Going back to the example of Couture: Let’s say he’s the #5 heavyweight in the world right now. As such, he doesn’t fight for another 12-15 months, at which point he loses to a Frank Mir, himself fresh off a loss to Brock Lesnar. Does the win validate Mir? Probably not, because Couture would be over 46 years of age and without a win in over 2 years. Alternately, if you decide like 45 that rankings are somehow linear and beating someone allows you to take their ranking regardless of where you are in the chain beforehand, Mir would probably still be ranked higher than Couture going in, and Couture wouldn’t take much of a hit coming out. 12 months later, a nearly 48 year old Couture could waltz into a fight with someone like Cain Velasquez in essentially the same position.

Meanwhile, Barnett or Arlovski could very easily beat another 4-5 fringe contenders/borderline top 10 talent over the same time period leading up to the theoretical Mir/Couture bout each while suffering losses to each other or Fedor. Again, using the method you’re putting forth klown, Barnett is better off not fighting anyone unless they’re higher ranked than himself, and someone like Fedor is in a helluva pickle given that he’s the unequivocal #1. Neither can be given any credit for their wins. Meanwhile, they can be dropped in the rankings for not beating “suitable” opposition while guys who flat out don’t fight get to stay where they are.

And in the UFC, you could argue it’s 1) Mir, 2) Lesnar, 3) Nogueira.

Since, out of the 3 from the UFC and the 3 from Affliction, there has been very little cross-over (Barnett and Nog have beaten each other, and Fedor has beaten Nog twice) it’s impossible to accurately rank them.

We can definitely determine if Fedor is better than Arlovski or of Mir can beat Lesnar again – those matches are set – but saying anyone from column A could beat anyone else from column B is pure speculation.

And no one can say “Fighter A would DEFINITELY kill fighter B” because we heard that crap for months before Mir demolished Nogueira.

Hopefully Affliction will fold, and Zuffa can sign 3 of the best HW figthers in the world. Then we can REALLY see who’s the best (in *2009*) – because until that happens, no ‘ranking’ is relevant in any way. It’s barely worth discussing.

I almost wonder if every Ivan post is really Ivan, or if somebody is like making troll posts under his name sometimes.

He knocks him out, and honestly, maybe the ref should have jumped in sooner? He landed one good shot when he was down and the ref was pulling him off as he was going for two and three, the second which somewhat landed and the third he was able to catch before he threw.

Rp

The objective ranking system (based on actual wins) doesn’t spontaneously reflect the sudden deterioration of a once-great fighter, even when the deterioration is subjectively obvious to a viewer of the fighter’s latest bout.

I think that’s a minor flaw in the system we might have to live with. A fighter may in actuality decline at a faster rate than he plummets in the rankings, but eventually, the ranking will purge the fighter from its lists.

To use Alan’s example:
If Couture loses to a bunch of of up-and-comers, each one of them will take a higher place in the rankings than Couture, which will drag down his position on the list. Within a few losses he’ll be out of the Top-X lists.

Now the period spanning “a few fights” might consist of a year or more, and during this period, the fighter’s ranking might seem subjectively “too high”, because it’s obvious he has lost his touch or fighting spirit. Nevertheless, until the fighter’s decline is confirmed in actual losses in the ring, such an opinion is purely speculate and cannot be reflected in the rankings.

This might be the case we’re about to see with Nogueira. In recent fights he hasn’t been the Nog we know. But let’s say he fights three times in 2009, loses twice and wins once, all against Top 10 competition – he would still be ranked in the Top 10. And I can live with that.

BS. Couture has one fight and lost and was beaten quite badly by a guy barely in the top 10, yet you suggest he should keep his position near/in the top 5. There’s no drop commensurate with the inactivity or the results. Couture should barely be in the top ten right now, same with Noguiera, Barnett slightly above them for beating guys that his ranking indicated he should beat and doing so in rather dominating fashion. Otherwise, it seems to me that Couture could be 50 and hold onto his ranking as long as he keeps losing (no matter how badly) to the revolving door of top UFC contenders.

As for how far you fall when you lose to a lower ranked opponent, it depends on the specifics. Was your opponent a potentially great but still unproven fighter, a former great that faltered in a couple of fights, or was he a proven middle of the pack fighter. If it’s the former two you don’t necessarily fall much, the last one plummets you.

And so that brings us to Mir/Nog. I can’t think of a more middle of the pack fighter than the modern day Frank Mir. If losing to a guy like that doesn’t plummet you, then there’s no continuity. I have no problem picking Mir up significantly, but Noguiera needs a drastically reconsidered position in the rankings after getting knocked down 4 times by Frank Mir.

