Site update 090723

July 25th, 2009

It’s been awhile since my last rant, so I now present you the new super-ultra-mega-rant-3000. Feel free to skim for headings of interest, or just read the whole thing to earn 10 extra evil points.

I’m going to talk about recent events, not dumb black/white US shit kind of recent events, but actual recent MMA events. I’ll also discuss a big UFC myth, delve into the UFC business model a bit, and talk about how the mma-elo.com system reacts to new fighters. If this interests you at all then read on, if not, make a suggestion for next week! 8P
Read the rest of this entry »

Matchmaking – Risk Versus Reward

July 6th, 2009

Over the past few weeks I’ve proposed an assortment of MMA fights. One my primary goals when looking at all of those matches was to consider them in terms of Risk Vs Reward for both of the fighters involved. Obviously fighters are “risking” injury and they are to be “rewarded” with pay, but it goes a lot deeper than that. Lets start by looking at a few matchups.

GSP Vs Matt Serra (the first time)

It was back in April of 2007 that the UFC decided to guarantee Matt Serra a shot at the title for winning a reality TV show. Here are some assorted facts from just before the fight:

Matt Serra:
8wins
4losses
1789 rating
1W – 1L in his last 2
3W – 3L in his last 6

GSP:
13wins
1loss
2102 rating
Won 6 in a row after losing to Matt Hughes
Last win was a victory over the very same Matt Hughes mentioned above
Won 7 in a row prior to that one loss

That is where the fighters basically stood coming into the fight. Now lets look a bit deeper at what they had to “gain” and “lose”, what they were “risking” and what their possible “reward” was.

Matt Serra – Risk(s)
Injury.

Honestly, that’s it. He was .500 in his last 2 fights, .500 in his last 6 fights. He’d just earned a title shot by avenging a loss to Shonie Carter and winning a very weird decision over Chris Lytle.

If Matt Serra were to lose this fight no one would say anything. He wouldn’t plummet in the rankings (he wasn’t top anything most places to begin with).

GSP – Risk(s)
His status/ranking.

GSP at this time was considered the #1 welterweight pretty much everywhere. He had won six in a row, he’d just avenged his only loss ever, and was considered by many one of the top p4p fighters in the world.

Matt Serra – Reward(s)
I don’t really have to speculate on the potential rewards for Matt Serra since I know what did happen. For winning this fight Serra immediately leapfrogged a few dozen other fights and landed squarely at #1 on several ranking lists. Additionally, Serra went back to the TUF house as a coach.

Serra also remained very high on the many ranking lists for quite awhile. His next fight after beating GSP didn’t happen until over 1 year later. Following that loss to GSP in the rematch, Serra remained on many lists until over a year later again when he finally had another fight and lost to Matt Hughes.

I say none of this to take away from Serra as a fighter or as a person, but simply to illustrate the point that Serra literally built *YEARS* off of this one single win. That shows just how much “reward” was available for him.

GSP – Reward(s)
Equaling his previous career high of 7 wins in a row?

In all seriousness, there was nothing for GSP to gain from this fight. Serra was an unranked(ish) fighter that though liked, was a tremendous underdog. After just beating the only fighter to beat him and the man considered the greatest welterweight of all time, GSP got matched up against someone no one mentioned prior to the show.

Imagine if GSP had simply beaten Serra on that night, and I’m not talking about a really brutal beating, but just a solid, undisputed unanimous decision. Looking back from today would we mention Matt Serra when talking about GSP’s best wins?

When talking to a friend of yours about why GSP is one of the p4p best would you have even gotten to Serra’s name given the list of other fighters GSP has beaten? Even now when looking back at GSP’s career do you mention his win over Serra?

Heath Herring Vs Brock Lesnar

A more recent fight that helps illustrate bad Risk vs Reward in matchmaking happened last August when Heath Herring got matched up against Brock Lesnar.

Brock Lesnar:
1win
1loss
Coming off a submission loss in his UFC debut

Heath Herring:
28 wins
13 losses
Coming off a win over Cheick Kongo following a “loss” to Big Nog that could have easily been stopped in Herring’s favor.

What makes this fight so weird (from a ranking point of view) is that Brock Lesnar actually wound up higher ranked for beating Heath Herring than Heath Herring would have been if he’d won. Please take a second and think that over.

