Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Eddie Goldman


Liver Kick Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

The obligatory “OMG! Fedor vs. Barnett” post

By Zach Arnold | May 21, 2009

Print Friendly and PDF

See, both fighters have reportedly agreed verbally, but no contracts have been signed. Enough cold water to pour on the fight?

So, if the fight takes place, ponder the following questions:

  1. Does the fight impact the standing of both men in their profession as far as the outcome goes?
  2. Over/under the amount paid to watch the fight in Anaheim – 7,000.
  3. Over/under the PPV buys it draws – 60,000.
  4. Is this going to be the last Affliction MMA event?

Don’t worry, the fact that I asked these questions means that I am ‘quick to piss on the excitement’. Who used the Original Whizzinator in that guy’s cheerios this morning? *sigh*

Topics: Affliction, Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 91 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

91 Responses to “The obligatory “OMG! Fedor vs. Barnett” post”

  1. RIS says:

    If the line is broken then the next consensus #1 is named (if there is one). That includes Anderson, Torres and Faber (before Brown beat him).

    You get the distinction if you beat enough top guys.

  2. RIS says:

    Just to add, 45 Huddle you are right, the linear system is not perfect because the fighter might be inactive, defend against poor opponents, retire etc. You do have to make adjustments.

    But we are going off track here, the whole point was that Barnett would become the champ if he beats Fedor, that is because Fedor is without a doubt the MMA heavyweight champion of the world. If you disagree with that then you are just being dishonest or ignorant of the sport. The linear thing is simple when you have a dominant champion.

  3. IceMuncher says:

    “If the line is broken then the next consensus #1 is named (if there is one). That includes Anderson, Torres and Faber (before Brown beat him).”

    That’s adding subjectivity to a linear, results based system. Surely you can see how this invalidates the entire premise behind a linear ranking.

    One, a fighter can now move up or down in the ranks based on a subjective assessment of his skill. How is that possible in a linear system?

    Second, you’ve just admitted that a “lower” ranked fighter is better than those above him, without having to win a single a fight or have others lose a fight. If the ranking admits that it isn’t accurate, what’s the point? It’s meaningless. Its existence is a novelty.

    The only way to keep a linear system consistent is to give the #1 slot to the guy who was #2. If you don’t, the system is self-defeating and utterly worthless. And in the FW and BW divisions, the #2 would be in Shooto, because no American-based fighter ever fought his way up the established FW and BW ranks in Japan.

  4. Alan Conceicao says:

    In a linear system, wouldn’t the vacant title go to the next best Shooto fighter?

    Why would it be promotion specific? Pequeno left with the title to Hero’s and then on to the WEC: Linearity broken for Shooto at 143. At 132, their champ retired. The top two 135lb fighters in the world at that point were in the WEC. I mean, no one sat around after Lennox Lewis retired, no one sat down and said, “well, who is Main Events next best heavyweight?”

  5. Alan Conceicao says:

    And in the FW and BW divisions, the #2 would be in Shooto, because no American-based fighter ever fought his way up the established FW and BW ranks in Japan.

    What about having the established talent from Shooto come west? Certainly you’ve heard of Yoshiro Maeda? Mizugaki? Pequeno Noguiera? Akitoshi Tamura? Besides, I don’t even think there’s clarity in Japan these days. If you ask me, Mishma has a better claim to the bantamweight title than Ueda.

  6. 45 Huddle says:

    Nogueira has dropped multiple rankings due to a perceived change in his abilities. So has Chuck Liddell. I agree with it for Liddell, not Nogueira, as one bad fight should not make a fighter go from #2 in the world to #5, as he has in most rankings.

    As for the linear #1…. Seems like nobody is actually putting a list together and just speculating:

    FEATHERWEIGHT: Alexandre Nogueira, Tetsuo Katsuta, Alexandre Nogueira, Hiroyuki Abe, Alexandre Nogueira… Then it gets fishy. He fought at Lightweight, but really his first loss at Featherweight again was to Jose Aldo…. Which makes Aldo the linear Featherweight Champion.

