There are basically three types of Top Ten rankings. They are based on...
1. who is the best
2. who is the most talented
3. who is the most deserving
To be the Best you must prove that you are the Best. You can thereby earn a ranking or be voted as the Best (which becomes basically a popularity contest). This could also be applied to P4P rankings.
To be the most Talented you must have the best skills and know how to use them. This is where P4P Top Ten rankings come into play. But most ranking systems utilizing this criteria are basically talent contests, as they are based on who the author thinks is the most skilled or talented...or they are voted upon by a panel.
To be the most Deserving you must prove it. This type of ranking must be earned. It can also be voted on but is best suited to achievement thru merit. Fighters who achieve rank this way are usually the most talented anyways...but since they've proven it by beating the best, they've shown who is truly the best of the best.
As the old adage goes, "the cream always rises to the top!".
RANKINGS -vs- RATINGS
Most all online MMA "Rankings" are really Ratings. This means they're based upon how the poster or, a panel (of voters), RATE their talents, abilities and overall success. That leaves their positioning up to the bias & individual rationalization of the person/persons voting. This means those kind of "Rankings" become, basically, a "best of" list or popularity contest.
True Contender Rankings work very differently.
In a true ranking system each fighter is ranked by beating the fighters above him. The only other way they can move up the rankings is by the fighters above them losing to fighters below them, inactivity, retiring, or by moving to another weight class. There is no room for bias and no need for anyone to vote. Rank is not made by being a popular or more talented...or, potentially a better fighter. Rank is earned.
When we use the term RATE or, Ratings, referring to our Rankings, we mean skills, talent, and experience. Being Rated and Ranked are two very different things.
Read an explanation from Wikipedia
COMPUTERIZED RANKINGS
There are those who swear by a computerized system of ranking fighters. But the only one we know of uses a point system based on experience level, competition level (based on the same point system), and gives more points for any fights/fighters in the UFC.
This will leave room for many errors. As there really is no way for this system to allow for the many complexities of human judgement, or lack thereof. Giving fights or fighters in the UFC more points also makes no sense, as there are plenty of better fighters the UFC has yet to discover or sign.
There are many other aspects of this system that is highly flawed and full of holes. So much so, that it really makes no sense to even call it a ranking system. Not one with any credibility or merit, that is.
TOP TEN CONTENDERS
A true Top Ten Ranking system, in combat sports, consists of a Champion, and Ten (top) Contenders. The champion is not part of the Top Ten Contenders...as the championship is what the contenders are contending for. He's already achieved championship status and holds the title...which is thus the goal of the Top Ten.
Most fans of MMA do not understand this. But we go back to when Ring Magazine had proper Top Ten lists, where a champion was listed above the top ten contenders. The contenders earn their way to the top by beating the best, winning, impressing, and knocking off the contenders who are inactive or who get beat by new prospects.
This is how it should be done.
So there you have it, 3 type of ranking systems to choose from...popularity contests...talent contests...or top ten contenders who've earned their way to the top.
We choose the latter.
Anything under the top ten are not really considered rankings. It's basically just a list, though we do make it so it's listed according to who-beat-who. though it's more for getting the fighters exposure.
This is not a best of list or a talent contest...like most, so-called "rankings". These are true World Contender Rankings...which is traditionally, and historically, based on the Top-Ten best fighters in each weight class.
ARE RANKINGS ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE?
The only time top ten rankings are subjective is when they're voted upon and based on the first two criteria. If a fighter has earned his ranking by beating the fighter who was previously ranked/listed above him, then he deserves his new ranking by virtue of merit. Therefore there is no argument for his rank and it's makes the system one that cannot be subject to personal opinions, bias, or popularity.
When rankings are voted upon, by a panel of "experts", then they are subjective to the opinions and bias of those individuals (modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background)...which are often influenced according to who they "think/feel" is the best or most talented (often based on overall record, regardless of fighting weight).
That has nothing to do with TOP-TEN Contender Rankings - which should always be based upon who-beat-who...(in their respective weight class).
LINEAR RECORD SINCE 1989!