Heath Herring was obviously the higher ranked fighter going into the fight. He’d fought some of the best in the world, he’d just beat an up and coming contender in Kongo, he’d gotten within fractions of a second of beating Big Nog (#2 in the world at the time), etc.

Meanwhile, Brock Lesnar was 1 and 1 at the time. His first fight ever was a win over a guy that was 3-5 (3 wins, FIVE losses). After that he fought Frank Mir and lost that fight in the first round.

Knowing all of that, I pray it’s safe to say that Heath Herring was ranked higher at the time of the fight. Now lets look at the fight from both sides. First the side we know…

Brock Wins
Brock Lesnar beat Heath Herring via decision and in doing so earned a title shot. That’s right a fighter beat a 3-5 fighter, got submitted in the first round of his next fight, and by winning a decision in their third ever fight was given a title shot in the “best organization in the world”.

Yet again I am forced to point out that I take nothing away from Brock, but rather it is important to realize the sheer amount of “reward” this fight garnered. A decision win over Heath Herring was enough to get a 2-1 fighter a title shot in the biggest organization in the world. That is a *LOT* of reward.

Heath Wins
Lets now take a look at it from Heath Herring’s side of things. If Heath Herring wins does he get a title shot? If so then why wasn’t this just billed as a #1 contender fight? Also, if Heath Herring wins that means Brock is now 1-2. His only win coming against a 3-5 fighter and he’s lost two in a row in the UFC. Would Heath have even gotten much credit for beating Brock at that point?

Going back to the question I posed about mentioning Matt Serra when explaining GSP’s career, would a 1 win, 2 loss Brock Lesnar really make the list at that point for Heath? Remember Heath has wins over Evan Tanner (his first loss ever after winning 6 in a row to start his career), and Igor Volvchanchyn (seriously look up his fights if you want to be entertained…and frightened a little). Heath also had fought fighters such as: Fedor, Cro cop, Big Nog(a few times lol), Vitor Belfort, and many others.

Put yourself on August 10th, 2008 after Heath Herring beat a now 1 and 2 Brock Lesnar and tell me how you’d use that win in a discussion to promote Heath Herring without mentioning Brock was “large”.

Can’t have it both ways

What I find interesting is that in a lot of cases the bad matchmaking relies on both fight outcomes to justify the fight. For instance, people try to give GSP credit for beating Matt Serra in the rematch, but the only reason for that is that Serra actually won the first fight. Had GSP simply won the first time, no one would even mention it.

In a similar case some like to claim, “beating Brock would have helped Heath’s career” because they are piggybacking on the fact that Brock actually won and got a title shot. If Herring simply won and Brock fell to 1 and 2, no one would have been accepting that. To make matters even worse, Brock is still very early in his MMA career. His loss against Frank Mir is already discounted by some and if he were to win the rematch many will “forget” it entirely.

It seems very likely that even if Heath had won and Brock still went on to be great in the next couple of years people wouldn’t have given Heath very much credit because Brock was still so “new”.

Again I pose a question, what is the scenario where Heath Herring really would have gained from beating Brock Lesnar? Obviously a win at that time wasn’t going to do him much good, and Brock had far more to gain from a win.

Know a scenario where a win over Brock would have really gained Heath something? A year or two down the road after Brock had actually fought a few more people. If Brock came into the fight at even 5-2 as a slightly more established fighter then the risk vs reward would have been more even between the two fighters.

Year of the Upset

It’s fairly common to hear people talk about big upsets and what not in MMA, but understand they are bred out of poor matchmaking. When you see a fight announced try to step back for a second and look at it from all angles. Ask yourself:

“What if Fighter A wins? What do they gain? Where do they stand?”
“What if Fighter B wins? What do they gain? Where do they stand?”

In many cases these “bad fights” are simply inevitable because the matchup makes a “good” outcome almost impossible.

