Good Stuff, Cowboy Ranked Number 2 At 155 After RDA

[Paynebringer]

Khabib is 23-0 and had done enough to warrant a title shot prior to his injury layoff. There's only 1 fighter at LW that I could see him having trouble with and that's Ferguson. If you doubt his ability you must have been dropped on your head.

Who's ability are suggesting I'm doubting Ferguson/Khabib? Either way I don't doubt either man. 2yrs out is 2yrs out while other men have been doing ladder climbing. I'm not discounting the impressive 23-0 or last win over current champ, as I'm not ignoring the 2yrs out; hold the 3 spot out of respect for record. Khabib needz to fight a real LW fight before any belt talk is made.

I keep saying Diaz vs Ferguson is the fight to make, add that Motherf*ker to 200

 

[Roads55]

We're debating a place in rankings based on actual performances within reason. In no way does a 4.5 year old fight trump recent activity since then that is overwhelmingly in favor of one fighter. 11-3 or 3-3, and if we're talking about just top ten wins it's 6-3 or 3-3.

a 4.5 year old fight has relevance if your logic is quantity > quality. Im not saying your wrong per se, but a lot of the reasoning behind the rankings is specious when diaz who looks a much improved fighter since then, absolutely picked cerrone's entire game apart. same problem with mousasi ranked above hall. and to be able to say cowboy is a better fighter than diaz which is what the rankings imply you kinda have to hypothetically match up how diaz would do against cerrone's opponents also. but even then that's just mmath and another reason why rankings are specious.

So were the fight results of Cerrone vs Miller/Dunham/Barboza/Alvarez/Jury. Except none of those fights were almost a half decade ago.

miller/dunham/martins/jury/barboza were no where near the top of the heap at that time though. even alvarez would of been ranked lower (i assume cba to check) while diaz diaz beat mcgoat/miller/MJ decisively which is much more impressive imo. alvarez fought a terrible gameplan.

Did Donald Struggle against OliverA? I remember a clinch and a mounted triangle. People give Conor way too much credit, so when Nate beats him, people think Nate is something extra special when we all know he isnt. MMA math dont jive bro. Ha..I nodded off while typing that. JD and mma match something.

it really didn't stay on the feet long enough to get a definitive viewpoint but It really looked like cerrone wanted no part of the stand up against howboy.

 

[Roads55]

Who's ability are suggesting I'm doubting Ferguson/Khabib? Either way I don't doubt either man. 2yrs out is 2yrs out while other men have been doing ladder climbing. I'm not discounting the impressive 23-0 or last win over current champ, as I'm not ignoring the 2yrs out; hold the 3 spot out of respect for record. Khabib needz to fight a real LW fight before any belt talk is made.

I keep saying Diaz vs Ferguson is the fight to make, add that Motherf*ker to 200

damn, that'd be a sick fight, I'm down. surprised I've not heard anyone else calling for this!

 

[Danespina]

Finished in 66 seconds against the champion. Pretty much tells the whole story.

Cerrone is 16-4 in the UFC and dominated the current title challenger. He's 9-1 from 2014 onward.

 

[Paynebringer]

As for Conor, Poirier is just one example that the man is capable of doing serious damage at LW. He damn near finished Nate if his cardio wasn't so far behind Nate's

Please just give me a gif a pic of this damn near finish before Conor gassed I keep reading about but not one example of it? Because all I ever see is a lot of whiffing by Conor, and rolling away by Nate.

 

[funksoulbrother]

a 4.5 year old fight has relevance if your logic is quantity > quality. Im not saying your wrong per se, but a lot of the reasoning behind the rankings is specious when diaz who looks a much improved fighter since then, absolutely picked cerrone's entire game apart. same problem with mousasi ranked above hall. and to be able to say cowboy is a better fighter than diaz which is what the rankings imply you kinda have to hypothetically match up how diaz would do against cerrone's opponents also. but even then that's just mmath and another reason why rankings are specious.



miller/dunham/martins/jury/barboza were no where near the top of the heap at that time though. even alvarez would of been ranked lower (i assume cba to check) while diaz diaz beat mcgoat/miller/MJ decisively which is much more impressive imo. alvarez fought a terrible gameplan.



it really didn't stay on the feet long enough to get a definitive viewpoint but It really looked like cerrone wanted no part of the stand up against howboy.

So discredit the win over Alvarez because of his game planning
But what about Conor's game planning?