The rankings on this site are a linear record of who's-beat-who, of the top fighters in each weight class, from over the past 21 years.
You'd have to admit that's a pretty accurate account of who belongs at the top!
IS THERE ANY BIAS?
These Rankings are not based on anyone's personal opinion. They're all based on who-beat-who...since 1989 (year of first Shooto event).
There's no bias - since there is no use of popularity, talent, voting, or a flawed computerized system to decide who belongs with the elite. The fighter's earn their rank.
It's simply based on merit.
These rankings are based on a linear system, that's been used since 1997...and have been posted online since 1998 (UG forum, then sherdog, and now on several websites).
A record of them has been kept, and postings have been made, of every weight class, from 115lbs & up, since 1999.
These rankings are the only ones like this...and they are not voted upon.
Sherdog's "Rankings" (and most others), are voted upon by a panel, and thus, are highly subjective, and a biased, "Best Of" list - virtually a talent/popularity contest.
These are TRUE World Contender Rankings.
So they are not subjective or open to opinion.
SHERDOG - THE OFFICIAL RANKINGS OF MMA?
Most fans consider sherdog's "rankings" as the "official" rankings of MMA.
Though we consider sherdog's database as 2nd to none, their Top Ten rankings, on the other hand, fall far short of being legit.
Consider these facts...firstly, they only started listing their rankings in 2004. They only listed the TOP 5 Flyweights til about 2007...then started listing the TOP TEN Flyweights. Their "rankings" are voted upon by a panel...which makes them highly biased and subjective.
Our Rankings are WORLD CONTENDER RANKINGS...and have been posted since 1998. We've been posting every weight class - from 115lbs to SHW, since 1999.
We've kept a LINEAR RECORD of every championship title, of every weight class, starting in 1999.
Our rankings are not voted upon, but are based on WHO-BEAT-WHO, and kept track, from a linear record, since the first Shooto event, in 1989
Our Rankings are CONTENDER RANKINGS, which means there is a TITLE to contend for. That's why you have a TOP TEN Contender list. Otherwise, it's merely a talent contest and not based on true contention for a title. This is why we list the CHAMPION at the top, and the CONTENDERS in the TOP TEN.
RING Boxing magazine did the same thing, back in the early-mid 80's.
Our Rankings are not based on opinion. They are based on WHO-BEAT-WHO.
Most so-called "Rankings" are basically RATINGS...and are voted upon, or decided by who they feel is the most talented. Many are even based on conjecture - and who they think will be the best.
You can't really consider those legitimate rankings. That's like the AP Polls...which is all sherdog's and nearly all other rankings are...a popularity poll.
When we started these rankings there weren't that many promotions. For example, Shooto has been putting on events since 1989...a good 4 yrs before the UFC even existed. If you have the best fighters of that promotion, at their given weights, and you then have fighters from the UFC, who start to compete at the same level, you can now track them, rate them, compare them, and rank them as they fight each other or replace others who fall by way of losses, inactivity, retirement, etc.
When you follow the sport for years & years, you then have a base from which you've accumulated hundreds of fighters that are consistently being researched, tracked, listed, and ranked...based on their performances against the other top fighters.
As new prospects arise, you keep adding more and more to the lists. If they are inactive for too long, they get replaced by better and more active fighters. If they lose then you replace them with the fighter that beat them. When you've done this for over ten years, it's a pretty safe bet you're gonna end-up with the most legit and solid rankings in the sport.
Don't forget, we also do our best to research each fighter's record. This assures that we find the absolute best of the best, before deciding to add them to the list. A few padded fighters get thru, but we try hard to make sure they're all legit and have solid records, against similar opponents.
We don't base anything on a hypothetical fight. We base everything on accomplishments.
A lot of MMA fans are liking what we offer...and are starting to see the difference between RATING a fighter, based on 'perceived talent', and actually basing their RANKING on what they accomplish.
UFC FIGHTER RANKINGS
As of: February 2013
The UFC Rankings are generated by a voting panel made up of media members. The media members are asked to vote for who they feel are the top fighters in the UFC by weight-class and pound-for-pound. A fighter is only eligible to be voted on if they are in active status in the UFC.