Disclaimer

I know some people will read this and think I’m hating on Fighter A or Fighter B specifically and that simply isn’t the case. My intention is to piggyback onto this rant tomorrow and address another key point in discussions like this. Till then I’m off to do other evil things…

Tuesday Tossup – Twofer

June 30th, 2009

I really need to get some Evil Pooh T-shirts made up for prizes or something. *shrugs*

For this week I decided to double the tossup. The first one is fairly easy and if you have a pretty good idea who the two people are before even looking, then please wait until this weekend to answer. That will give some other people a chance. 8)

Last Week’s Answer

Beginner Mode

Similarities
Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* Number of wins
Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* Number of losses
Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* Number of (T)KOs

Both fighters lost their last fight
Both fighters won their previous two fights before that loss
Both fighters have 3 wins and 3 loses in their last six fights

Other
Fighter A has *ONE* more submission victory than Fighter B
Fighter B holds *TWO* Victories over Fighter A
Fighter B’s Strength of Schedule is slightly higher than Fighter A’s (About 3-4ish percent)

Intermediate Mode

Similarities
Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* Number of KOs
Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* Number of Subs
Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* Number of non-unanimous decisions

Advantage(s) Fighter A
Fighter A has two more wins than Fighter B

Advantage(s) Fighter B
Fighter B has four fewer losses than Fighter A
Fighter B has a slightly higher Strength of Schedule (barely 1%, but noted so people don’t think I ignored/forgot it)

Who ya got?

Remember to ask yourself a few questions while looking objectively at these fighters:

- Who has “achieved” more?

- If I were starting out in MMA (or my son/daughter/whatever) which record/accomplishments would I rather have to show for my(their) career?

- Does either fighter have a significant edge over the other?

Remember that we want to ignore the names and get down to raw accomplishments here. It’s not a perfect science by any means, but quite often I’ve found people are truly shocked by what some fighters have/haven’t actually done. Keep in mind this isn’t about bashing one fighter, but perhaps seeing one fighter get just a touch more respect.

Tuesday Tossup – Belated

June 24th, 2009

I got a request to wait a day for the next toss up (and I wanted a nap), so here we are a day late.

Here is the answer to last week’s tossup:

Last Week’s Answer

A slightly different approach

This week I’m going to be very straight forward with information about both fighters (still unnamed though) because I’m more interested with the relative perception of the fighters. As you’ll see both fighters appear fairly even from a numerical stand point, but the perception of them is very far apart.

Fighter A

Fighter A was often brought up p4p best discussions. Although not often mentioned in the “top 3″ he was constantly in the top 5 and almost never outside the top 10. Within his own weight class he was almost universally considered #1 or #2 for quite awhile. He won/defended a belt at least a couple times.

Fighter B

Fighter B constantly appears to be largely unknown and unappreciated as a fighter. I’ve seen him crack top 10 lists occasionally, but often with much disdain from a majority of fans. Although they are not currently “top 10″ on this site, their rating is very good and they could easily be right back in the top 10.

Numerical Information

Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* number of wins

Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* number of KOs

Fighter B has *ONE* more *LOSS* than Fighter A

Fighter A’s strength of schedule is *LESS* than 2% higher

Fighter B has *FEWER* submission victories than Fighter A

What I see

As I said, this tossup for me is a bit more about how people perceive fighters. I don’t think anyone would argue that Fighter A is the “better” fighter. It’s almost universally accepted and I take nothing away from them.

Where I become confused is in how Fighter B is often perceived and has been throughout their career. They have the same number of wins, have fought lots of high profile opponents, and their strength of schedule is less than 2% lower than Fighter A. With Fighter A’s recent loss (hint) Fighter B’s current rating is very close. Again, there is no doubt Fighter A has the higher max rating, the higher profile, etc., but I can go months without hearing anyone even mention Fighter B.

Riddle me this

As I said, Fighter A is definitely the more well known, dominate fighter, but is Fighter B really a “can” as some claim? Is it really insane that occasionally their name pops up on a Top 10 list? Please keep in mind I’m not advocating Fighter B as a world-ender, but simply as a solid MMA fighter who has had a career many coming into the sport would kill to have. Why do so few “fans” even know who they are? Even amongst those that do know who they are, why is this fighter often disrespected?

MMM – Diego Sanchez Vs Kenny Florian

June 22nd, 2009

The lightweight division is by far the most volatile/cluttered/goofy division in MMA currently. There are a ton of fighters bunched together and many are fighting in different organizations. Below I’m going to quickly discuss some possible matchups I’d like to see to clear things up a bit. Some are completely possible and others are far from likely.

Diego Sanchez Vs Kenny Florian Fighter Comparision

Diego just had a solid showing against Clay Guida and although he said the cut was a bit rough he seems fairly acclimated to lightweight at this point. Given the back story with Florian, and the fact that win or lose Kenny Florian will still be a highly ranked lightweight I think they should square of next regardless of how the BJ Penn fight plays out.