    BANTAMWEIGHT: Mamoru, Masahiro Oishi, Ryota Matsune… His last fight was in 2006. Which means the linear belt went to Akitoshi Hokazono. Who then retired himself. then it goes to Masakatsu Ueda, not Torres. I believe Ueda was ranked higher then Torres at the time of each winning the belt (which happened within a month of each other).

    Linear works to a degree. However, once in a while, things need to be changed, and people’s opinion’s must enter the equation. Hence why rankings become pointless.

    Give me UFC Rankings. Maybe Strikeforce Rankings once they get more shows under them. Everything else (including P4P lists) are pointless. Which is why the UFC Championships are just that much more important. They aren’t opinion based. They include all the guys in one organization, and it’s the man who beat the man who beat the man. Very simplistic.

  7. Alan Conceicao says:

    I believe Ueda was ranked higher then Torres at the time of each winning the belt (which happened within a month of each other).

    Not so fast. Linearity is based off #1 and #2 fighting one another, not #1 and #6 or #7 fighting one another, and in the case of Torres and Ueda, Torres was generally rated above him in most ranking systems. Shooto doesn’t have any special claim to the title.

    As for the example of Very Little Noguiera, if you abandon a weight class and go elsewhere for years, again, linearity broken. By that point you had numerous 145 lb belts in various organizations and some legitimate contenders both within Shooto and outside of it. For the most part, they’ve not fought, and there was legit criticism about Faber getting claimancy to the top spot in the world. I’d argue the spot is up for grabs, and like heavyweight boxing, while there’s clearly one guy on top of the division, he’s not the “true” champion.

  8. 45 Huddle says:

    You pinpoint many of the problems with the linear system.

    Give me all the best fighters in one organization with a fighter’s union, and all these ranking issues become pointless.

  9. Alan Conceicao says:

    Its a nice pipe dream, but its not gonna happpen. Even Zuffa runs two promotions.

  10. Alan Conceicao says:

    Also, I can see where there’s arguments about the bantams and featherweights, but they’re not terribly applicable to the heavyweights. The UFC lost all their top heavyweight talent to PRIDE and Fedor emerged to be the unquestioned champion. He’s not been beaten and he’s drubbed pretty much every top contender the time period of 1999 to the present. There’s some new contenders emerging in the UFC, and maybe in a year or two the cry could go out again that he needs to prove himself against them, but the argument that Lesnar is a more valuable win at this moment than Barnett doesn’t hold water.

  11. Ultimo Santa says:

    “I don’t know if beating Fedor would pump Barnett’s rating high enough to be the number one or even number two HW on my charts. It would be a monumental achievement though.”

    I’m reading a lot of interesting arguments about ranking, linear ranking, etc. but what doesn’t get discussed enough is the nature and specifics of the victory.

    If Barnett beats Fedor by a narrow decision, does that affect his ranking differently than if he submitted him with an armbar 2 minutes into the fight?

    And to make things more complicated, some of these specifics are highly subjective themselves. Almost to the point where it makes certain fighters nearly impossible to accurately rank.

    Forrest Griffin is an excellent example of this.

    He got annihilated by Kieth Jardine, and beaten decisively by Rashad Evans. Yet he hold victories against Shogun and Rampage. But the Rampage victory was a close decision, and Shogun was recovering from a series of surgeries when he lost to Griffin, and his cardio was nowhere near where it was in PRIDE.

  12. Grape Knee High says:

    Anyone else see the UFC Countdown show last night? Seems to me like the production team for the GSP/BJ thing stayed on to continue with these shows as well. Very well put together.

    Also, interesting was that if I’m not mistaken, they spent at least double the amount of time on Lyoto as they did profiling Rashad. Not sure if they’re just backing the leading horse or if it’s a concerted effort to perhaps market to TMA guys who — with the exception of judokas — have pretty much ignored MMA.

  13. 45 Huddle says:

    Joachim Hansen is the hardest guy to rank in MMA.