What the MMA Media thinks...
Andrew Dodds of bleacherreport.com,
"The UFC has finally produced a ranking system; it is now available on their website.
Great news, right? No more wavering on rankings and contender status so fans can witness the legitimate contenders vie for the title. Dana will now no longer be wantonly confusing the title picture. Fighters' rankings will now move in a logical and cohesive manner open to the public.
Not so fast.
Actually, the rankings are media-generated. Selected members of the media vote on the rankings. This makes it doubtful that this publication will serve any real purpose; rather, the concession will be relegated to playing a cosmetic role."
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1516185-ufcs-new-ranking-system-off-to-inauspicious-start
Brent Brookhouse of bloodyelbow.com,
"The announcement of the UFC's new ranking system seemed like a logical and solid idea when I first heard about it last night. But a few moments of thought made it clear that I couldn't even think about applying -- even though I doubt I'd have been given a spot -- as I feel like the entire idea has some serious issues.
One of the most basic issues is the idea of voter manipulation. I've long complained about the fact that a large segment of MMA media is willing to effectively "sell" their opinions or their coverage in turn for access to either fighters or promotion."
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/2/1/3941564/ufc-rankings-ethical-issues-mma-journalists
___________________________________________
Posted on our Facebook Fan Page...
Some of you might think we're not being fair to everyone's opinions...
Nowadays everyone's an expert. Everyone has to have an opinion. Everyone thinks he's right.
Well, when you see these arrogant guys come on here and criticize and bicker and complain and whine (like old women), it's usually because their favorite fighter isn't ranked where THEY think he should be...(or, it's just because they're an immature @$$ - who always thinks they're right).
Someone once told me that they feel fighters should be ranked by how talented and skilled they are...and by how the fans perception of how exciting they are.
But, that isn't RANKINGS...that's RATINGS.
When you "Rate" a fighter it's based on skill and talent and ability. That's a
system that uses pure popular opinion and bias and speculation.
It has NOTHING to do with what the fighter has actually earned or deserved.
When you "Rank" a fighter, you rank them by who they beat and what they've
actually achieved.
This is a system that has no bias, conjecture or speculation. It isn't based on
personal/popular opinions, talent or skills. It's based solely upon what the
fighters have actually earned.
We've been ranking fighters since 1984. We've been involved in MMA since 1993.
We started ranking NHB/SHOOT FIGHTING/MMA fighters in 1997.
We've had numerous discussions and debates with fans, over the years. Most of them are arrogant and just wanna troll. They're a waste of time.
Serious, educated, hardcore, professional fans do not argue about rankings. They might point out an error and help you make corrections but, they aren't a jerk about it.
We all know, in this sport, any fighter can lose, on any day, and to any one. So basing rank or contender status on what we THINK they can achieve makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
They need to PROVE IT, by winning and beating the fighters ranked above them.
mahalo nui loa
Shane "braddah shano" McFarland
__________________________________________
Most rankings are not taken seriously
Most rankings are not taken seriously because they fail to put-in what's needed to make them legit. Many websites just let the fans vote on the rankings...which takes almost no work at all, on the part of the site owners. Many just copy other rankings. Some let a computer decide their rankings. Many just throw-up guys as they feel who are at the top...based on talent, skill, popularity, opinion, UFC clout, etc., etc... Very few ever put in much effort to actually do the research and see who really deserves their spot. But we're not here to play. That's why we're taken seriously.
Supposedly, the UFC has their own rankings (though i have never seen them listed?), but Dana has to follow popular opinion a lot of times, because they are trying to sell events and please the fans. We're not going to compromise on anything.
A lot of fans get bent out of shape and start whining like an 80 yr old witch, when they don't see their favorite fighters ranked or listed where THEY THINK they should be. But we don't give a rat's @$$ what they think. These fighters work their butt's off and sacrifice a lot. If they have earned their spot by beating the guy who was previously there, then they deserve it. That's the bottom-line. Take it or leave it.
© Shane McFarland 2009