Jamie Varner Vs Joe Stevenson Fighter Comparision

Also scoring a big win recently was Joe Stevenson. I think a great fight for him in his attempt to move back up the rankings would be against Jamie Varner. This is a fight that might be less likely given organizational differences, but the fight makes a ton of sense.

Varner is one of those fighters that people seem to dismiss, but click the link above and look at how he stacks up historically compared to Joe Stevenson. The two fighters overall level of competition is *VERY* similar. Additionally, Varner has a higher win%, a higher KO%, and a higher sub%. Simply put Varner has earned the right to fight at a higher level and show whether he really belongs there.

For me this is exactly the type of fight that should be made because both fighters have something to gain, both are risking something and the fight is good from both a sport (ranking) and fun (entertainment) point of view.

JZ Vs. Eddie Alvarez Fighter Comparison

I’ve actually heard rumors recently that this fight might happen, but haven’t seen anything confirmed yet. As you can guess I’m all for such a fight. JZ is an incredibly entertaining fighter with heaps of potential. He has faced many of the best lightweights and although he’s suffered a couple losses there’s no reason to believe he won’t start moving right back up the rankings.

Moving up the rankings is exactly what Eddie Alvarez has been doing lately. Sadly some might not have followed Alvarez recently as some of his more recent fights have been outside the more popular organizations. Like JZ, Eddie has faced some of the best fighters in the world. It’s interesting to notice that although both have lost to Shinya Aoki, and both hold wins over Andre Amade, Eddie actually holds wins over Hellboy and Kawajiri (both of whom have defeated JZ).

Whoever is trying to make this fight happen has my full support and I thank them for trying to put together such a great match.

Not to mention…

Although the lightweight division is such a “mess” it’s also very entertaining and full of incredible fighters. Whether the fights I mention above happen or not there are lots of other great fights already setup for fighters like: Penn, Florian, Aoki, Thompson, Melendez, and Kitaoka.

I know some look at the lightweight rankings on this site and think it proves the system stinks. The truth is it proves that the lightweight division is ferocious~!!! You’ve got so many great fighters clumped so closely in skill and and most of the fighters have wins/losses already against each other. It’s going to be very difficult for anyone to put together a solid win streak against this level of competition.

When a fighter does pull of a few wins though it is important to remember that doesn’t make their opponent trash and it doesn’t mean they are forever going to sit atop such a stacked division. Whether you like or the loath the person that appears at number one in the coming weeks and months I think it wise to respect whomever is there for all they have accomplished and wish them luck in holding onto that spot…they will surely need it.

Tuesday Tossup – Take Two

June 16th, 2009

I’m just going to keep writing it until someone laughes

Some…Nights
Some…Fights
Go slippin’ through the cracks

But, Guess…who?!
EVIL…POOH
Is pickin’ up the slack

There’s no fight too long,
No fight too quick
When you need info just click

M – M – A – E – L – O
For your answers
M – M – A – E – L – O
When there’s questions

No No it never fails once you get there
Somehow everything is fair!!!

M – M – A – E – L – O
For your answers
M – M – A – E – L – O
When there’s questions

No no it never fails, with Evil Pooh
They’ll show the where’s and why’s and who’s

M – M – A – E – L – O
For your answers
M – M – A – E – L – O
When there’s questions

M! – M! – A! – E! – L! – O!

If you need help finding the beat check out Inspiration and then try again. 8)

Grats to firefly4f4

They were correct in guessing last weeks Tossup. Shane Carwin Vs Brett Rogers

I think this week’s is easier, but it probably depends how you go at it. Also, make sure to think about the raw numbers and try to get a sense of the caliber of fighter you’re looking at/for.

Similarities

Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* number of losses
Fighter A and Fighter B have both *LOST* once this year

Fighter A advantage(s)

Fighter A has *TWICE* as many wins as Fighter B
Fighter A has a *HIGHER* Sub% than Fighter B
Fighter A has a *HIGHER* KO% than fighter B

Fighter B advantage(s)

Fighter B has a strength of schedule over 100 points *HIGHER* than Fighter A

Additional Information

Fighter A and Fighter share *ONE* common opponent. Fighter A beat them, Fighter B lost to them.

