stop buying into their PR work.dont waste your time with the ranking as I said until they fight you can not say who is better.let me ask you sth before the Brock and Cain fight did you think Cain will dispose of Brock so easily.I'm 100% sure non of us saw that coming.so you can't tell until you let them fight.
I agree with your article, for the most part.
Rankings across promotions are difficult if not impossible and are the cause of ridiculous wrangling disputes based mostly upon conjecture.
I would point out that Fedor, when he lost to Werdum, had a long and successful record prior to that defeat. In many fan's reasonable assessment, due to Fedor's past successes, one loss would not drop him below Werdum in the P4P rankings.
When GSP lost to Serra, I did not rank him below Serra P4P, even though Serra was the new WW champ. I needed to see a rematch or other fight results to be certain GSP needed to drop in rank. This was based upon GSP's past performance and the understanding that anything can happen in MMA.
That said, I agree that Fedor has not fought often enough recently against quality opponents and there is no way to truly rank him without an actual fight between promotions which is not going to happen.
In the UFC divisional rankings, I find there is less controversy than in the P4P rankings. I believe the divisional rankings in the UFC tend to be based mostly upon what have you done lately and are true and current rankings.
The main culprits in rankings are P4P and comparing across promotions.
I loved the article even though I disagreed with a lot of it. Makes you think a little more.
Just because you beat someone doesn't mean you should be ranked above them. Like when unranked Matt Serra beat GSP, most places jumped him to #1, that is completely stupid. He should move into the rankings at that point, but it doesn't overrule everything that has ever happened.
Everyone also puts Cain at #1 now, he is a skilled fighter but he only has 2 top 10 wins. Big Nog, who Fedor crushed twice in his prime and Lesnar who was just a hyped up guy who runs from punches and can't fight off his back. The fact anyone had Lesnar even in the top 5, much less #1, is a joke and shows how stupid a lot of people and websites are.
fedor isn't even the champion of the organisation he's in, the only top 10 opponents he's fought in the last 4 years are sylvia and arlovski, fedor can beat anyone but guys like cain and lesnar are achieving more than him at the moment, a guy can't just consistently stay at the number 1 spot by resting on the laurels of everything he achieved in pride. he only fought once this year for god's sake.
lesnar brutalised herring, ko'd couture to become the champ in only his 3rd pro mma fight, defended the title twice by demolishing mir and proving his evolution as a mixed martial artist by submitting one of the most dangerous heavyweights in the world, shane carwin. he doesn't deserve to drop out of the top 5 for losing once to another top 5 opponent.
you raise a valid point kinosis. It is hard to know where to balance the now and the then in mma. One fight does not justify the winner swapping rankings with the loser. GSP _ Serra as you highlighted justifies that. But where exactly does a win over the #1 guy leave a guy in the rankings. Does the #2 now become the #1? Does the #1 stay #1 until 2 losses if they have accumulated many wins?
It is opinion at the end of it all no matter how subjective and systemised anyone makes rankings it is only opinion, just as the Lesnar joke proved. many stupid opinions can mean a guy is ranked #1 even though their skill set is lacking compared to others. I don't ever see this changing, as popularity often elevates a fighters status above better fighters. cain getting fighter of the year ahead of Aldo or Edgar is proof of this.
Lesnar total amator hyped up UFC champ and Cain beat him. i wont be suprised if Cain gets KO'd in his next fight he got to prowe a lot in MMA.Fedor is stil never bean beaten with punches the guy got one loss in his life time if this if MMA was ranked like Tenis Fedor wuld of been ranked number 1 ewen after second loss
^^^ did he just compare MMA to Tenis??? *smh*
Put on more gran prixs than rankings will bedome useless.
1. Fedor
2. Overeem
3. Velasquez
4. JDS
5. Big Nog
6. Lesnar
7. Carwin
8. Overeem
9. Werdum
10. Fat Bastard
LOL HW division
Interviewer: What do you think of Dana’s claim that the best fighters fight in the UFC and fight each other 3 times a year?
Alistair Overeem: It’s not strange that Dana is making such a claim but if he really thinks that his heavyweight division is the best in the world he should let 5 heavyweights of the UFC fight 5 heavyweights from Strikeforce otherwise he can’t never justify his claim that UFC has the best heavyweights in the world. My opinion in this one is that Strikeforce have a good chance of winning. They tried it when Pride was there so it’s not something new. If Strikeforce is going to have tournament format they should reserve a spot for a UFC fighter, that would be awesome. About the fact that they fight each other 3 times a year, I can only say that he has a valid point but Strikeforce is a young organization and give them the time to prove themselves. They have a great roster of fighters so I’m confident that they will make the fights happen very soon. I’m ready to fight 2 or 3 times in 2011!
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/11/17/1819942/alistair-overeem-responds-to-dana-white-says-brock-lesnar-shouldnt-be
One thing is for certain. many fans haven't a clue how to assess rankings. many had brock in p4p top 10 list.
As far as UFC having a deeper pool of HWs that is correct. But you are making the mistake of assuming deeper = better quality / better fighters, when it may not necessarily be the case. the top 5 HWs IMO are: Cain, Fedor, Carwin, Overeem and JDS
I feel pretty confident that is as accurate as it can be, but it is only an opinion at the end of the day. all the talk of computer systems is well and good, but their lists are a million miles away from mine. You could have the 10 worst HWs fight each other weekly and by default will rank highly on most computer lists due to Ws racked up, but that does not make them the best.