I'm in agreement with "Thesnake101". There is no legitimate ranking system. PERIOD.
Title shots based on ranking systems require a certain frequency of ranked fighters competing against one another to offer enough data for any ranking system to be considered "legitimate".
In 2009, the UFC had only 200 fighters on the roster, most of which were ranked fighters. They (ranked fighters) competed on the average 3 times per year, and largely against other ranked fighters in the WC providing empirical data for a far more legitimate ranking system.
As of last year, the UFC feels the need to employ 620+ fighters on their "active" (LMAO - PUN FULLY INTENDED) roster, the average fights per year has dropped to under 1.4. To make it even worse, even though ranked fighters are no longer averaging 2 fights per year, it is NO LONGER uncommon for ranked fighters to fight an unranked fighter in their only contest of the year.
This 620+ fighters on a single roster within a 52 week year make ANY ranking system illegitimate by quantifiable methods.
No improvement until at LEAST 60% of the UFC roster (that doesn't even have the right to sweep the Octagon after an event much less compete in it) are fired from the UFC, and the real fighters allowed to compete against one another with greater frequency!