« The hullabaloo about Mark Coleman getting cut by UFC after main eventing the last PPV | Home | Strikeforce and others find out UFC is the dominant brand; Film at 11 »
Independent World MMA Rankings – February 12, 2010
By Zach Arnold | February 11, 2010
From the office of the Independent World MMA Rankings
February 12, 2010: The February 2010 Independent World MMA Rankings have been released. These rankings are independent of any single MMA media outlet or sanctioning body, and are published on multiple web sites.
In addition to the numerous MMA web sites that publish the Independent World MMA Rankings, you can also access the rankings at any time by going to www.IndependentWorldMMARankings.com.
Some of the best and most knowledgeable MMA writers from across the MMA media landscape have come together to form one independent voting panel. These voting panel members are, in alphabetical order: Zach Arnold (Fight Opinion); Nicholas Bailey (MMA Ratings); Jared Barnes (Freelance); Jordan Breen (Sherdog); Jim Genia (Full Contact Fighter, MMA Memories, and MMA Journalist Blog); Jesse Holland (MMA Mania); Robert Joyner (Freelance); Todd Martin (CBS Sportsline); Jim Murphy (The Savage Science); Zac Robinson (Sports by the Numbers MMA); Leland Roling (Bloody Elbow); Michael David Smith (AOL Fanhouse); Joshua Stein (MMA Opinion); Ivan Trembow (Freelance); and Dave Walsh (Head Kick Legend).
February 2010 Independent World MMA Rankings
Ballots collected on February 9, 2010
Heavyweight Rankings (206 to 265 lbs.)
1. Fedor Emelianenko (31-1, 1 No Contest)
2. Brock Lesnar (4-1)
3. Frank Mir (13-4)
4. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (32-5-1, 1 No Contest)
5. Shane Carwin (11-0)
6. Brett Rogers (10-1)
7. Junior dos Santos (10-1)
8. Alistair Overeem (32-11, 1 No Contest)
9. Cain Velasquez (7-0)
10. Fabricio Werdum (13-4-1)
Light Heavyweight Rankings (186 to 205 lbs.)
1. Lyoto Machida (16-0)
2. Mauricio “Shogun” Rua (18-4)
3. Rashad Evans (14-1-1)
4. Quinton Jackson (30-7)
5. Anderson Silva (25-4)
6. Gegard Mousasi (27-2-1)
7. Forrest Griffin (17-6)
8. Antonio Rogerio Nogueira (18-3)
9. Dan Henderson (25-7)
10. Thiago Silva (14-2)
Middleweight Rankings (171 to 185 lbs.)
1. Anderson Silva (25-4)
2. Dan Henderson (25-7)
3. Chael Sonnen (24-10-1)
4. Vitor Belfort (19-8)
5. Nathan Marquardt (29-9-2)
6. Demian Maia (12-1)
7. Jake Shields (24-4-1)
8. Yushin Okami (23-5)
9. Robbie Lawler (17-5, 1 No Contest)
10. Ronaldo “Jacare” Souza (11-2, 1 No Contest)
Welterweight Rankings (156 to 170 lbs.)
1. Georges St. Pierre (19-2)
2. Jon Fitch (21-3, 1 No Contest)
3. Thiago Alves (16-6)
4. Josh Koscheck (14-4)
5. Paulo Thiago (13-1)
6. Dan Hardy (23-6)
7. Nick Diaz (21-7, 1 No Contest)
8. Matt Hughes (43-7)
9. Paul Daley (23-8-2)
10. Matt Serra (10-6)
Lightweight Rankings (146 to 155 lbs.)
1. B.J. Penn (15-5-1)
2. Shinya Aoki (23-4, 1 No Contest)
3. Eddie Alvarez (19-2)
4. Kenny Florian (12-4)
5. Tatsuya Kawajiri (26-5-2)
6. Gray Maynard (9-0, 1 No Contest)
7. Frankie Edgar (11-1)
8. Diego Sanchez (21-3)
9. Joachim Hansen (19-8-1)
10. Gilbert Melendez (17-2)
Featherweight Rankings (136 to 145 lbs.)
