MMA/UFC Questions for Newbies

Quick question.



I only have a passing interest in the UFC circus thing. But I had an oul' google to see the ranking after Conor McGregor got battered.

He is now ranked at #2 for lightweight behind a Tony Ferguson. And then the champion being your man Khabib that battered McG.

McGregor has moved down to number 8 on the P4P list. This Tony Ferguson is at #13 P4P.


How can he be ranked above him in his own category and below him on a P4P? Isn't P4P supposed to be just a method to compare across weights? Within the same weight, the order of people in an P4P list should surely not be different

Mellor wrote: »

Ranking lists are aggregated from votes media votes. People are asked to rank all divisions as well as the P4P list.
If people were talking their time and being careful, they would cross check their P4P list, and make sure that the same-division orders match.
But the realities it, people are that careful and just knock it out on a Monday while nursing a hangover.

So there's no "scientific" basis?


And by scientific I just meant a defined methodology

finglashoop wrote: »

The ufc makes up rankings depending on what fights they are trying to make

Nah, they just pay no attention to the rankings, which are done by a group of mma journalists, who don't know/care or at worst are hugely biased.

Mellor wrote: »

There's no scientific basis to the selections, it's entirely subjective. Yes it is a defined methodology. I gave it to you.

A panel of people pick their arbitrary, and sunjective rankings.
The rankings are aggregated to form the UFC rankings.
That's the method.

Well there is at least a defined panel I meant? Not just random media asked to vote?



For example, in boxing you have boxrec rankings which are based on a defined formula.

And you also have the transnational boxing rankings board. But that is a carefully selected panel rather than the "media"


Anyway, thanks for the responses. I appreciate it. Not a big issue. I had just been curious as to how the ranking were made and particularly so given the discrepancy in the ordering

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well there is at least a defined panel I meant? Not just random media asked to vote?



For example, in boxing you have boxrec rankings which are based on a defined formula.

And you also have the transnational boxing rankings board. But that is a carefully selected panel rather than the "media"


Anyway, thanks for the responses. I appreciate it. Not a big issue. I had just been curious as to how the ranking were made and particularly so given the discrepancy in the ordering

As others have said it's entirely subjective and based on the opinions of a small number of journalists. Apparently they aren't even high profile MMA journalists either.

Apparently the UFC never even wanted rankings but when they started one of their TV deals the network wanted them so that they could use them to advertise the fights. They probably came up with this half-assed system as a result.

Only yesterday I was wondering if anybody was doing any unofficial rankings and I found this thread on Reddit. His rankings are pretty bad though so he definitely hasn't perfected his algorithm yet.

Mellor wrote: »

There's another guy doing a ranking system based on the ranking used in chess. It seems pretty solid.

I've subsequently found this one which is pretty good. the rankings feel about right and you can quickly see upcoming fights in each division which is nice (as well as the last 3 bouts for each fighter)