Also note that by saying “higher sub%” I mean that not only does the fighter have more total subs, they win via sub a higher percent of the time than the other fighter. Ditto for KOs.

Who ya got?

Obviously this one depends heavily on how you value strength of schedule. An even deeper discussion is how you weigh strength of schedule for wins versus strength of schedule for loses. That, however, is a topic for a rant on a different day. 8P

In terms of pure achievement from a sport point of view though…who ya got?

MMM – Mike Swick

June 15th, 2009

Mike Swick is the focus of this week’s Monday Match Maker. Before we get to that though let’s try…

Better Intro?

History has taught us that when personal skill/style is absent it is wise to hop on the nearest pair of coattails and ride your way to the top. Given my complete lack of both style and skill I found it prudent to simply ride on the coattails of a better intro instead of trying to write my own. Without further ado…

Some…Nights
Some…Fights
Go slippin’ through the cracks

But, Guess…who?!
EVIL…POOH
Is pickin’ up the slack

There’s no fight too long,
No fight too quick
When you need info just click

M – M – A – E – L – O
For your answers
M – M – A – E – L – O
When there’s questions

No No it never fails once you get there
Somehow everything is fair!!!

M – M – A – E – L – O
For your answers
M – M – A – E – L – O
When there’s questions

No no it never fails, with Evil Pooh
They’ll show the where’s and why’s and who’s

M – M – A – E – L – O
For your answers
M – M – A – E – L – O
When there’s questions

M! – M! – A! – E! – L! – O!

If you need help finding the beat check out Inspiration and then try again. 8)

Tune in next week when I butcher one of these Next Week?

Hating the game, not the player

Mike Swick got screwed at UFC 99. Not by bad judging, and not by bad reffing. Nay nay, Mr. Swick sadly found himself as just another victim of bad match making. I’d held out all hope since the moment this “fight” was made official that something would change, but sadly, it never did.

I know what some are thinking, “Swick won”, yeah he did, and in doing so claimed a prize of basically nothing. It was an empty win from a fight where he had almost nothing to gain and far, far too much to lose. Even Joe Rogan (who I sometimes get accused of being too hard on) got it right when he pointed out at the start of the fight that the fight really made no competitive sense.

As Joe pointed out Ben Saunders had a lot to gain from the fight, but basically nothing to lose. On the reverse side, Mike Swick had almost nothing to gain and tons to lose. Swick is a fighter that had won three fights in a row since dropping to welterweight (after a loss to Yushin Okami). Prior to that lose he’d won five fights in a row at middleweight.

Instead of getting a “step up in competition” he was given a fighter that though promising simply isn’t at that “next tier”. Please understand that this is nothing against Saunders and he could easily be 2k+ some day and a world champion, but on that night, at that point in both of their careers it was a horrible match up choice. Let’s take a look and see if we can’t come up with some good options for Swick’s next fight.

Mike Swick Vs Martin Kampmann

Is an interesting match up. Kampmann has two wins in a row and also recently dropped form Middleweight to Welterweight. Both guys have the ability to end a fight. This is a fight that makes sense from a ranking and an entertainment point of view.

Mike Swick Vs Karo Parisyan

Is an interesting match up as well. Karo is a fighter that seems to always be “two fights away” from a title shot. After an accident took away his chance against Matt Hughes, he’s struggled to put the right streak together. Karo’s most recent fight was a NC and right before that he lost to Thiago Alves. The winner of this fight would likely only need 1 more “solid” win to guarantee themselves a title shot. Again, seems like good risk/reward for both fighters invovled.

Mike Swick Vs Matt Hughes

This is a fight that Swick pseudo asked for following his win over Saunders. I know some think Hughes should just retire, but like I mentioned last MMM he obviously still wants to compete. Both fighters are quite close in ranking and this is one of those “crossroads” types of fights. Swick is obviously on his way up and many think Hughes is on his way out.

Looking at this fight from an actual fight point of view I think it’s pretty interesting as well. Swick has fast hands and solid striking. Hughes…not so much. Hughes has great take downs, but Swick has demonstrated a solid guillotine in previous fights and might be able to catch Matt while he’s working for a take down.

Putting it all together

Any of the above fights would work well for Swick and help clear up the somewhat cloudy welterweight picture. If I had Carte Blanche I think this is what I’d do (with random notes)…

Mike Swick Vs Matt Hughes – Hughes Vs Alves possibly to follow, Swick gets possible title shot or number one contender fight off a win.