1. Jose Aldo (16-1)
2. Mike Brown (23-5)
3. Urijah Faber (23-3)
4. Hatsu Hioki (20-4-2)
5. Bibiano Fernandes (7-2)
6. Raphael Assuncao (14-2)
7. “Lion” Takeshi Inoue (18-3)
8. Manny Gamburyan (10-4)
9. Marlon Sandro (15-1)
10. Michihiro Omigawa (9-8-1)
Bantamweight Rankings (126 to 135 lbs.)
1. Brian Bowles (8-0)
2. Miguel Torres (37-2)
3. Masakatsu Ueda (10-0-2)
4. Dominick Cruz (14-1)
5. Joseph Benavidez (11-1)
6. Takeya Mizugaki (12-4-2)
7. Damacio Page (12-4)
8. Scott Jorgensen (8-3)
9. Wagnney Fabiano (13-2)
10. Akitoshi Tamura (14-8-2)
The Independent World MMA Rankings are tabulated on a monthly basis in each of the top seven weight classes of MMA, from heavyweight to bantamweight, with fighters receiving ten points for a first-place vote, nine points for a second-place vote, and so on.
The rankings are based purely on the votes of the members of the voting panel, with nobody’s vote counting more than anybody else’s vote, and no computerized voting.
The voters are instructed to vote primarily based on fighters’ actual accomplishments in the cage/ring (the quality of opposition that they’ve actually beaten), not based on a broad, subjective perception of which fighters would theoretically win hypothetical match-ups.
Inactivity: Fighters who have not fought in the past 12 months are not eligible to be ranked, and will regain their eligibility the next time they fight.
Disciplinary Suspensions: Fighters who are currently serving disciplinary suspensions, or who have been denied a license for drug test or disciplinary reasons, are not eligible to be ranked.
Changing Weight Classes: When a fighter announces that he is leaving one weight class in order to fight in another weight class, the fighter is not eligible to be ranked in the new weight class until he has his first fight in the new weight class.
Catch Weight Fights: When fights are contested at weights that are in between the limits of the various weight classes, they are considered to be in the higher weight class. The weight limits for each weight class are listed at the top of the rankings for each weight class.
Special thanks to Eric Kamander, Zach Arnold, and Joshua Stein for their invaluable help with this project, and special thanks to Garrett Bailey for designing our logo.
Topics: Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 57 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Inactivity: Fighters who have not fought in the past 12 months are not eligible to be ranked, and will regain their eligibility the next time they fight.
DAN HENDERSON @ LHW.
I really don’t understand this.
Now with typo corrections!
Henderson has fought in the past 12 months. It’s not on a per-weight-class basis; it’s simply that fighters who haven’t fought in the past 12 months are not eligible to be ranked (in any weight class). As an example, BJ Penn was still eligible to be ranked at lightweight from May 2009 through August 2009 because it had not yet been 12 months since his previous fight. (It had been more than 12 months since he had a fight in the lightweight division, but he wasn’t inactive as a fighter for 12 months, so he never lost his eligibility.)
Similarly, if Anderson Silva doesn’t have a middleweight fight in April, thus going over 12 full months without a fight in the middleweight division, that’s not going to make him ineligible to be ranked at middleweight. If he goes 12 months without fighting, period, then he wouldn’t be eligible to be ranked in any weight class until he had another fight.
What about Jeff Mondon at heavyweight? hehe j/k.
Honestly, a great list IMO.
Where are the usuals with the outrage?
I gave up. No amount of complaining is going to fix this poll.
I think it is more due to the fact that alot of people are not THAT upset with this pole….and because there are alot larger stories right now going on in the world of MMA that are not on the front page, such as any of the stuff regarding the A. Silva fight with Belfort being off and Maia stepping in to replace him and whether or not it will be for the title.
I’m happy to obglige with the outrage 🙂
I don’t believe the rankings live up to their own credo – which I, incidentally, believe is the correct one:
“The voters are instructed to vote primarily based on fighters’ actual accomplishments in the cage/ring (the quality of opposition that they’ve actually beaten), not based on a broad, subjective perception of which fighters would theoretically win hypothetical match-ups.”
You can only complain about Overeem’s and Mousasi’s purely hypothetical standings so many times before you lose interest and stop bothering.