    I have not seen the countdown show yet, it’s on my DVR. However, I’ve noticed in the past that they have concentrated on certain fighters more then other’s. I believe it’s because Rashad Evan’s story has already been told. Machida’s story really hasn’t been. So it make sense to put more time into him.

  14. Mark says:

    If you’re doing single promotions, then yes you should rank by who has the most significant wins or losses.

    But if you’re doing a “in all of MMA” ranking system, you’re just playing a guessing game going with any other method besides win-loss record solely.

    For all we know Carwin could beat Fedor, or Lesnar could beat Barnett. There’s no way of knowing, so you’re just giving your personal opinions until they have a chance to fight.

    In addition to them not being able to fight, there’s also different rules in various MMA promotions that significantly change games up. Like for example I think Aoki would look terrible in the UFC with elbows in play. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t beat Sean Sherk under DREAM rules. And Fedor would probably be in deep shit like Cro Cop was adjusting to the Octagon, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t beat Randy Couture in a ring.

  15. Alan Conceicao says:

    If you’re doing single promotions, then yes you should rank by who has the most significant wins or losses.

    But if you’re doing a “in all of MMA” ranking system, you’re just playing a guessing game going with any other method besides win-loss record solely.

    This is seemingly fine, until…

    For all we know Carwin could beat Fedor, or Lesnar could beat Barnett. There’s no way of knowing, so you’re just giving your personal opinions until they have a chance to fight.

    By the same token, Carwin could beat either Mir or Lesnar, we just have no way of currently knowing. Being promoted by the same person at the same time doesn’t necessarily mean we will ever learn the answer either, since any number of events could occur to prevent it. Nor are rankings intended to be based solely on believed potential.

    So again, I return to a common refrain: the best heavyweights in the world went to PRIDE because of money. When the smoke cleared, singular champions emerged, Fedor being the final one. He’s never taken a year off or left the division. He is not required to enter the UFC to fight, particularly if superior competitors can be coaxed from it or elsewhere to fight him. You may argue that Lesnar could beat him…hey, maybe he could! But if Fedor wins, is it a better win than Barnett? I’d bet we’d hear a lot about how it was no big deal that he beat a now 3-2 former pro wrestler with only a couple years of experience and only one top level win against a guy who’s almost AARP app age.

  16. 45 Huddle says:

    The major problem is….

    The UFC is a completely different fighting environment. And desite what rankings say, Fedor is beating these guys who are not really the #1 contenders.

    Arlovski was not the #1 Heavyweight in the UFC when he left. Sylvia was not the #1 Heavyweight in the UFC when he left. Barnett was not even the #2 Heavyweight in Pride when the company went under. And none of these guys higher ranked competition before getting their shots at Fedor.

    So one could argue, and have a valid argument, that Fedor is constantly fighting good competition, but he is getting them when they are not the true #1 contenders.

    That is complete different then Anderson Silva who fought Rich Franklin twice. Once when Franklin was champion. Next time when he was the #1 contender. Or Henderson when he was a legit #1 contender. Or even GSP who has fought Hughes, Fitch, & Alves…. All of who were #1 contenders at the time.

  17. 45 Huddle says:

    In a perfect scenario, Fedor should be fighting Frank Mir right now. Mir took over that spot as the rightful #2 fighter in the world.

    And after Fedor beats Barnett, he will need to be fighting in the UFC to really fight his first true #1 contender since Mirko Filipovic in 2005.

    See the point? No other champion has avoided fighting the NEXT best challenger for 4 years like Fedor has. He has beaten Top 10 guys, but has not fought the best when they were at their best.

  18. Alan Conceicao says:

    The UFC is a completely different fighting environment. And desite what rankings say, Fedor is beating these guys who are not really the #1 contenders.

    The UFC being “different” is irrelevant and untestable. As long as top contenders come to him, he can fight when and where he chooses within the realm of MMA. As is, he fights under unified rules with drug testing in a major commission state. I remember that criticism.

    As for these guys not being the real #1 contender, take it up with every major rankings system. Apparently people with bigger soapboxes and more legitimacy don’t carry the 45 Huddle line. Oh well.