Dan Hardy Vs. Martin Kampmann Should be fireworks. Likely #1 contender fight to follow for winner.

Matt Serra Vs. Marcus Davis Both coming off a loss (Two in the case of Serra). Both fighters are “heavy handed” at welterweight and although likely to bang, there’s still a chance for some excitement on the ground.

Ben Saunders Vs. Dustin Hazelett Saunders is still on the rise overall and a loss to someone he really shouldn’t have been in the ring with shouldn’t take away from that. Let him test himself against an exciting ground fighter like Hazelett. Not to look too far ahead, but I think the winner of this match versus the loser of the Kampmann/Hardy match would be a very interesting follow-up. *shrugs*

Be gentle

I know it’s a lot of fights and law of averages says everyone will hate at least one, and someone will hate all of them. All I ask is that you think about it, and explain what would be so bad about them. From a ranking standpoint all of them seem quite sound, and from a “would I pay money for this” they seem sound as well. There is no doubt that dozens of other equally great fights could be made though. As long as fighters are in competitive matches where both involved have something to gain, I’m all for it.

Understanding Rankings – Mini FAQ

June 11th, 2009

The site is obviously getting more traffic lately, as evidenced by the recent crash (sorry about that lol). With so many new people starting to stop by I thought it would be a good time to go over a few of the more common questions/complaints. If there is something I miss or something you would like covered more in-depth, please just ask.

As a warning, there’s a lot to cover, so grab a soda, get a pizza, tuck the other half under the desk, whatever works and lets get going…

Have a look around, kick the tires

One of the things that really separates this site from a lot of others is the incredibly high level of transparency. Unlike other sites where you will see people move up and down the lists without even having fought, that never happens here. Every single point can be accounted for and explained. Sure, it’s possible you might not agree with the points (I don’t always agree myself), but at least you can understand it.

Kick the tires, not the dog

Please understand that what I’m about to say isn’t an “excuse” it is, quite simply, an explanation. What I have found is that some people viewing the site have trouble realizing that the ranking system is just one part of a much bigger machine. You are free to look around (kick the tires), but don’t break my cow lamp for something I have no control over.

Let’s take a quick look at some of the other parts invovled that fall outside the ranking system:

Matchmaking
A very wise man once said, “Garbage in, garbage out”. I believe he was talking about politics, but it also applies here. The quality of the match-ups has a big impact on the quality of the results. If one fighter beats someone significantly below them, they hardly move and little is learned. If fighters continue to get matched up against lower ranked fighters then little can be clearly discerned.

On the other side of the coin is the case where a fighter is just thrown right into deep water. To people watching at home they see one big KO or quick Sub and instantly fall in love with a fighter who only has a handful of fights. What they fail to understand is that in sport a single win doesn’t mean everything. It can mean a lot, but it quite simply doesn’t mean everything.

Judging
So, the match has been made, it’s a solid match, and then two of the three judges were clearly eying the ring girls instead of the fighters because even the “winner’s” mom thinks he lost the fight. This happens, we all know it happens, and sadly, there is nothing the system can do.

We can’t allow subjective “Fighter A ‘really’ won the fight” to come into play here. It is our job to make sure our system works as cleanly as it can when used properly and then trust that the other systems (matchmaking, judging, etc.) will be equally fine tuned. To intentionally break our system to compensate for a problem elsewhere is a poor solution and only causes longer term problems.

The commission says
Finally the fight is over, and the “right” person won, but then the commission says otherwise. Maybe they DQ a fighter, maybe they rule it a no contest. Again, we are in a situation where our focused system has to operate on the premise that it is being given the proper information. If you see a case where a fighter is a bit too low, and you see they got no points for a NC for instance, that is *NOT* the ranking systems fault. A no contest quite literally means the fight did not happen. Complain that it should count, look to the commission to overturn their overturning, but sadly we have to accept that technically the fight doesn’t exist.

No preferential treatment
The system is cold, and calculated and completely unbiased. One of the most common things I see is someone having a specific problem with one fighter, but they don’t want the “Fix” to apply to all fighters. Lets look at the difference between:

- Fighter A is ranked too low

and

- Overall there should be additional points awarded for finishes

The first example is simply a human opinion driven by all kinds of bias (often unknown to the person) and doesn’t address an actual issue.

