Rankings, Rankings, Rankings

Rankings. You either love them or hate them. I happen to like them very much. Although it gets to be a bit tedious during months with a ton of events, compiling our rankings is a lot of fun to be honest.

The best set of rankings out there at the moment would have to be the USAToday/SBNation compliation in my opinion. The guys over at Bloody Elbow have done a great job putting them together and I’m honored that we were chosen to be one of the outlets selected to contribute to the overall product.

I received an interesting email this morning from Pramit Mohapatra over at FightTicker.com. He feels that he has put together a superior set of rankings compared to BE. Instead of taking 25 websites and using their take via an AP poll style with percentages, Pramit and company are using a combination of “expert, fan, and computer” rankings via an exclusive number of outlets.

It’s a fun way to do things. I’ll disagree with him in regards to FT’s “Super Rankings” being better than BE’s effort, but it’s a good start. My thing is that the more sources that are used (the sources obviously have to be solid), the more accurate the final outcome will be. MMA Payout has the idea in a way, but Robert Joyner is calling for a more “credible” panel of contributors.

One major flaw that I see is that too much reliance is put on WAMMA and FightMatrix due to the small number of sources. FightMatrix is a decent system, but relies too much on “what have you done for me lately” points rather than an overall take on things. WAMMA’s rankings put forth visible bias because of their inability to get Zuffa to cooperate with them. Also, I appreciate their contributions to the sport, but like I’ve said before, anything even remotely related to the way boxing does things shouldn’t be anywhere near MMA. Period.

Share:

• 
• 
• 
• 

The trackback URL for this entry is:

Trackbacks:

Comments:

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Back to main