Hell, I’ll bite, why not.
Yep, Mousasi and Overeem are still too high.
I’ll commend the IWMMA for being consistent in their “beating Matt Lindland nets you a high ranking for some reason” policy. But Vitor and Jacare are also way too high.
Henderson at #2 is more or less conventional wisdom at this point, but I’m not sure why. He’s only beaten Toquinho and Bisping in his current run. So I guess it must be a combination of that and good will left over his last middleweight stint, despite the fact that that stint was 3-4 years ago and ended with a loss to Kazuo Misaki. Henderson at #2 is silly.
Someone jog my memory–where was Zaromskis in the last edition? Because Nick Diaz beating him in Diaz’s first welterweight fight in years and rocketing into the top 10 strikes me as a little weird. And if Zaromskis was around #7 before now–well, that doesn’t make any sense either.
I think the IWMMA must be the only rankings with Lion Takeshi as a top 10 featherweight. I don’t think beating Rumina Sato and Pequeno Nogueira means what it used to.
Sadly, they are not the only rankings currently pretending that Mackens Semerzier doesn’t exist.
I think Vitor gets a little extra love because he absolutely demolished the guy who held the #1/#2 spot in the MW division for years. Say what you will about it being catchweight, but smashing Franklin like that was pretty damn impressive. Tack that onto the homicide he committed versus former top 5 MW Lindland and his ranking makes a lot more sense.
Sadly, they are not the only rankings currently pretending that Mackens Semerzier doesn’t exist.
Why should some guy who lost to a journeyman lightweight be ranked in the top 10 of the featherweights?
The ranking that makes no sense to me is putting Carwin over Cain & Dos Santos.
Carwin has one win against a guy who has been ranked (Gonzaga) while Cain (Kongo, Rothwell) and Dos Santos (Werdum, Cro Cop) have two apiece. Carwin’s second best win is against … Neil Wain?
Also, putting Overeem over Werdum makes no sense at all, since they have met head to head and Werdum made him tap. Fabricio should not be punished for facing stiff competition while Alistiar fattened up on tomato cans.
Why isn’t Stefan Struve ranked? His best win in the last few years is over Paul Buentell as well. He should be tied with Alistair Overeem…. Just couldn’t resist.
Speaking of Alistair Overeem…. He is fighting in April!! Whooo!! Too bad it’s not for Strikeforce. That pretty much rules him out for that planned May fight as well.
At this rate, he should be ranked in the Top 10 for the next 5 years without fighting anybody credible….
Why should some guy who lost to a journeyman lightweight be ranked in the top 10 of the featherweights?
I think Taurosevicius us undefeated at featherweight at the moment, which makes him an odd choice for the “journeyman” label. But if you feel that that loss knocks Semerzier out the top 10, that’s reasonable–I disagree, but it’s reasonable.
Where it breaks down is having Wagnney Fabiano, who lost to Semerzier when Semerzier was a 4-fight rookie who’d only fought total nobodies, as he #9 bantamweight for beating Clint Godfrey.
The only rationale for having Fabiano ranked ahead of anybody besides, well, Clint Godfrey at bantamweight is one that gives him credit for his career at featherweight. But putting him all the way up at #9 would seem to ignore the massive, embarrassing upset loss that preceded his weight drop in the first place.
I disagree with counting fights in other weight classes in a fighter’s favor anyway, but I don’t think anyone agrees with me on that. So if people are going to do it, I wish they’d do it somewhat reasonably.
I think Taurosevicius us undefeated at featherweight at the moment, which makes him an odd choice for the “journeyman” label.
He’s a fantastic choice for that label as a lightweight. “Undefeated as a featherweight” is essentially a meaningless statement. When he’s racked up 5-6 consecutive wins at 145 against significant competition, let me know. I’ll care about him being “undefeated” then.
The division is badly fractured. Has been the whole time. Who is the #9 featherweight Fabiano grabbed his ranking from? Its all linear or something, until it isn’t.
The significance if being undefeated at featherweight is that it means the jury’s out on weather you’re a journeyman at that weight or not.
