Need for Organizational Rankings?

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: buckeyes12
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:12 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

As the interview w/ Dana White was posted on Junkie this evening, I was curious what you guys thought about if there is a need for a ranking in each weight class for each organization. We've seen several "#1 contenders" matches be lackluster, so I'm curious do you think that the rankings would ultimately hurt the quality of the fights or enhance them due to fighting for a solidified spot in the rankings instead of a subjective spot "in the mix",thoughts?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Jak
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:15 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

No. Because then the UFC couldn't have circumvented Koscheck having to go through Fitch or Alves to get a title shot.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: buckeyes12
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:22 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Jak said:
No. Because then the UFC couldn't have circumvented Koscheck having to go through Fitch or Alves to get a title shot.
Click to expand...
:lol: thats exactly what I'm saying though, I know the UFC (and all other orgs for that matter) is in the business of putting on "entertaining fights" but at what cost to the actual competition? The NFL, MLB, NBA etc. don't match up two teams in the playoffs for entertainment value, its based solely on merit, however in MMA its all about who sells fights (i.e.Brock Lesnar's title shot in his fifth MMA fight). Should there be a more concrete way of deciding who gets shots, or should we just continue hoping Joe Silva and all other matchmakers keep giving us entertaining cards and expect the cream to simply rise to the top?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: 7time
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:26 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

No there shouldn't be. What other organizations have enough fighters to create even a semi legitimate set of rankings ? UFC has way more top talent then anyone else.
And back to the Lesnar shouldn't have gotten the shot at Couture s--- ? Who should have ?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:34 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

I like the idea of Official Rankings. But don't see DW ever letting it happen; nor any other organization for that matter.
Most people seem to care about entertainment value vice the sanctity of competition.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:36 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

If there were organizational rankings, they would have a hard time coming up with new challengers for the title. Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division. He would fight GSP, lose, beat another high ranked WW and be back at #2, then fight GSP again and lose, then repeat.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:37 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Puxin said:
If there were organizational rankings, they would have a hard time coming up with new challengers for the title. Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division. He would fight GSP, lose, beat another high ranked WW and be back at #2, then fight GSP again and lose, then repeat.
Click to expand...
An assumption.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:39 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

ResoluteProtector said:
Puxin said:
If there were organizational rankings, they would have a hard time coming up with new challengers for the title. Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division. He would fight GSP, lose, beat another high ranked WW and be back at #2, then fight GSP again and lose, then repeat.
Click to expand...
An assumption.
Click to expand...
An assumption based on everything that has happened in the UFC's WW division in the past 4 years.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: TheLethalLefty
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:40 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Honestly? Hell no. The rankings would be pretty far from legit. I feel like they would just be contorted to whatever the UFC wanted the rankings to look like. For instance, if the UFC had rankings, they probably would of had Dan Hardy as the #2 Welterweight in the world when he got the shot at GSP's belt. In reality, we all know that Fitch, Alves, and Koscheck are all better than him, among others.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: 7time
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

TheLethalLefty said:
they probably would of had Dan Hardy as the #2 Welterweight in the world when he got the shot at GSP's belt. In reality, we all know that Fitch, Alves, and Koscheck are all better than him, among others.
Click to expand...
Much like Sylvia and Rogers had inflated rankings when they fought " You know who ".
And please, don't mention his name.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Jak
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:44 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

The other problem is how much a win or a loss is worth. I don't want the UFC deciding for me that Paulo Thiago vs. Josh Koscheck was a fluke and not changing the rankings according to it.
However, i will give the UFC credit for giving Edgar a title shot after Maynard fought Diaz. So maybe they don't always get things wrong.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:45 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Puxin said:
ResoluteProtector said:
Puxin said:
If there were organizational rankings, they would have a hard time coming up with new challengers for the title. Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division. He would fight GSP, lose, beat another high ranked WW and be back at #2, then fight GSP again and lose, then repeat.
Click to expand...
An assumption.
Click to expand...
An assumption based on everything that has happened in the UFC's WW division in the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
Like St. Pierre's first victory over Hughes; or say Hughes' first victory over Penn? How about Johnson over Burns?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

ResoluteProtector said:
Like St. Pierre's first victory over Hughes; or say Hughes' first victory over Penn? How about Johnson over Burns?
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with Fitch?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: TheLethalLefty
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:48 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Jak said:
The other problem is how much a win or a loss is worth. I don't want the UFC deciding for me that Paulo Thiago vs. Josh Koscheck was a fluke and not changing the rankings according to it.
However, i will give the UFC credit for giving Edgar a title shot after Maynard fought Diaz. So maybe they don't always get things wrong.
Click to expand...
I think they get most of there decisions right. A rankings system would only complicate something.
Lets be real here, the by far most effective way to name #1 contenders make rankings and stuff is to have tournaments. The chances of tournaments becoming a reoccurring thing in the UFC are .0000000001%

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:52 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Puxin said:
ResoluteProtector said:
Like St. Pierre's first victory over Hughes; or say Hughes' first victory over Penn? How about Johnson over Burns?
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with Fitch?
Click to expand...
Nothing.
But it has very much to do with the UFC WW Division which you referenced. Allow me to quote you, " An assumption based on everything that has happened in the UFC's WW division in the past 4 years."

