Staff Columnists
LEET: Making the case for a unified rankings system in MMA
Mar 2, 2010 - 9:59:40 AM LEET: Making the case for a unified rankings system in MMA

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Laramey Leet, MMATorch Columnist

The sport of MMA is evolving as much as the athletes, and with that the ranking systems need to be evolving and maintained as well. Depending on what rankings you look at (Sherdog, InsideMMA, etc.) it can affect how you look at some fighters. The ranking systems can completely misguide a casual fans’ opinion. I believe that many of the websites and organizations do not modify their rankings after every event, but for any ranking system to be implemented it will require much consideration.

A ranking system is what keeps MMA a sport and not strictly for entertainment purposes. It would be nice if the UFC could rank their own fighters, but it would probably hurt them more than help them. For instance, when Anderson Silva was set to fight Vitor Belfort, if the UFC had a ranking system they could have sold the fight as “The Number 1 and 3 Middleweights in the World!” While that sounds good, Belfort got injured, and you wouldn't have wanted to advertise what rank his replacement Demian Maia is, because it would not intrigue fans to watch the fight. What would help the sport a great deal is to have a major company or organization, such as ESPN, put together an official ranking system.

I think that most of the current ranking systems dwell too much on a fighter's past. Just because a fighter had a great couple of years does not allow him to linger in the top ten of a division. I guess you can say that Matt Hughes is an example in this situation (Might not be a great example but you can see my point).

Hughes is one of the greatest champions of all time but has gone 2-3 in his last 5 fights. He has stated that he is not going to make another run at the title and refuses to fight up and coming fighters. He is near top of the division, but I do not know if he makes the cut for the top ten these days.

Ranking systems should not be based solely on who has the best record or who is undefeated in the division, either. For this reference let’s look at Fedor Emelianenko. Fedor has arguably one of the best records in MMA, but unlike every other number one fighter in their division, Fedor does not always fight the best. Realistically you have to fight the best to be the best. I'm not taking anything away from Fedor, I know that he cannot help who he fights, but a fighter should not be number one for record and past alone. In the earlier part of the decade no one would doubt that Fedor was the best, but in the present his performances have been decent and have not looked like the number one heavyweight in the world. Now I am not saying that he does not deserve to be in the top ten, but I just believe that he is not the number one.

Another thing that I see in a lot of ranking systems is if fighter A beats fighter B, sometimes fighter B will be higher in the polls than fighter A. There are actually plenty of examples of this taking place. Antonio Nogueira beat Josh Barnett, but in many polls Barnett is ranked higher. Forrest Griffin and Rampage Jackson are another example, and the list goes on and on. I still see Nate Marquardt ranked over Chael Sonnen in some polls. I understand if the winner dropped a fight or two after their fight, but sometimes it gets ridiculous.

One ranking system would do wonders for the sport and really put into perspective the level of competition that some fights are. It might also prove why Wes Sims vs. Tim Sylvia was denied in Ohio! Let me know what you think about the current ranking systems and what you would like to be fixed. Or let me know if you completely disagree with me! You can either email me atLarLLeet@yahoo.com or leave a comment on MMATorch.com