The fact that featherweight is fractured doesn’t make beating Clint Godfrey and no one else a reasonable criterion for being #9. To take merely one example, Charlie Valencia–who just beat Akitoshi Tamura at bantamweight and yet is mysteriously nowhere to be found in these rankings–has a better case for #9 than Fabiano.
As much as I complain and frankly find ridiculous some of the names on the top 10 from all divisions.
These with the exceptions of 1 or 2 names in each division are good, except for LW which continues to be the worst of all the rankings by far.
The significance if being undefeated at featherweight is that it means the jury’s out on weather you’re a journeyman at that weight or not.
It also doesn’t mean that a single meaningful win makes you a to flight competitor. This is especially true when the claim is that of “guy who beat a guy who was considered good at one time largely based on the fractional nature of the division”.
The truth is that there’s a crapload of guys who are theoretically strong choices for 8-10 at 135, 145, and 155. There’s no correct or reasonable objective criteria, nor is there any sort of lineage of value to point to for those sorts of spots. In short: Who cares?
Featherweight and Bantamweight haven’t really matured as divisions yet. Because of this, you are going to see a lot of “over rated” fighters getting beaten easily and surprising a lot of fanboys.
Give it about 2 years, and the divisions will be about as predictable as the current UFC divisions….
It also doesn’t mean that a single meaningful win makes you a to flight competitor. This is especially true when the claim is that of “guy who beat a guy who was considered good at one time largely based on the fractional nature of the division”.
I don’t know where you’re going with this. I never claimed Taurosevicius was a top flight competitor. I think he deserves to be highly ranked right now, but the strongest claim I’ve made about him as a fighter is that he has not yet proven himself to be journeyman-caliber in his new weight class. You have not contested this.
The truth is that there’s a crapload of guys who are theoretically strong choices for 8-10 at 135, 145, and 155.
I agree. It’s just that Wagnney Fabiano isn’t one of them.
There’s no correct or reasonable objective criteria, nor is there any sort of lineage of value to point to for those sorts of spots. In short: Who cares?
You, apparently, since you’re engaging with me in a discussion about it. And me, because I think such discussions are fun.
To be clear, I don’t take “reasonable” to mean “objective” in this context. It’s inevitably subjective. There are always judgment calls. I just happen to think there are reasonable and unreasonable ways of dealing with that.
As for lineages of value, well, they don’t spring fully-formed from nothing. You’ve got to start keeping track of things at some point. That is, if you’re going to be the sort of dork that cares about these things.
I don’t know where you’re going with this.
I don’t see why Taurosevicus “deserves” to be ranked anywhere. What lineage is he taking? From where? If Lion Takeshi’s wins don’t matter anymore and his ranking undeserved, why do Fabiano’s? Or anyone who’s ranking is derived from his?
As for lineages of value, well, they don’t spring fully-formed from nothing.
But the rankings of 135/145/155 are springing from nothing. The basis for their structure is extremely tenuous if it exists at all. A pure 145 or 135lb “linear” ranking wouldn’t have any WEC guys at the top; Mark Hominick would be the #1 featherweight in the world.
The idea of “lineage” rankings is beyond ridiculous, and this featherweight discussion just illustrates that in a way that the politically charged HW discussions apparently are unable to do.
For example, Mir’s ranking is absurd to anyone who either watches fights or tries to understand records in a sophisticated way, but you can’t say that without riling up legions of angry Zuffa fanboys.
Linear rankings work once the divisions are established more…
They don’t work for chaotic newer divisions or divisions that are highly fractured like the Lightweight Division….
Eddie Alvarez’s ridiculously high ranking once again displays some Japan-bias.
Otherwise a good list.
Alan, you’ll notice I said “don’t spring fully formed from nothing.” Obviously everything starts from groups of unranked fighters fighting each other–that’s exactly why subjective judgment calls have to factor into things.
What I’m saying is, there’s no point at which you can say “alright, there’s a meaningful lineage here” and know exactly what to do with that lineage, unless you’ve already been keeping track of how that lineage has formed. That’s what I’m trying to do.
I think Taurosevicius deserves to be highly ranked for being undefeated and beating Mackens Semerzier, who was undefeated and beat Wagnney Fabiano, who had (relative to his admittedly fractured a shallow division) a good record capped off with a win over Akitoshi Tamura.