The only argument that has Mir above mediocrity coming in is that a 1-0 fighter he beat turned around and ended up winning the title almost a calendar year later, yet none of those people are suggesting that Joaquim Ferrera should be in the top 10-15, much less all the other ways it cuts.

We’re not on the same page at all. I was specifically refering to the case of Sylvia and Arlovski. I don’t know why you changed the conversation to Barnett.

To quickly sum it up, Nog beat Barnett in their most recent match, and that takes precedent, but some credit must be given for taking Nog to a SD victory. Barnett beating Couture absolutely does not count. The guys Barnett beat in the last 16 months aren’t anywhere near a top 10 list. It’s a win, but it’s not a relevant win for comparing two of the best guys in the division. Anyone in the top 10 is supposed to soundly beat those guys, it doesn’t prove anything. Losing of course would, and I’ll get on that in the next part:

–”Losing fights against guys ranked below you elevates them and doesn’t change your status. Winning fights against guys ranked below you means that you are overprotected and should drop in ratings.”–

No, losing fights against fighters ranked higher than you doesn’t lower your status, and beating guys considerably lower ranked than you doesn’t raise your status. All it means is that your ranking was correct. On the other side of the coin, beating a guy higher ranked raises your status, and losing to a guy that’s lower ranked hurts your status.

As for how far you fall when you lose to a lower ranked opponent, it depends on the specifics. Was your opponent a potentially great but still unproven fighter, a former great that faltered in a couple of fights, or was he a proven middle of the pack fighter. If it’s the former two you don’t necessarily fall much, the last one plummets you.

This logic assumes the fight is taken in a vacuum, without fighters sharing common opponents. With common opponents it’s much messier than this, but luckily with the specific case of Arlovski and Sylvia, they don’t really have any common opponents. Arlovski never fought the guys Tim lost to, and Tim didn’t fight the guys Arlovski has recently beaten, so we can’t compare performances.

Until Sylvia loses to someone worse than Arlovski or Arlovski beats someone better than Sylvia, then Sylvia’s wins over Arlovski hold precedent.

Theoretically, let’s say Fedor doesn’t fight in January. Affliction goes bust and he ends up fighting in Moscow for M-1 next May, 10 months after his last fight. He fights fringe contender/BJJ specialist Pe De Pano and is comprehensively beaten. Based on the logic I see here, Pe De Pano becomes the top heavyweight on the planet, based on the win over Fedor and prior victory win over current #2 ranked Mir. Fedor falls to maybe #4. You guys agree?

Fighter A beats Fighter B, not once, but twice.
Fighter A loses to 3 top 5 HW’s.
Fighter B beats two borderline top 20 HW’s.
Fighter B does not pass fighter A in the rankings.”

That is a very crappy and very flawed logic. As others said here, Couture fought only one in the past 16 months, and LOST to Brock Lesnar, who wasn’t a top ten fighter. Check out the RING ratings for boxing and you show me ONE fighter that is there on a three fight losing streak or a guy who fought once in the past 16 months and lost that fight. RING magazine almost did it when Valuev recently beat Holyfield, and Nigel Collins admitted that they were thinking of giving Holyfield a number ten ranking for what should have been a victory over Valuev, but was screwed by the judges. But RING magazine, in the end, showed better judgement than that. I know you used Sylvia and Arlovski as examples, and I would still rank Sylvia over Couture ovber the fact that Sylvia did lose to three top 5 guys, and Couture lost to an unranked guy. But Arlovski should be ranked over both of them.

Realistically, the top 10 heavyweights are whomever the UFC tells us they are. They bury and push whomever is marketable for them, and the guys who put the most asses in the seats (and who get along personally with Dana) get the opportunities.

- In 2007, Brock Lesnar’s only UFC accomplishment is beating an unranked Heath Herring by decision…so now he’s #1 contender. OK.

- Yushin Okami is the #1 contender for the Middleweight Title, yet he’s on the undercard and never mentioned by anyone. Alright then.

- Throughout his title reign, Dana White tells us that “Whether we like his style or not”, Tim Sylvia is the best in the world…but once he leaves the UFC and gets killed by Fedor, White laughs “EVERYBODY beats Sylvia!” to diminish Fedor’s win. Sure.

- Dana White tells us that “Fedor needs to come to the UFC and face the best in the world”…when Nogueira is the UFC champion.

It’s a joke.