 

[Cptn1NSAN0]

It won't matter once Khabib tosses the whole top 5 on their heads

 

[mmafan559]

i rank him #1 he is my special #1 i love cowboy

 

[Davemeddlehed]

a 4.5 year old fight has relevance if your logic is quantity > quality. Im not saying your wrong per se, but a lot of the reasoning behind the rankings is specious when diaz who looks a much improved fighter since then, absolutely picked cerrone's entire game apart. same problem with mousasi ranked above hall. and to be able to say cowboy is a better fighter than diaz which is what the rankings imply you kinda have to hypothetically match up how diaz would do against cerrone's opponents also. but even then that's just mmath and another reason why rankings are specious.



miller/dunham/martins/jury/barboza were no where near the top of the heap at that time though. even alvarez would of been ranked lower (i assume cba to check) while diaz diaz beat mcgoat/miller/MJ decisively which is much more impressive imo. alvarez fought a terrible gameplan.

The problem with comparing this to Mousasi/Hall is that their fight happened recently. We're talking about Cerrone/Diaz which was 54 months ago.

Quantity, in this case IS quality. Cerrone not only has more wins since then, but more top ten wins as well. Their best wins are relative in ranking(Michael Johnson was #5, Barboza was #6 and I believe Benson was around #3-4), but Cerrone has more of those top ten wins.

Diaz does not look to have improved his game substantially since then. He fights the same way he always has. Cerrone hasn't made a significant amount of changes either. However since they fought so long ago, we can only look at their recent bodies of work. If we start looking at hypothetical situations and holding forever onto head to head wins beyond reasonable lengths of time we may as well call Joe Duffy the uncrowned 145lb king.

We cannot use MMAth to determine rankings. That's just ridiculous.

Cerrone decisively beat Miller just as much as Diaz did. Cerrone also took Alvarez apart in a way we've never seen anyone else do. Nate fought Conor at a different weight class, technically, but even if we consider it a lightweight fight(which I'm fine with), Conor hasn't competed in the lightweight division in three years. He wouldn't even be ranked at 155.

 

[Roads55]

So discredit the win over Alvarez because of his game planning
But what about Conor's game planning?

conor wasnt prepared . his gameplan is largely the same each fight.

 

[Roads55]

The problem with comparing this to Mousasi/Hall is that their fight happened recently. We're talking about Cerrone/Diaz which was 54 months ago.

Quantity, in this case IS quality. Cerrone not only has more wins since then, but more top ten wins as well. Their best wins are relative in ranking(Michael Johnson was #5, Barboza was #6 and I believe Benson was around #3-4), but Cerrone has more of those top ten wins.

Diaz does not look to have improved his game substantially since then. He fights the same way he always has. Cerrone hasn't made a significant amount of changes either. However since they fought so long ago, we can only look at their recent bodies of work. If we start looking at hypothetical situations and holding forever onto head to head wins beyond reasonable lengths of time we may as well call Joe Duffy the uncrowned 145lb king.

We cannot use MMAth to determine rankings. That's just ridiculous.

Cerrone decisively beat Miller just as much as Diaz did. Cerrone also took Alvarez apart in a way we've never seen anyone else do. Nate fought Conor at a different weight class, technically, but even if we consider it a lightweight fight(which I'm fine with), Conor hasn't competed in the lightweight division in three years. He wouldn't even be ranked at 155.

I was using moose hall as a example of bad rankings. we have to use mmath to determine rankings because diaz is a better fighter than cerrone until proven otjerwise by a rematch. rankings dont make cerrone a better fighter than diaz because he's fought and beat more figjters since then. they make him higher ranked because
we're using mmath to determine rankins, when the purpose of said rankings is to imply whos the best fighter, which is proven untrue by the diaz's win over donald. which then makes the whole rankings system rather pointless most of the time

 

[Davemeddlehed]

I was using moose hall as a example of bad rankings. we have to use mmath to determine rankings because diaz is a better fighter than cerrone until proven otjerwise by a rematch. rankings dont make cerrone a better fighter than diaz because he's fought and beat more figjters since then. they make him higher ranked because
we're using mmath to determine rankins, when the purpose of said rankings is to imply whos the best fighter, which is proven untrue by the diaz's win over donald. which then makes the whole rankings system rather pointless most of the time

Ranking Hall over Mousasi isn't "bad rankings" when they just fought, and Mousasi lost. Now if 5 years from now someone ranks Hall over Mousasi JUST because Hall has a win over Mousasi, despite Mousasi having beaten twice the amount of top ten fighters since then, then it's a bad ranking.

Better is not a term I would use when ranking fighters. Better is relative, better is interpretive, and subjective in the worst possible way. Rankings are determined based on who does what. This way favoritism has no almost no place in the rankings, because each ranking can be justified beyond "preference".