He deserves it more than Lion Takeshi because Takeshi still has that outstanding loss to Savant Young and hasn’t done much to recoup since then.
I’m guessing Savant Young is the source of your comment about Mark Hominick. But my rankings aren’t strictly linear–I try to take an approach that looks at records in a given period(arbitrarily selected! Oh god, I admit it!) in a more holistic way, so that it’s not just “A beat B, doesn’t matter what else A has been up to recently, A takes B’s slot.”
What I’m saying is, there’s no point at which you can say “alright, there’s a meaningful lineage here” and know exactly what to do with that lineage, unless you’ve already been keeping track of how that lineage has formed. That’s what I’m trying to do.
Which is fine; what I think is absurdist is to claim that such a lineage is anything remotely near objective. What is the proof that a loss to Semerzier is really more or less meaningful than a loss to Savant Young? Because of the ring it occurred in? Because Sermerzier’s lack of experience has turned into fewer losses?
Since MMA bloggers don’t pay attention to actual sports: The Super 6 fights scheduled for 4/17 on Showtime have been moved a week to 4/24; Sounds to me like Strikeforce won’t be going head to head with the WEC then given that its Showtime Sports that produces their shows.
If you want to think of it as not remotely near objective, that’s fine. I’ll simply respond that if all methods are remote from objectivity, some are still less so than others. And if that’s the best that can be hoped for, then so be it. It’s enough ground for criticism.
What is the proof that a loss to Semerzier is really more or less meaningful than a loss to Savant Young? Because of the ring it occurred in? Because Sermerzier’s lack of experience has turned into fewer losses?
Not sure what you mean–I didn’t think we were comparing the standings of someone that lost to Semerzier and someone that lost to Young. I thought were were comparing Lion Takeshi, who lost to Young, with Taurosevicius, who beat Semerzier.
But since you asked–I think they’re about equally bad. I believe the Inoue bout was Young’s first at 145, making him unranked, and Semerzier/Fabiano was Semerzier’s first bout against anyone with more than one or two fights, so same deal.
So if losses to those guys mean about the same, then beating them immediately after those important wins should mean about the same too; Taurosevicius and Hominick then enter the equation…but what about people who’ve beaten Hominick? Is Hominick really better than he was when he lost to Grispi or Yahya because he beat Young? Does Franca Noguiera’s loss to Jose Aldo now look less damaging because of Aldo’s position in the sport?
That’s a whole lot of questions, there’s not many clear answers, and so I think its silly to get upset about how guys are being ranked around there.
Rankings of this sort are never meant to be perfect, really. I know when I do them I do my best to keep the scientific approach, if fighter A beats fighter B who was ranked higher, fighter A moves into B’s slot and depending on how the rest of the division looks is where B goes.
One person’s opinion can completely change how these rankings go, so it is hardly something to get upset over.
You guys will just have to take my word for it that I’m not exactly red-faced and fuming behind my keyboard here.
So if losses to those guys mean about the same, then beating them immediately after those important wins should mean about the same too
This is true only if you assume two extra things: that Young and Semerzier beat the same level of opponent (not strictly possible unless you think there should be tie rankings), and that their records prior to beating those opponents were such that the wins benefit them, ranking-wise, in exactly the same way.
Even assuming that the first is close enough to true, the second isn’t. Mark Hominick is a guy who’d lost three of his last five, whereas Taurosevicius was two-for-two at featherweight. I’m of the crazy opinion that losses count against you in rankings.
Like I said, I don’t do it strictly linear so that A beating B just means that A takes B’s place and B drops down one spot. If Rashad Evens were to beat Machida right now, they’d end up as #1 and #2. If Machida were to lose to Mark Coleman, well, that’s a different story to me. I don’t know where they’d end up. That’s a tough judgment call.
Does Franca Noguiera’s loss to Jose Aldo now look less damaging because of Aldo’s position in the sport?
It might look that way, but I don’t believe in ex-post-facto ranking adjustments based on subsequent results. It really can’t be done.
You’re right that there a lot of questions and not always clear answers. But I don’t think that means that all rankings are equally reasonable. Is that what you think?
