An attempt at an unbiased ranking among LW Champions

RiotWyatt

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
3,569
So I devised a system taking into consideration 3 criterion:

- # of defenses
- # of wins against other champions
- recency of championship

The first two criterion are self explanatory. I decided to add the last criteria to give more weight to more recent champions because the sport does evolve. Meaning, winning against current contenders will be harder than the past and should be taken into consideration. I also included interim champions.

While some may disagree, these are the three arguments I see being used to justify rankings time and again on this board. All I did was combine them.

Here's the ranking that resulted:

1. Khabib
2. Edgar
3. Penn
4. Dos Anjos
5. Henderson
6. Ferguson
7. Alvarez
8. Pulver
9. Pettis
10. Poirier
11. McGregor
12. Sherk

Feel free to critique specific rankings and I'll try to explain why my system put them above or below certain ranks.

Edit: I forgot that Pulver had a win over Penn. Including that moved him up above Pettis, Poirier and McGregor.
 
Last edited:
Here comes the prime bj penn stans
 
Still think BJ edged out Frankie the first fight, though he lost the 2nd one more clearly.
 
There’s no use of an ”objective” ranking when #6 beat #4, for example.
 
I actually really like your list TS. My only real contention is that I think Tony should be a little higher, even though he has never been the champion (well interim technically).

I think that your top 3 is actually spot on
 
How is conor below the guy he won the belt from who also had zero defences lol? Also Poirier above him for an interim title win against Max?
 
There’s no use of an ”objective” ranking when #6 beat #4, for example.

Yes, what put RDA above Ferg is that he defended his title.

The nature of MMA is that styles make fights. So, yes, fighter A beat fighter B but fighter B beat fighters C and D and also defended his title. So it is not unreasonable that he is ranked higher, all time.
 
How is conor below the guy he won the belt from who also had zero defences lol? Also Poirier above him for an interim title win against Max?

Alvarez has beaten more top LWs. So has Poirier. That's why.

Quoting myself from above:

"The nature of MMA is that styles make fights. So, yes, fighter A beat fighter B but fighter B beat fighters C and D and also defended his title. So it is not unreasonable that he is ranked higher, all time."

You are not taking into consideration the complete set of criteria.
 
So I devised a system taking into consideration 3 criterion:

- # of defenses
- # of wins against other champions
- recency of championship

The first two criterion are self explanatory. I decided to add the last criteria to give more weight to more recent champions because the sport does evolve. Meaning, winning against current contenders will be harder than the past and should be taken into consideration. I also included interim champions.

While some may disagree, these are the three arguments I see being used to justify rankings time and again on this board. All I did was combine them.

Here's the ranking that resulted:

1. Khabib
2. Edgar
3. Penn
4. Dos Anjos
5. Henderson
6. Ferguson
7. Alvarez
8. Pulver
9. Pettis
10. Poirier
11. McGregor
12. Sherk

Feel free to critique specific rankings and I'll try to explain why my system put them above or below certain ranks.

Edit: I forgot that Pulver had a win over Penn. Including that moved him up above Pettis, Poirier and McGregor.
Belts and defenses ARE biases.

Here's what ELO has to say about the top 20 all time:

Penn, Alvarez, Khabib, Benson, Frankie, Gomi, RDA, Pettis, Aoki, Ferguson, Melendez, Poirier, Jens, Ribeiro, Joachim Hansen, Cerron, TK, Maynard, Rumina Sato, Caol Uno

ELO has it's problems, but IMO that's a pretty fucking solid list in a pretty fucking solid order.

Khabib will pass Alvarez to #2 with a win over Tony, and Tony likely goes up 4 spots to #6 with a win over Khabib.
 
How is conor below the guy he won the belt from who also had zero defences lol? Also Poirier above him for an interim title win against Max?
i think he means as a total body of work. conor is 1-1. skill ranking the whole thing would be scrambled
 
So I devised a system taking into consideration 3 criterion:

- # of defenses
- # of wins against other champions
- recency of championship

The first two criterion are self explanatory. I decided to add the last criteria to give more weight to more recent champions because the sport does evolve. Meaning, winning against current contenders will be harder than the past and should be taken into consideration. I also included interim champions.

While some may disagree, these are the three arguments I see being used to justify rankings time and again on this board. All I did was combine them.

Here's the ranking that resulted:

1. Khabib
2. Edgar
3. Penn
4. Dos Anjos
5. Henderson
6. Ferguson
7. Alvarez
8. Pulver
9. Pettis
10. Poirier
11. McGregor
12. Sherk

Feel free to critique specific rankings and I'll try to explain why my system put them above or below certain ranks.

Edit: I forgot that Pulver had a win over Penn. Including that moved him up above Pettis, Poirier and McGregor.
You are assuming old champions skills are the same today as they were then.. If they trained like today's fighters their skills would be different/more evolved. Your view is biased by giving more weight to today's champions vs older ones.

All sports athlete learn from generations before so the skills appear better, however if they fought/trained back then their skills would not be what they are today.
 
Tony is one of the best ever at lw. No he hasnt had the actual belt, but he hasnt lost in forever in a division that has been the best in the ufc for several years. It's hard to rank old fighters vs new fighters because it's totally different now. Most new era fighters would smoke old type fighters like bj or Jens. Khabib is goat of lw now and even if he loses to tony, he will be until tony defends a couple of times. Conor has no claim to greatness at 155 with a 1 and 1 record. Never defended and best eddie...who is great in smaller orgs but only ok in the ufc.
 
I was pretty devastated when Eddie beat RDA. It was a total fluke and I feel like RDA would’ve crushed Conor and def deserved the red panty night more than Eddie.
 
Bias as fuck if you don’t have Bj penn at number 1.

gtfo with this bummshit.
 
Back
Top