  19. The Gaijin says:

    Arlovski wasn’t a top heavyweight because the “froze” him out. He won his last three fights (including one to a guy that spanked their current champ) and prior to that had only lost in title fights.

    Sylvia had one recent loss on his docket and had been one of the longest serving stalwarts of the division. He left after killing off one of their rising stars and for bigger paydays.

    It’s quite clear that either of them could still be one of the top guys in the division had they stayed there. Your argument on that angle is crap.

  20. 45 Huddle says:

    Name the last real #1 Contender Fedor has fought against. I’ll give you a hint. It’s almost 4 years ago.

    That’s not an angle….

  21. 45 Huddle says:

    “As for these guys not being the real #1 contender, take it up with every major rankings system. Apparently people with bigger soapboxes and more legitimacy don’t carry the 45 Huddle line. Oh well.”

    Using your linear system, Arlovski & Sylvia weren’t Top 5. And neither will Barnett be either.

  22. Alan Conceicao says:

    Using your linear system, Arlovski & Sylvia weren’t Top 5. And neither will Barnett be either.

    Champions are linear. Every other spot isn’t. What, you had Randy Couture the #2 heavyweight in the world till Lesnar beat him?

  23. The Gaijin says:

    “Name the last real #1 Contender Fedor has fought against. I’ll give you a hint. It’s almost 4 years ago.”

    According to what standard? Given the “depth” of the UFC’s HW division AA would have EASILY [quadruple underlined and bolded] been a “#1 contender” for the UFC strap (and likely beat anyone holding the belt right now) had he not left on his 3-0 streak. Sylvia probably THE #1 contender following his win over Vera – but he left too.

    Give it up.

  24. The Gaijin says:

    *Correction – following his win over Vera and loss to Big Nog. Given the propensity for rematches, the fact that he was far ahead on the cards before losing AND that UFC’s “#1 contenders” were a 2-1 pro wrestler and the guy that beat the 2-1 pro wrestler (based entirely off the steam of beating said 2-1 pro wrestler).

  25. Alan Conceicao says:

    Given the propensity for rematches, the fact that he was far ahead on the cards before losing AND that UFC’s “#1 contenders” were a 2-1 pro wrestler and the guy that beat the 2-1 pro wrestler (based entirely off the steam of beating said 2-1 pro wrestler).

    The best part Gaijin? Sylvia and Arlovski left the UFC and Sylvia got his fight with Fedor even before Lesner was actually 2-1. Until he beat Herring, he was still a guy who only beat some Korean tomato can.

  26. The Gaijin says:

    And I don’t say it to take away from Mir or Lesnar who proved to be worthy of the title shot in the end. But to pretend “they weren’t #1 contender material – bc DW said so” when that’s who the “worthy alternatives” were is the totally typical 45 sycophantic company line bullsh*t.

  27. 45 Huddle says:

    The Gaijin,

    I don’t think you really understood what I said, so I will give a real easy example:

    1. Fedor Emelianenko
    2. Antonio Nogueira
    3. Randy Couture
    4. Tim Sylvia
    5. Top UFC Challenger (Could have been Andrei Arlovski)

    There was more to the rankings at this time, but I just put those names in there to show that Arlovski wasn’t even the Top guy in the UFC when he left. There were multiple others ahead of him. And Sylvia wasn’t the top guy either as Randy Couture has beaten him.

    So when Fedor beat these guys, he wasn’t fighting them when they were on top. He beat the Arlovski who was post two losses to Sylvia. He beat the Sylvia that had lost to Couture and Noguiera. I’ll give you a real life example.

    Georges St. Pierre beats Matt Hughes in their 2nd fight, and he becomes the #1 Welterweight in the world. When Thiago Alves beats Hughes at UFC 85, he is still beating a top contender, but Hughes wasn’t the same invincible guy people thought he was.

    Another example, Floyd Mayweather laughed at people calling Manny the #1 P4P guy. His basic point is that they each beat the same guys, and Mayweather did it first and did it when they were better (which is true).