This is true only if you assume two extra things: that Young and Semerzier beat the same level of opponent (not strictly possible unless you think there should be tie rankings), and that their records prior to beating those opponents were such that the wins benefit them, ranking-wise, in exactly the same way.
At the time that Lion Takeshi lost to Savant Young, he was virtually a universal top 5 pick. Same goes for Fabiano. They both lost to guys well down the ladder from them; guys you effectively term as equals. Hell, the fashion in which Fabiano lost was worse than Takeshi.
Even assuming that the first is close enough to true, the second isn’t. Mark Hominick is a guy who’d lost three of his last five, whereas Taurosevicius was two-for-two at featherweight. I’m of the crazy opinion that losses count against you in rankings.
So, do you believe that Nate Marqhardt losing to Chael Sonnen should shunt him down the rankings more than push Chael Sonnen up? How about Paul Daley’s wins over higher ranked competition? He came into the UFC fresh off losing two of his prior 3.
You’re right that there a lot of questions and not always clear answers. But I don’t think that means that all rankings are equally reasonable. Is that what you think?
I think there’s fairly obvious rankings; GSP as the best welterweight, for instance. I think there’s a worthy debate for who the #9 featherweight is, but I think its silly to make a de facto claim that anyone is clearly “undeserving” of the title unless its handed to a Jens Pulver type.
Didn’t even realize Daley had beaten some scrubs back in the UK after the Thompson fight. Still got the call up 7 months after losing to Nick Thompson.
“For example, Mir’s ranking is absurd to anyone who either watches fights or tries to understand records in a sophisticated way.”
You know sometimes no matter how many stupid things I read on the internet every once in a while there are some comments that still amaze me. Here’s a tip if you don’t understand why Mir is ranked about where he should be it might not be a matter of you being sophisticated but maybe you’re an idiot.
At the time that Lion Takeshi lost to Savant Young, he was virtually a universal top 5 pick. Same goes for Fabiano. They both lost to guys well down the ladder from them; guys you effectively term as equals. Hell, the fashion in which Fabiano lost was worse than Takeshi.
I agree with that. But that doesn’t mean that subsequently beating Semerzier means exactly the same as subsequently beating Young regardless of who beat them and when.
So, do you believe that Nate Marqhardt losing to Chael Sonnen should shunt him down the rankings more than push Chael Sonnen up? How about Paul Daley’s wins over higher ranked competition? He came into the UFC fresh off losing two of his prior 3.
Just as an aside–why do you always spell Marquardt “Marqhardt”? Never seen anybody else spell his name that way.
But anyway, I had Sonnen at #4 and Marquardt at #2 before they fought. So that’s not really anything like the situations we’re discussing. Sonnen’s sole middleweight losses were to somebody ranked higher than him at the time, who he then beat in a rematch, and the #3 middleweight, who he leapfrogged by virtue of beating somebody who had just beaten the #3. In other words, his losses weren’t the kinds of losses that would really drag him down (if they were, I wouldn’t have had him at #4.)
As for Paul Daley–what about him? Are you saying I have him ranked too high? Or that I should have objected to how he’s ranked here? I think his loss to Nick Thompson does count against him. The Shields loss less so because Shields was higher-ranked than him, and was, at the time, higher-ranked than either of Daley’s UFC opponents have been. What else can I say?
I think there’s a worthy debate for who the #9 featherweight is, but I think its silly to make a de facto claim that anyone is clearly “undeserving” of the title unless its handed to a Jens Pulver type.
We weren’t talking about the #9 featherweight, we were talking about the #9 bantamweight. And my point about him (Fabiano) is that the only person he’s beaten at that weight is Clint Godfrey, which seems like a too-lenient standard for a top-10 spot. Do you disagree?
I’m also curious as to what kind of worthy debate you think there can be about rankings that doesn’t involve the claim that a given fighter does or does not deserve a given spot.
Unless it’s the supposedly “de facto” nature of my criticisms that you object to, in which case, I’m curious to know what you think is “de facto” about them. I feel like I’m giving a somewhat detailed account of my reasoning here.
Mir’s ranked where he is solely on the basis of one win over an obviously diminished opponent. The idea that anyone would think that hugely overweighting the most recent fights and allowing radical swings in the rankings on the basis of single fights is “scientific” is astounding and speaks to the poor quality of thought in these discussions.