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: June 14, 2010 at 09:58 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

ResoluteProtector said:
Puxin said:
ResoluteProtector said:
Like St. Pierre's first victory over Hughes; or say Hughes' first victory over Penn? How about Johnson over Burns?
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with Fitch?
Click to expand...
Nothing.
But it has very much to do with the UFC WW Division which you referenced. Allow me to quote you, " An assumption based on everything that has happened in the UFC's WW division in the past 4 years."
Click to expand...
So, if it has nothing to do with Fitch, what relevance is it to the statement that Fitch is the perennial #2 in the WW division? Do you have anything to refute the idea that Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division? If not, then you have nothing to refute my assumption.
Or were you making a general objection to the presence of assumptions in this thread? How do you propose to discuss the merits of an organizational ranking system in MMA without making assumptions?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: June 14, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Puxin said:
ResoluteProtector said:
Nothing.
But it has very much to do with the UFC WW Division which you referenced. Allow me to quote you, " An assumption based on everything that has happened in the UFC's WW division in the past 4 years."
Click to expand...
So, if it has nothing to do with Fitch, what relevance is it to the statement that Fitch is the perennial #2 in the WW division? Do you have anything to refute the idea that Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division? If not, then you have nothing to refute my assumption.
Or were making a general objection to the presence of assumptions in this thread? How do you propose to discuss the merits of an organizational ranking system in MMA without making assumptions?
Click to expand...
You brought up the UFC WW Division as a whole. My comment was just as relevant as yours. You made a comment about Fitch in reference the the UFC WW Division as a whole, and I disputed it. And I agree that Fitch is the #2 WW at least at the moment. Perennial? No.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: June 14, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

ResoluteProtector said:
You brought up the UFC WW Division as a whole. My comment was just as relevant as yours...
Click to expand...
You're going to need to be more specific. What comment of yours was relevant?
ResoluteProtector said:
Puxin said:
If there were organizational rankings, they would have a hard time coming up with new challengers for the title. Fitch is the perennial #2 in the UFC's WW division. He would fight GSP, lose, beat another high ranked WW and be back at #2, then fight GSP again and lose, then repeat.
Click to expand...
An assumption.
Click to expand...
Was that relevant to anything? How do you suggest people discuss organizational rankings without making assumptions? You can assume that the organization would rank its fighters objectively, or you can assume that the organization will inflate the ranking of certain fighters, but whatever you think is going to happen must be an assumption since the rankings don't exist.
ResoluteProtector said:
Puxin said:
ResoluteProtector said:
Like St. Pierre's first victory over Hughes; or say Hughes' first victory over Penn? How about Johnson over Burns?
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with Fitch?
Click to expand...
Nothing.
But it has very much to do with the UFC WW Division which you referenced. Allow me to quote you, " An assumption based on everything that has happened in the UFC's WW division in the past 4 years."
Click to expand...
Or was this the comment that you claim is relevant? The same comment that you admit has nothing to do with what I was talking about? Are you trying to suggest GSP's first victory over Hughes or Hughes' victory over Penn should affect the final assumption (Fitch is the # 2 WW in the UFC)? Then why ask about them? If you think any of the fights you asked about undermine the claim that Fitch is the #2 WW in the UFC, go ahead and demonstrate how they are relevant.
ResoluteProtector said:
...Beside that, this discussion is not about Jon Fitch, it is about Organizational Rankings. You made a comment about Fitch in reference the the UFC WW Division as a whole, and I disputed it.
And I agree that Fitch is the #2 WW at least at the moment.
Click to expand...
You disputed something you agree with?
I know the discussion isn't about Fitch; I used Fitch because he was a pretty obvious example that related to a problem with organizational rankings (the second best guy is going to repeatedly hold the #2 ranking). You're the one dwelling on Fitch.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: MizzouRam
Date: June 14, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

ResoluteProtector said:
I like the idea of Official Rankings. But don't see DW ever letting it happen; nor any other organization for that matter.
Most people seem to care about entertainment value vice the sanctity of competition.
Click to expand...
And that's the sad truth. MMA will never become fully embraced as mainstream as long as it head company employs these kinds of WWE tactics in there match making.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: June 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/need-for-organizational-rankings.26769/

Why am I not surprised? Do yourself a favor Puxin, go back and read what you wrote and how I responded in the individual quotes.
I don't know if you are ignoring it intentionally, or asbent mindedly. But I have no desire to go around in circles with you right now.