    Since his 2005 fight with Mirko Filipovic, he has not fought a top guy who was a true sitting #1 contender. He has beaten a lot of solid Top 10 guys, but all guys who had already fallen from being at the top of the UFC.

    It would be like him fighting Randy Couture now instead of when of when Couture was the UFC Champion. Couture isn’t even the best in the UFC right now. Same with Arlovski. He wasn’t the best in the UFC when he left, yet somehow beating two IFL Guys got him to the top of the dilussional rankings by fanboy sights, and everybody goes crazy.

    Fedor needs to be fighting Frank Mir. That is the true #1 contender. I know people laugh at that, but logically, it makes the most sense.

    I know what you will be saying now. That Fedor has to sign with the UFC in order to be fighting guy from the organization. And that is kind of the point. He really needs to be, because fighting in Affliction, he is getting the guys who are still Top 10, but have been beaten before coming over to fight him.

  28. robthom says:

    45 vs. Conceicao for the last Wamma ring IMO.
    🙂

  29. Zack says:

    “Arlovski was not the #1 Heavyweight in the UFC when he left.”

    You sure about that chief?

  30. robthom says:

    “You sure about that chief?”

    He wasn’t holding the belt?!

    How do you mean?

  31. klown says:

    It’s true that a linear system can’t be perfect, and that adjustments must be made to account for irregularities, and that a degree of subjectivity enters into making these adjustments. So the question is not one of having a perfect system, but of minimizing subjectivity and coming up with a consensus on addressing irregularities.

    For example, there is some consensus that there should be a cut off point in time before which fights no longer “count”. Some say 2 years, some say 3, and that is a subjective decision at the end of the day. But the principle is not very controversial. It makes sense that fighters evolve over time, and decline over time. Having a cut-off point introduces this momentum to the rankings.

    There also needs to be a mechanism to address loops. Here again, subjectivity must enter the picture. I think it makes sense to privilege a more recent fight over an older one, as a way to resolve these loops. In other words, the winner of the latest fight comes out on top of the trio. Like all adjustments, this one isn’t perfect, but couldn’t some consensus be reached around this principle or a similar one?

    Another complication to linear rankings, which has been discussed above, is the problem of parallel promotions with little or no crossover. Here again, subjectivity inevitably enters the picture. I think it is acceptable to disagree on this point, and to agree to disagree. Whenever a crossover does occur, even if just one fight with fighters from both parallel structures, that gives insight to the correct ranking and gives you something to organize your ranks around. It decreases the subjectivity involved. And the more crossover occurs, the more objectivity enters the rankings.

    Some divisions, especially the lower weights, are so segregated it makes ranking very difficult. I would say each division from Lightweight on down suffers from this dearth of crossover. The Welterweight, Light Heavyweight, and to a lesser extent, the Middleweight divisions are held by consensus to be dominated by the UFC. The Heavyweight division is not monopolized by any one promotion, but benefits from a lot of crossover over the last couple of years. This makes Heavyweight one of the most rankable divisions in MMA using a logical, linear system. Below is my attempt at a thorough logical ranking of the division.

  32. klown says:

    1. F. Emilianenko
    2. Mir
    3. Nogueira
    4. Lesnar
    5. Couture
    6. Sylvia
    7. Arlovski
    8. Dos Santos
    9. Werdum
    10. Carwin
    11. Gonzaga
    12. Velasquez
    13. Herring
    14. Kongo
    15. CroCop
    16. Barnett
    17. A. Emilianenko
    18. Monson
    19. Kharitanov
    20. Overeem

  33. klown says:

    Notes:

    * Fedor is the undisputed champion. Nobody has dominated the division as thoroughly as he has. He holds wins against #3 Nogueira (x3), #6 Sylvia, #7 Arlovski, #13 Herring and #15 CroCop

    * Nogueira is one crossover point. In addition to holding UFC wins over #6 Sylvia and #13 Herring, he also holds PRIDE wins over #15 CroCop and #16 Barnett. Mir\’s win over Nogueira earns him the #2 spot