The second example actually addresses a potential sweeping change to the system that would impact all fighters in the same way. Some would go up, some down, but it remains unbiased.

One example I often see mentioned is “leapfrogging”. I’ll talk about it more in-depth in a future rant, but it is basically the idea is that if Fighter A beats Figther B, they *HAVE* to be ranked higher than Fighter B. Here is how that conversation usually plays out:

Them – “Fighter A should be ranked higher than Fighter B, they beat them!”
Me – “So you *ALWAYS* want a fighter to be ranked at least one spot ahead of someone they beat?”
Them – “Yes”
Me – “So Matt Serra should have been ranked ahead of GSP?”
Them – “hrmmmm….”
Me – “Travis Lutter was ‘this’ close to being above Anderson Silva?”
Them – “…..”
Me – “Brett Rogers is now ‘better’ than Arlovski?”
Me – “If Kenneth Allen beat Fedor he’d be ranked higher in your opinion?”

The list goes on and on. Basically what you wind up with is a *CASE* where a rule would make sense, but it simply doesn’t fit across the board. Those are cases that often involve matchmaking or other issues. In theory if two fighters are competing in a match they should be paired up such that both have a similar level of risk/reward (another future rant, don’t ya love the foreshadowing!?), sadly, we as fans know that isn’t always the case.

The point I am really trying to drive home here is do *NOT* look at a list and see someone “out of place” and whip out your jump to conclusions mat. Lets go back to the NC point from above. In one case it might make perfect sense to ignore a NC, at least make perfect sense to some. What happens though is that at some point someone is going to cheat, or an inadvertent headbutt will happen or some other NC will result. At that point the change that made sense in one case simply doesn’t fit in the other. Now we are faced with “selectively” implementing a feature, and that simply cracks the objective armor of the current system.

If a human has to make the choice when a rule should be applied on a case by case basis, then we are left with at best a slightly less subjective opinion than all the other places. As soon as we ignore one bad decision that 99% of people know is bad, we will have another decision that 90% think was bad, another that 40% think is bad, another that 10% think is bad, etc.

The thing to keep in mind is that we always know *WHY* on this site. If someone is out of place don’t just come up with ways to “fix” them, but really look hard at why. Is the “change” you want for one fighter really something you want for all fighters? Also consider this next point…

Timing is everything
The ratings/rankings are usually updated once a week (sometimes more, yeah yeah sometimes less). What can happen is someone will check the rankings right after Fighter A has a big win and before Fighter B has their next fight. Suddenly they see Fighter A at #1 and their fighter at #2 and, “Oh good god Evil Pooh schit in their cheerios”.

The way I look at it is just like any other sport. If one team wins a double header on friday and your team doesn’t play until sunday, then yeah, they can fall from first place temporarily. If Adrian Peterson doesn’t play until Monday night then maybe someone will have a 160+ yards on sunday and be “ahead” of him in rushing for a bit.

Right now we are about two days away from fighters like Kongo, AxeSilva and Rich ‘these black eyes prove I had a training camp’ Franklin. All of those fighters are about to change. Anyone ranked above them might get passed if they win, and anyone below them might move up if they lose.

When looking at the rankings always keep in mind when a fighter has last fought, and when they will next fight. As long as all fighters are competing a reasonable number of times it will balance out. However, there will be days, weeks, or even months where things look different. I’ve actually had times where a fighter was ranked #1 for 6 hours between a saturday update and a sunday update. We’ve had other times where fighters stay ranked high due to scheduling and other factors. The information is there, look it over, ask some questions, etc.

Now you and the nice numbers go make friends
As I’ve said I work hard to provide a very high level of transparency here. Please, look at all the information, ponder it, swish it around a bit and let it breath. In the last example we talked about timing of fights playing a role, but lets also consider the actual *rating* of the fighters.

One of the biggest benefits of this site is that we have a calculated stat that is being used to help measure fighter position. If you see:

1) Your sworn mortal enemy – 1947
2) Your favorite fighter – 1946

Don’t freak out. Look at the rating. A single point is quite literally nothing. The above isn’t saying your favorite fighter is trash, and it isn’t saying that your SME is king schit of turd mountain. It’s saying *BOTH* fighters are amazing. Instead of immediately freaking out at the ranking number on the left, take a minute to look at the rating number on the right.

