UFC Needs to evolve to a RANKING system.

[johnsq316]

Yes casuals need the facade of a paper champ. I need the belt to be defended 3 times a year to even care.

If you need a belt (which must be defended 3 times a year) to "even care" you're even more casual than the fans you're deriding.

If two great fighters step into the cage for a fight I couldn't possibly care less if there's a piece of leather and metal on the line; I want to see the fight.

The "belt" that Jon Jones wears has little more meaning than the one they handed to Ronda Rousey at a press conference. Jon Jones is the best LHW because of who he's beaten, whether he has a belt or not.

When Jones or GSP face Anderson Silva there may or may not be a belt on the line - does your interest in the fight change either way based on it being a "title fight?"

 

[wordspeaker]

The only ranking systems that should exist for mma should be on an elo basis.

 

[kflo]

The only ranking systems that should exist for mma should be on an elo basis.

Which has Fedor #1. Today.

 

[Niten Ichi Ryu]

You are right. It's also based on injuries, scheduling, contract negotiations and promotional power. Yeah, it's not always as clear cut as it would seem.
The fact remains, MOST of the time, fans get to see relevant fights AND the fights they want to see. These do not always coincide, but mostly they do.

I'd say that's true until you get to the championship level, and into the top 3. Then it's who can headline a card and bring in a good buyrate.

 

[r-harper-1]

just keep on throwing tough guys together that havent fought yet and the cream will rise to the top

 

[honzo]

Yea why would the UFC have a ranking system?
Then they have no leg to stand on with their bs match making title shots (although they barely have a leg to stand on at the moment)