I agree with that. But that doesn’t mean that subsequently beating Semerzier means exactly the same as subsequently beating Young regardless of who beat them and when.
I think that gives undue credit to non-established fighters, myself. I personally have no problem shunting down one fighter to lower level in situations like that. I think its a far safer assumption than to think that an undefeated record *at a weight class* (particularly one like Taurosevicius) should be more meaningful than, for the point of comparison, Hominck’s.
Just as an aside–why do you always spell Marquardt “Marqhardt”? Never seen anybody else spell his name that way.
Because I’m obviously misspelling it, LOL.
But anyway, I had Sonnen at #4 and Marquardt at #2 before they fought. So that’s not really anything like the situations we’re discussing. Sonnen’s sole middleweight losses were to somebody ranked higher than him at the time, who he then beat in a rematch, and the #3 middleweight, who he leapfrogged by virtue of beating somebody who had just beaten the #3. In other words, his losses weren’t the kinds of losses that would really drag him down (if they were, I wouldn’t have had him at #4.)
Not really. He has one fight at above 185 since 2005; the win over Filho. He competed at 185 for Bodog, beat Uscola at 185 in Sportfight, and lost to Jeremy Horn the last time at middleweight. Going into the Okami fight (himself overrated, as I argued countless times here), he was nowhere near the top ten having suffered that loss to Maia. I just don’t see how he was the #4 middleweight in the world – maybe the #8 or 9. I don’t necessarily mind him being a highly ranked middleweight now, but I don’t think he’s established himself to be in elite class either. That’s a point I made in several threads downwind of this.
We weren’t talking about the #9 featherweight, we were talking about the #9 bantamweight. And my point about him (Fabiano) is that the only person he’s beaten at that weight is Clint Godfrey, which seems like a too-lenient standard for a top-10 spot. Do you disagree?
I’m just throwing that out as an example (and there probably IS a lively debate for that spot). I would tend to agree that Fabiano’s ranking anywhere is highly questionable, just as anyone else at 135 aside from maybe the top 3-4 are. Its a weak division and its cut into 4-5 pieces.
Amazing… Semerzier isn’t even ranked and he’s already overrated and as a by product of him getting lucky the guy that beat him is overrated lol. This would be like Oleg Maskaev being ranked #1 in the world for beating Hasim Rahman because the division wasn’t as unified in 06 as it is now. Except even more-so.
And I believe Marquardt should be out of the top 10. Mostly because I never had him in it to begin with. You all got sold a bill of goods on Nandrolone Nate the Overrate. Thankfully I never bought that line of ZUFFA bullshit
“Not really. He has one fight at above 185 since 2005; the win over Filho. He competed at 185 for Bodog, beat Uscola at 185 in Sportfight, and lost to Jeremy Horn the last time at middleweight.”
Your conveniently overlooking about five fights Chael won. Including wins over Tim Creduer and Amar Souloev. The Horn Fight was almost 4 years ago, and Chael is 10-2 since then. His wins over Paulo Filho and Marquardt were over the #2 ranked MWs in the world and Okami was as high as #3 at the time. Give Chael his props man!!!
“Mir’s ranked where he is solely on the basis of one win over an obviously diminished opponent.”
Yea your right we shouldn’t even count that fight. Probably shouldn’t even count the win over Kongo either becuase he is a scrub with no TD defense right?
We should count Mir’s win over Nog. It just shouldn’t be the only fight of his that we count. The totality of his record does not suggest that he’s a top-five HW.
Your conveniently overlooking about five fights Chael won. Including wins over Tim Creduer and Amar Souloev. The Horn Fight was almost 4 years ago, and Chael is 10-2 since then. His wins over Paulo Filho and Marquardt were over the #2 ranked MWs in the world and Okami was as high as #3 at the time. Give Chael his props man!!!
I like Chael. Seriously; I think its cool that the UFC brought him back. There’s a few other guys I’d like to see be brought back in who could do damage. But beating Tim Credeur in Bodog didn’t mean anything. Means a lot less than, for instance, Jorge Santiago winning the one night Strikeforce tourney.
