Are the UFC rankings makers more insightful than we think?

[BigMuffler]

The UFC rankings are considered by many to be a joke, and there have been quite a few instances where hardcore fans criticized them for ranking a fighter too highly without merit. HOWEVER -

Conor was ranked top 3 just behind Edgar and Mendes after beating Siver, people thought he was overranked due to hype but then he went on to beat Mendes and Aldo.

Stipe was bumped from being ranked 7 to 4 after beating Fabio who wasn't even a HW, at the time it seemed ridiculous and intended to "create" a new contender but then Stipe went on to be champion finishing 4 legends straight.

Woodley was thought by many to be overranked being high in the top 5 after beating Condit "via injury" and having lost badly to Rory, but then became champion and defended against Wonderboy who was supposed to kill him.

McMann was thought to be ranked overly high at number 4 with her unproven resume just to hype up Ronda, but proved to give a razor close fight to Tate and finish Davis who was a longtime top 5 later on.

Caraway was thought to be ranked overly high and "not that good" by many and derailed Sterling whose rating was considered to be legit!

Sure there are counterexamples where an "overranked" fighter actually proved to be overranked and fell in the rankings after (eg. Paige VanChamp ), but might the rankings makers actually have more insight and wisdom than many give them credit for?

 

['Rocky']

I went to the movie theater the other day and this family came strolling in at the last minute and sat right in front of me. Which wasn't bad at all, but they were noisy. The wife kept playing with her phone, the 3 or 4 year old kept yelling "Mahm. MAHM!" and the parents ignored him most of the time. So distracting. Every time I farted I tried to fan it their way because they were so annoying. I hope they smelled it.