Comments on: Independent World MMA Rankings – November 27, 2009

By: The Gaijin

The Gaijin — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:55:58 +0000

For the last time people, a “catch weight” bout is still within a weight class. Therefore a 195lb catch weight fight is a LHW fight as it falls within the 186 – 205lb window for LHW fights.

I don’t understand what’s so tough to figure out.

By: Isaiah

Isaiah — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:16:07 +0000

Well, Silva didn’t lose to Jardine, and if he had, that should move him down pretty far because Jardine is probably not top 10 himself. Also, I’d consider a fight at 195 to be a LHW fight, as it is over the MW limit and under the LHW limit.

And really if he’s losing to every non-Jardine fighter he faces over five fights, it’s almost unimaginable to me that there aren’t at least 10 guys who should be rated ahead of him. He’s basically an automatic win for any decent opponent at this point in his career.

By: JRN

JRN — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:27:21 +0000

Wanderlei and Liddell are both active at LHW in the past year, and I don’t believe for a second that Liddell is actually retired (though that might be the best move for him). So I keep ranking them.

Isaiah, I just don’t share your views regarding losses and win streaks. I used to, but then I thought about it a little more. A win streak is a fine thing, but unless it contains some wins over higher-ranked fighters, it’s not going to move you up very much in my book, probabilities be damned.

Likewise, I don’t feel I can justify moving Wanderlei Silva behind guys like Thiago Silva and Gegard Mousasi just because Wand has lost to a handful of elites in the past few years. (Keep in mind I’m not counting the Rich Franklin fight at 195.)

It’s easy to look at the totality of his career in the past three years and say he shouldn’t be top 10, but think about what you’d do with his ranking after each loss individually. How far down do you move him after Henderson? After Liddell? After Jardine? After Jackson? Bearing in mind, each time, where each of those opponents is ranked.

After which losses do you do you move him down 3 or 5 places, and eventually out of the top 10 or 15 entirely? I just don’t see any justification for it, other than a sort of holistic “he lost a few, so he’s gone” approach. I can’t get with that.

In any event, he probably won’t have competed at LHW again by the end of December.

By: Isaiah

Isaiah — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:11:07 +0000

Losses should generally lead to a much bigger drop than they are, imo. Especially multiple losses, even to good opponents, because there is an element of chance in outcomes and uncertainty in rankings. There’s really almost no way a guy who is 1-4 in his last five fights is a top-10 fighter in his division, regardless of who he’s been losing to.

Likewise, a long winning streak against decent but not great competition says a lot about a fighter. If you have an 80% chance of beating someone, there is almost a 50/50 chance that you’ll lose once in three fights. So if you put up say 10 straight wins against borderline top-20 competition, that says that it’s very likely that you’re significantly better than that level, and could justify putting you in the top 10, depending on other factors.

By: Zack

Zack — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:21:07 +0000

Well….Liddell is supposedly retired and hasn’t won a fight in almost 2 years at LHW. He’s 1-4 in his ast 5. Wanderlei is one of my favorite fighters of all time, but he’s also 1-4 in his last five fights, and isn’t even fighting at LHW anymore.

So yea…I’d have both unranked in the LHW division. They are both still the 2 most accomplished LHW’s of all time…but as of now, they shouldn’t be ranked in that division.

By: JRN

JRN — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:41:10 +0000

Well actually, neither Dan Henderson nor Keith Jardine was terribly high-ranked at the time they beat Wanderlei and Liddell. But even so, it takes a lot to dislodge a former #1 fighter from the top 10. I think that’s the way it should be.

I’ll add that the top-10 rankings of Rashad Evans and Thiago Silva don’t make much sense if you don’t consider Wanderlei and Liddell to be very good wins/low-risk losses in 2008/2009.

By: JRN

JRN — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:34:51 +0000

Yes I do, Zack. This is because they were both once top-5 fighters in their weight class, and have since only suffered losses to other high-ranked fighters. Those are the kinds of losses that shouldn’t drop a guy very far, in my opinion. Where would you have them ranked?

By: Zack

Zack — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:59:01 +0000

JRN…what’s that line about people in glass houses? LOL you still have Chuck Liddell and Wanderlei Silva ranked in your top 10 @ LHW.

By: Isaiah

Isaiah — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:32:40 +0000

45’s method is completely objective. The problem is that in an attempt to gain objectivity, it loses any reference to the real world. And further, there are far more sophisticated objective methods, such as Elo, which is designed to be predictive, and, in fact, is predictive.

But what I’ve been saying all along is that if you have a panel of MMA experts, I’d be more interested in their opinions about who the best fighters are than their (inevitably) crude attempts at quantitative analysis. I’d be interested to see what a well-trained statistician with knowledge of MMA would have to say about who has the fourth-best record in the WW division.

By: JRN

JRN — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:57:43 +0000

All that being said, the IWMMA rankings always produce a bunch of goofy results. To wit:

–Shane Carwin over Brett Rogers
–The much-discussed placement of Alistair Overeem
–Gegard Mousasi at #6
–Josh Koscheck over Paulo Thiago
–Dan Henderson and Vitor Belfort at #3 and #4. This is absolutely a case of ranking based on hype rather than actual fight results.
–Marius Zaromskis anywhere near the top 10
–Diego Sanchez at #6
–Takeya Mizugaki at #3

…just to name a few