I should have been more clear: I was referring to Sonnen’s middleweight losses in the past three years–the period I take to be relevant for ranking purposes–at the time of the Marquardt fight. Basically, I don’t think the Jeremy Horn fight should really count against him anymore. But like I said, three years is an arbitrary choice on my part.
As for the Filho fight, I’m about 99% sure that Sonnen made 185 for that fight; it was only Filho that didn’t make weight. Given that that amounts to Filho giving himself an unfair advantage, I’m reluctant to not count that win for Chael.
(Now, I’m sure some will object–following Isiah above–that that fight shouldn’t count because Filho was in such an obviously diminished state. My position on this is that a fighter is responsible for the condition they’re in when they compete. No fighter comes in 100%, and everyone has the option of pulling out if they feel they must. Once they’re in the ring, it counts. Anything else is a slippery slope to “he had a blown ACL, it doesn’t count” “he had the flu, it doesn’t count” “he took the fight short-notice, it doesn’t count” etc.)
I think stuff like “Marquardt/Sonnen/Okami shouldn’t be/shouldn’t have been in the top ten” really needs to be bolstered by accounts of who should have been there. Middleweight is a pretty shallow division; when you really look at it, the standards for being top 10 aren’t as high as they might seem like they should be. (Though still too high to exclude Jacare, IMO.)
Thats where I completely disagree. Sean Salmon was exposed by Rashad a long time ago, and Jorge only had to fight for about 2 seconds with him. After that he gets to go into a fight fresh against Prangley who just fought a three rounder against Vitali.
Goddamnit ok I don’t disagree that the lone fight against Credeur was more impressive than the whole tourney.
It is my opinion that the Nog fight and wins over Brock and Kongo do merit the ranking when almost every HW that was ranked ahead of him at the time has either gone on a losing streak(CroCop, Gonzaga, Couture, Rothwell); never fights top competition (Overeem, and Werdum until the Silva fight); Fails for steroids then doesnt fight for a year(Barnett); or still doesnt have a win over a top 5 opponent(Junior Dos antos, Shane Carwin, and Cain Velasquez).
JDS, Cain, and Carwin also don’t have multiple losses to mediocre opponents.
Werdum, who you said “never fights top competition) has faced Bigfoot, Brandon Vera, JDS, Gonzaga, Arlovski, Aleksander Emelianenko, and Nogueira over his past eight fights, beating four of those guys. Mir has never gone on a run like that in his career, hasn’t beaten as many good opponents as Werdum, and has more losses to medicore or worse opponents.
I could go on, but I think we all realize that Mir’s claim to being a top-10 fighter rests on a single fight against an opponent that any top-15 HW would have beaten.
bullshit, Mir holds wins over 3 HW champions Sylvia, Nog and Brock he’s a 2 time HW champion. Werdum’s resume is a joke compared to him when the guy actually wins something or beats anyone that good then you can talk to me about him.
Mir over the past 3 years is 5-1 and his only loss is to Lesnar, the guy destroyed Nog is the only guy to finish Kongo in the UFC and gave Brock his only loss. His ranking is more than justified unless of course you’re a Nog fanboy who is still butthurt over him getting his ass beat. Funny how quickly these same people are to bash Mir for his losses yet make every excuse in the book for their hero what a fucking joke.
The Sylvia win was almost six years ago. I don’t think it adds much to his claim now. And obviously Brock wasn’t a champion when Mir beat him. He was a guy with one pro fight.
Werdum has beaten Bigfoot, Vera, Gonzaga and Emelianenko. You don’t think any of those guys are good?
I, of course, acknowledged the Nog win. That’s Mir’s only significant accomplishment since his accident, and I’d agree that it’s probably enough to get him in the top 10, given how highly ranked Nog was. But given his overall poor results, it’s not enough to get him over guys with more depth to their records.
And jeez, why are you so angry here?
I didnt realize that Werdum was on such a tough fight streak, but I was talking about more recently. He would have been fine if he didnt come in so out of shape against JDS. I count that against him pretty harshly, and I don’t think I’m the only one.
He is on a good streak, and hopefully he gets a shot at Fedor soon. I still feel that Mir’s ranking is justified.