Another classic example is this:

5) Your favorite fighter – Max rating 2108 Current rating 1944

Ok, so your favorite fighter just lost (once, twice, thrice, whatever). Yeah, he went down, that is what happens. Once they win some more they will go back up. Instead of freaking out because they are sitting at number five currently look a bit deeper. Think about:

- Who did they lose to
- When is their next fight
- Did others ranked near them win/lose recently
- Do we really want *ALL* fighters to not go down when they lose?

If something still doesn’t make sense, then ask. Remember, unlike other sites where all you can do is yell “Fighter A should be higher, Fighter B should be lower”, there is a lot more to it here.

Favorite doesn’t mean best
First, take a second to celebrate the fact that I’m almost done. Secondly, get a firm hold on the concept that “best” doesn’t mean favorite. Just because you like someone doesn’t mean they should be ranked high. If you like a fighter because they are ranked high, then just jump bandwagons to someone currently ranked high and keep jumping as needed.

I’m not here to tell you who to like and what should matte most to you. If a fighter has a style you like, or comes from your home town, or is just crazy sexy (Yeah, I’m talking about you sexyama) then cheer for them. Cheer for them when they win, and cheer even harder for them to get back up when they lose. Don’t yell at an unbiased system that simply says, “yeah Fighter A lost”. It doesn’t mean they are a can, it doesn’t mean you have to rip down their poster, it just means they lost, that’s it.

Not really done
Ok, so I kinda sorta fibbed a bit back there. I am “almost done”, but what I’m almost done with is the intro. Yeah, this was the intro. Welcome to how I felt in 8th grade when I collapsed across the finish line on the track and coach told me I had *THREE* more laps to go. /boggle

Having proofed over this I do think I’ll take a little intermission here though. In the next part I’m going to cover specific examples that highlight some of the points mentioned above. I’m also going to discuss specific fighters I see brought up frequently and attempt to offer some clarity. If there are specific questions you have ask them now and I’ll try to include them in the next rant. (I’ll probably post it up friday or saturday)

Wednesday Wespite

June 10th, 2009

Welcome to Paradoxville, population…me (and I guess you as well if you are reading this).

This is a quick rant to say there will be no rant today. It hath been decreed by my idiot savant of a niece (who is smart enough to know what a respite is, but still not capable of actually saying the word properly) that today is Evil Pooh’s day off.

Be warned though, Thursday’s rant could easily be split up across an entire week. Go enjoy your “wespite” (pronounced WES-PITT) and I’ll see ya’s back here tomorrow.

Tuesday Tossup – First Draft

June 9th, 2009

Standard Intro, I’ll make it better later…

One of the things that makes this site different is that it strips out the hype. If Fighter A wins they go up, if they lose they go down. No name recognition, no organizational bias, etc.

What I’ve found over the years though is that some people don’t even realize how biased they are. In an attempt to foster some unbiased thought I figured I’d give this a try. I’m not totally sure how this will go, and I’ll probably change it because I get bored faster than a (*censored whorehouse joke here*).

Here’s how I see it going. I’m going to list totally unbiased, numeric data on two fighters. Active, retired, same weight, different weight, same org, diff org, whatever. Any two fighters. Based on that information you should gauge if they are relatively close, if one is clearly better than the other, whatever “ranking” type of judgment you would normally pass. After that feel free to guess who the fighters are, once you know who they are, did your “ranking” change? If so, why?

As a disclaimer all information is accurate to the best of my knowledge at the time of this rant.

Similarities

Fighter A and Fighter B have the *SAME* number of losses
Fighter A and Fighter B are *BOTH* undefeated in the last 3 years.
Fighter A and Fighter B *BOTH* have the same “finish percentage” (percent of wins not coming via decision)

Fighter A advantage(s)

Fighter A has 10% *MORE* wins than Fighter B

Fighter B advantage(s)

Fighter B has a harder strength of schedule (as measured on this site)

Conclusions?

So, based upon the information above should Fighter A be ranked higher? Fighter B? Are they close?

There were a few other criteria I thought about including, but things get subjective very quickly. I considered adding one/three year mod information, but I’m not sure if that belongs. If there is another “number” you’d like to see included, please let me know. Feel free to just guess who they are, and I’ll toss up the fighter comparison at some point in the future.