    * Dos Santos\’s high ranking is a potential irregularity. I say \”potential\” because time will tell, and his ranking might prove justified. But it seems intuitively odd for fighters with short records to rise suddenly due to a single win over a top-ranked opponent. I believe this level of potential irregularity is tolerable in the short run, and the wrinkles are ironed out by the system over time. In other words, if Dos Santos\’s knockout of Werdum was a fluke, he will steadily plummet in the rankings, as did Houston Alexander and Sokoudjou, for example. For the mystery to vanish, Dos Santos must not be matched against cans like Struve, but must be tested against top caliber competition to see if he belongs

    * The other major crossover point is CroCop. His poor performance in the UFC is the main reason for ranking the UFC (and former UFC) elite decisively above the former PRIDE elite (with the exception of Fedor). CroCop holds wins over #16 Barnett and #17 Aleks, and losses to UFC\’s #11 Gonzaga and #14 Kongo

  34. klown says:

    Match-making is the precursor to rankings. Most of the irregularities in linear rankings are the result of illogical match-making, due to lack of fighter availability, injury, marketing-driven match-making, or other factors that influence match-making.

    In short, ranking perversions happen when an underdog gets the upset in a mismatch. A case in point is Dos Santos – Werdum. Whenever a top fighter is matched against a can with a puncher’s chance, the system is vulnerable to irregularity.

    All the limitation will always exist, as well they should (such as promotional interests), so match-making will never be fully logical. However it is useful to come up with principles on what constitutes objective match-making, just to keep in mind.

    1. The point of match-making is to determine the best fighter.

    2. To be the champion, beat the champion

    3. A fighter coming off a win should be matched against an opponent ranked higher than himself. This gives him the opportunity to rise in the ranks

    4. A fighter coming off a loss should be matched against an opponent ranked lower than himself. This allows him to plummet if he loses again, or tread water if he wins

    5. Fighters should face opponents who are not too distant from them in the rankings. This helps ensure fair, competitive fights and resolves apparent irregularities

    6. It’s good to strive toward giving a tournament-like structure to determining title shots, or at least “#1 contender” fights, rather than giving fighters title shots out of the blue (like Anderson Silva’s last 2 opponents). For example, I would have liked to see Arlovski vs Barnett to determine Fedor’s challenger

    7. It should take, at minimum, 2 victories over Top 10 opponents (and no losses between them) to be considered the #1 contender

    Based on these principles, Velasquez-Kongo is an excellent match-up. The winner should be one more fight away from a title shot, and that fight should be against a higher-ranked opponent, such as the loser of Mir-Lesnar or the loser of Nogueira-Couture. Defeating Cain or Cheick, then beating any one of those four HW giants, earns any man a title shot

    Dos Santos should be matched against Carwin to determine the #1 contender for the HW belt. It would be difficult to deny Dos Santos the shot given decisive victories over Shane and Fabricio. Alternatively, Dos Santos could be exposed, and an undefeated Carwin given the title shot.

  35. Alan Conceicao says:

    There was more to the rankings at this time, but I just put those names in there to show that Arlovski wasn’t even the Top guy in the UFC when he left. There were multiple others ahead of him. And Sylvia wasn’t the top guy either as Randy Couture has beaten him.

    And then Randy left and you campaigned that he drop in the rankings accordingly. And Sylvia dropped because after losing to a fight he dominated most of against Nog, he was wiped out by Fedor. Two of them dropped appreciably, one guy kept winning. What, you think Arlovski should have been penalized for Sylvia’s failures and dropped too?

    In any case, your talk about some sort of linear #2 flies out the window because you removed Randy from that to slot in Noguiera over inactivity. Figure in that Noguiera lost to a guy that’s wasn’t in the top ten at the time prior to Arlovski/Fedor, and then suddenly Arlovski is the #2 contender. Ta da!

  36. The Gaijin says:

    So Alan, don’t you see – at the time he fought Sylvia he should have been facing his true #1 contender in Nog (oh wait, he’s destroyed him 2x already). And when he fought AA he really should have been fighting Frank Mir.