If you've been ranking fighters based solely on mmath then I can see why we disagree here.

 

[Roop Holstry]

Emjay hasn't posted in this topic yet? That's more shocking than anything.

"Rankings don't matter"





-Kenny Florian-

 

[fatlipjesus]

Cerrone...

five YEARS ago

 

[fatlipjesus]

Please just give me a gif a pic of this damn near finish before Conor gassed I keep reading about but not one example of it? Because all I ever see is a lot of whiffing by Conor, and rolling away by Nate.

There isn't one, because Nate was nowhere close to finished in any of that fight. If cuts and bruises mattered then GSP would be the worst fighter in UFC history.

 

[Paynebringer]

There isn't one, because Nate was nowhere close to finished in any of that fight. If cuts and bruises mattered then GSP would be the worst fighter in UFC history.

True Dat! They right Conor was winning that 1st rd not because he as lighting Nate up but because he was pressing the action head hunting whiffing punches & kicks and being active until he gassed. That's what Connie's mean when they say "He was winning before he gassed"...

 

[Roads55]

Ranking Hall over Mousasi isn't "bad rankings" when they just fought, and Mousasi lost. Now if 5 years from now someone ranks Hall over Mousasi JUST because Hall has a win over Mousasi, despite Mousasi having beaten twice the amount of top ten fighters since then, then it's a bad ranking.

Better is not a term I would use when ranking fighters. Better is relative, better is interpretive, and subjective in the worst possible way. Rankings are determined based on who does what. This way favoritism has no almost no place in the rankings, because each ranking can be justified beyond "preference".

If you've been ranking fighters based solely on mmath then I can see why we disagree here.

your right ranking hall over mousasi isn't bad rankings, however ranking mousasi above hall IS. which is currently the case with the rankings. better is still what rankings are supposed to imply, however to get an accurate rankings everyone would have to fight each other in their current state which is obviously impossible. therefore to get as accurate rankings as they do now, mmath is used by everyone in a way to determine them. of course this is all relative and subjective but that's exactly my point...they are pointless and don't tell us nearly the whole story, especially when the ufc brings them out.
I'm not ranking fighters on mmath, im not ranking them at all! I'm saying that's how they work and as such are pointless. If you think rankings aren't supposed to show who's better what exactly is the point of them in your opinion? who even makes them anyway?

 

[Davemeddlehed]

your right ranking hall over mousasi isn't bad rankings, however ranking mousasi above hall IS. which is currently the case with the rankings. better is still what rankings are supposed to imply, however to get an accurate rankings everyone would have to fight each other in their current state which is obviously impossible. therefore to get as accurate rankings as they do now, mmath is used by everyone in a way to determine them. of course this is all relative and subjective but that's exactly my point...they are pointless and don't tell us nearly the whole story, especially when the ufc brings them out.
I'm not ranking fighters on mmath, im not ranking them at all! I'm saying that's how they work and as such are pointless. If you think rankings aren't supposed to show who's better what exactly is the point of them in your opinion? who even makes them anyway?

You're confusing MMAth with head to head results. If fighter A beats fighter B, and you rank fighter A higher, that's not MMAth. That's the result of one fighter beating another. MMAth is when you use fighter A beating fighter B, who beat fighter C to "prove" that fighter A is better than fighter C. And that isn't how rankings are done. Fighter B would be ranked ahead of fighter C(within reason, obviously if it had been 5 years since they fought and C had done more recently you would appropriately rank them).

So for instance: If Shogun moved down to middleweight, you wouldn't automatically rank him ahead of Lyoto Machida JUST because he beat Machida 4 years ago. You also don't rank Tito Ortiz ahead of Ryan Bader right now, even though Tito beat him a few years ago. More importantly, you wouldn't rank Antonio Rogerio Nogueira above Ryan Bader JUST because Rogerio beat Tito, who beat Bader.

The point of rankings is to create meaningful matchups. So we don't have guys like Jon Jones fighting the Brandon Vera's of the world forever. It brings structure to the game, gives meaning to the titles, and the fighters who challenge for them because they can say "I fought these other potential title contenders to get here" rather than just saying "I fought a bunch of guys and won, I deserve a title shot" when they potentially were fighting fringe top 30 guys for 2-3 years.

Without rankings, virtually all accomplishments in the sport, barring single night tournaments lose some of their meaning. The measure of great fighters is fighting and beating a high level of competition throughout their careers. Without rankings there's no way to measure which fighters qualify as a high level of competition.