Losing a fight should drop you out of the top 5.

ImLovinIt said:
I think I get where the TS is coming from. Maybe you shouldn't call it ranking, but place in line. If you lose to the champion, you're not ranked #5, but the 5th person in line to fight for the belt. This sounds like an interesting idea. This way, non of that instant rematch nonsense.
Click to expand...

Actually you're right, that's more what I was thinking. But I also don't like #1 contenders sitting out for 8-10 months, fight the #6-7 guy once, and then nearly 2 years later they are still #1. Sadly this happens.

You should need to fight a #1-5 contender before getting a title shot, maybe even you should require 2 top 5 wins before a TS.
 
That shit is totally random, and depends on legacy and if the UFC likes you. Rashad was getting his ass kicked on a regular base when he even fought at all, and he still was in the top 5-10.
 
Spycho said:
That shit is totally random, and depends on legacy and if the UFC likes you. Rashad was getting his ass kicked on a regular base when he even fought at all, and he still was in the top 5-10.
Click to expand...

Your example is literally an argument for what I'm talking about. The #5 guy loses to the #6 guy, and they just trade places. Then the same guy loses to #4 and doesn't drop at all, because no one below him beat him.

#5 losing to #6 should see him drop to #10 immediately. This kind of a system with mandatory rank drops would help force fighters to stay active. One fight in 18 months? You automatically lose 1-2 rank spots.

This also gives up and coming fighters more power to fight previously highly ranked fighters and build a name.
 
I'd be ok with that if it were a rule in the UFC that they always followed. So no giving certain fighters 5 title shots, some having to go on super long streaks to get the big fights.

Lose the high profile fight. Take a little time of (if needed) then get matched up with a lower tier fighter, newcomer or around top 15-20. Such fighters usually dont take 5 months off after every fight and if there was a rule making it impossible to just sit out for titleshots all the time, the bigger name fighter would want to get back to it quicker. Also it gives opportunity to the lower ranked guy, and the higher ranked veteran should keep proving he is deserving.
 
there should be a 'ban' button.
 
Alpha_T83 said:
I feel like the UFC has a huge problem with highly ranked fighters maintaining their rank through inactivity. Even if a #1 contender loses a fight to the champ, they should be dropped to #6 automatically.

The only exception should be a champ losing their belt, but even then they should be bumped to #2 or #3.
Click to expand...
I kind of disagree.
If you are a top contender who is constantly fighting and reaffirming your position, one (fluke) loss shouldn't drop you that far.
But if you are that top contender who only fights once a year and try to nitpick your opponent, then yes.

Same as a champion.
If you are the champion for the past decade and loses, then you should not drop as much as if you were a champion who loses in your first title defense.
 
CrimsonFan said:
I do think the rankings need serious work.

Until a legit third party comes in and can honestly rank fighters from all orgs an accurate manner. Its all fringe cage fighting hallarity for me
Click to expand...
That would be hilarious. Watching an independent third party try to do something so subjective. It would give Sherdog a ton to whine and complain about though. So, good idea.
 
RiotWyatt said:
Sounds about how Sherdog works.

Beat everyone but the champ? Sorry dude, you are no longer top 5.
Click to expand...

T
Shaddows said:
I kind of disagree.
If you are a top contender who is constantly fighting and reaffirming your position, one (fluke) loss shouldn't drop you that far.
But if you are that top contender who only fights once a year and try to nitpick your opponent, then yes.

Same as a champion.
If you are the champion for the past decade and loses, then you should not drop as much as if you were a champion who loses in your first title defense.
Click to expand...

Yes what you are describing is actually how it should be implemented, but that's also more complicated.

I agree that if you have an active #1 contender, then they should maintain at least the #2 spot. However, not fighting a top 10 fighter for 12 months should definitely drop your rank out of the top 5.

Alex Gustafsson has fought only twice in 3 years, and clearly should not maintain his #1 rank based on activity and quality of opponent. He is a prime example of everything wrong with the current system. You hold your rank, fight infrequently,take easy fights, and then demand a title shot as the "#1 contender".
 
delbosque said:
Official rankings, gifted title shots, interim belts, and Conor McGregor are what fucked this sport up. The best used to fight the best and ducking/not fighting/asking for gimme title shots were things that previously would have been considered shameful.
Click to expand...

How did Conor fuck the sport up? By making people interested? Making people want to buy PPVs?
 
Rankings don’t even matter in the UFC. Very rarely do the number 1 or 2 and even 3, 4 or even 5 ranked fighters get to fight for the belt.
 
In a perfect mma world, losing a title fight should mean you need 2 wins to get back in the discussion for another one. Sadly it’s going in the other direction.
 
Alpha_T83 said:
T


Yes what you are describing is actually how it should be implemented, but that's also more complicated.

I agree that if you have an active #1 contender, then they should maintain at least the #2 spot. However, not fighting a top 10 fighter for 12 months should definitely drop your rank out of the top 5.

Alex Gustafsson has fought only twice in 3 years, and clearly should not maintain his #1 rank based on activity and quality of opponent. He is a prime example of everything wrong with the current system. You hold your rank, fight infrequently,take easy fights, and then demand a title shot as the "#1 contender".
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you on that.

Hell, I had just said about the exact same thing:
Shaddows said:
it doesn't matter the "win streak".
he fights once a year! That's hardly acceptable for anyone, let alone top contender who wants a title shot.
To compare, Volkan has 3 of his 5 wins in 2017 (and a loss to the champ this year)...

No, I don't think anyone else deserves, but that does not mean Gus deserves it either!
Fighters below him are fighting, and they are losing. But not fighting is not the answer and he shouldn't be rewarded for not fighting.
Click to expand...
 
podsox said:
In a perfect mma world, losing a title fight should mean you need 2 wins to get back in the discussion for another one. Sadly it’s going in the other direction.
Click to expand...

2 wins within a year, and both fights should be against top 5 opponents.

Whereas Gustafsson fights twice in nearly 3 years, and not against the very best in the division, and still expects a title shot. Its absurd.
 
I was disliking PFL for their silly point system the other day but this might work in a ranking structure. Accumulate points to be able to challenge a fighter ranked above you. Would need to keep winning to ever advance, more points for the win type via round, etc.

Prolly stupid but would make the rankings more viable and perhaps more interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,050
Messages
55,463,703
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top