    Give me a break – so basically your giant gripe is that he’s not facing top talent because he hasn’t fought Mir? If Barnett fought Mir it would be even money. He tried his damnedest to fight Couture when Couture was the top dog in the UFC, UFC wouldn’t allow it to happen (can’t fault them for that), and I saw NOTHING from Couture that makes me think he wouldn’t get fucking wrecked if they fought.

    I basically just have to give up with guys like 45, because they continually try to rearrange the chess pieces to attempt to make their failing argument work.

    e.g. “He needs to fight fighter X, Y, Z to prove he’s fighting ‘top guys'” –> Destroys X, Y, Z —> “Well X, Y, Z aren’t even top guys, they were run out of the UFC, he needs to fight A, B, C to prove he’s fighting ‘top guys’.” Lather, rinse, repeat as desired.

  37. I tried creating Top 10 Heavyweight ranking by going all the way back to pre-2000 and compiling a list of 15 top HWs and comparing their records up to 2000 and ranking them from there.

    Then from there, I created a point system which I can’t really recall right now but something along the lines of a win against the #1 ranked fighter gains you 10 points. Losing to him, though, only drops you 1 point.

    The crazy thing about it is that my rankings ended up like what most look like anyway. Fedor is #1, Mir is #2, Arlovski was #3 or #4, etc.

  38. Dave2 says:

    1. A Fedor win will solidify his dominance of the heavyweight division even more. A Barnett win would be huge but I don’t see it happening.
    2. Not sure but it won’t be any more than the Fedor-Arlovski card. Probably less.
    3. See number 2
    4. Depends on whether this card will come to fruition. If it happens, it’ll be the last card. I don’t see a fourth Affliction event. I’m shocked there’s talk of a third actually.

  39. Lester Grimes says:

    1. If Fedor wins, this simply means another former UFC champion (during their caveman era) has fallen to the Russian. Hardcore fans will get on their knees and worship the Russian, while most mainstream fans will scratch their head, wondering where this Russian came from (assuming they actually know about the event).

    2. Nope! Unlike the UFC, Affliction does not leverage Free TV or mainstream media outlets to promote the event. At least the fans got to see Arvloski on Free Network TV (via Elite XC) before his fight with Fedor. But we all know that Card was probably a financial failure.

    3. Re-read point no. 3. In addition, FEDOR has a history of being a PPV bust (Bodog, Pride USA & now Affliction). Don’t expect anything to change.

    4. Unless Affliction uses their MMA card as a loss leader to promote their fashion line as a LOSS LEADER, I see a dismal future for them in the MMA fight biz. You can’t run a successful MMA promotion by having a fight card every 4 to 6 months, especially without any effective promotion or any effective means to attract a larger audience, (other than Hardcore MMA fans).

  40. Chuck says:

    The lineal title philosophy is all and good to an extent, but the BIGGEST knock against the lineal philosophy? Well, I will just give you an example……..Shannon Briggs was considered the lineal heavyweight champ after he beat George Foreman, and since that Ring Magazine discontinued their title policy during Holyfield’s title reign in 1990. Ring Magazine didn’t bring it back until during Lennox Lewis’ title reign in I believe 2002.

    So who wants to recognize Briggs as a former undisputed world heavyweight champ? Not me! He had the WBO belt a few years ago, but that is it! Nothing more!

  41. Jeremy (not that Jeremy) says:

    IceMuncher,

    I’ve described the rating system (which then produces the ranking) briefly elsewhere on the site, and I make no claims as to its “accuracy,” only that it is systematic.

    Linear is also systematic. 45’s rankings probably have some sort of method to them, but I suspect there’s a fair share of madness as well (as with all opinion rankings) 🙂

    Any systematic rating that claims to be focused on recent performance is going to be lacking too much information to be valuable IMHO. Talking about just the fights in the last 12 months is kind of ridiculous unless you’re allowing for the ranking of those fighters coming into those 12 months, and then you’re talking about a lifetime system anyway, you’re just calling it something else.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image