MMA Playground top 10 rankings

I'm astounded to see Randy ranked as #3... wtf. He's had one fight at HW in 5 years and now he's above Mirko and Barnett?

Can't really argue with the rankings here because they're from popular vote... and people with better betting records have more say than others... it's all in good fun.

I agree, that's why I have him at #10. And that might be a stretch until he has some more fights.

Since this is by popular vote, I think too many people rank their favorites instead of on skill, records and quality of opponents.

I go by what a fighter is doing currently, not all time. If there was an all time option it'd look a lot different than what my current rankings look like.

I just can't wrap my head around how someone who beats someone shouldn't be put over that person, like Gonzaga over CroCop or Serra over GSP. They beat them, all the great past performances in the world aren't going to compare to what just happened.

---

Posted by Ydoc

I go by what a fighter is doing currently, not all time. If there was an all time option it'd look a lot different than what my current rankings look like.

I just can't wrap my head around how someone who beats someone shouldn't be put over that person, like Gonzaga over CroCop or Serra over GSP. They beat them, all the great past performances in the world aren't going to compare to what just happened.

---

You are exactly right doc. Pound for Pound rankings are different in ranking it. But in terms of division rankings it is a what have you done for me lately type of world.

10 game fight series between GSP and Matt Serra.

Who wins more fights?

That is who you rank higer.

If the Devil Rays sweep the Red Sox are they are a better team?

There is a lot of variance in all sports including MMA.

1 fight doesn't prove who is better.

---

Posted by Chris_Rendleman

I'm astounded to see Randy ranked as #3... wtf. He's had one fight at HW in 5 years and now he's above Mirko and Barnett?

---

I have him high up because i see his skill being better than most despite his current record. Jake Shields hasn't fought any big names, but a lot of people see his skill in the fights and rate him top ten.

---

Posted by ProfessorChaos

10 game fight series between GSP and Matt Serra.

Who wins more fights?

That is who you rank higer.

If the Devil Rays sweep the Red Sox are they are a better team?

There is a lot of variance in all sports including MMA.

1 fight doesn't prove who is better.

---

It did for Serra, didn't it

No if they had a rematch it would be a blood bath with GSP winning by KO in round one. Serra shoulden't even have gotten that shot.

---

Posted by JunCTion

---

Posted by ProfessorChaos

10 game fight series between GSP and Matt Serra.

Who wins more fights?

That is who you rank higer.

If the Devil Rays sweep the Red Sox are they are a better team?

There is a lot of variance in all sports including MMA.

1 fight doesn't prove who is better.

---

It did for Serra, didn't it

---

That's pretty subjective, and I think that most people would answer "no" as a matter of fact (including myself). Winning one fight over an opponent does not _necessarily_ indicate that you are the more skilled fighter. There can be multiple reasons for this, main ones being:

1) puncher's chance rule: in a sport as fast paced and dynamic as this, it's difficult for even a more skilled opponent not to make a mistake now and again, and eventually an inferior fighter is going to capitalize on the mistake of a better all-around fighter. We can look at these situations objectively to decide which is which, but I think most people agree that serra vs GSP is an example of this. He made a mistake, got rocked, and Serra didn't give him an opportunity to recouperate. Good for Matt, he's a skilled fighter, but I think that most people agree that 95 times out of 100 georges wins.

2) styles make fights: fighter A may beat fighter B who in turn beat fighter C who also happens to have beaten fighter A.... So how do you rank these fighters based on a linear system which takes into account nothing but the fact that one fighter beat another? You can't. It just doesn't work that way, which is really the most compelling argument against rating one fighter above another immediately after a loss imo.

I think it makes a lot more sense to assess the overall skillset of each fighter, and examine not only who the person has beaten, but how he has beaten them, and how style matchups play into the equation. I just don't think it's as simple as putting the guy who won above the guy who lost. (which is why I have failed to update my rankings in a very long time... it's just too much of a process)

---

Posted by cmill21

No if they had a rematch it would be a blood bath with GSP winning by KO in round one. Serra shoulden't even have gotten that shot.

---

---

Posted by ProfessorChaos
If the Devil Rays sweep the Red Sox are they are a better team?

---

Yup, at that moment in time they'd be the better team. But losing in Baseball isn't as big as it is in MMA, you don't have an average of 3 to 5 games a season in Baseball for one team to play. Not sure who'd win a best of 10, all I know is Serra has a 1-0 lead.

Man I hate the way "fluke" has been used to describe that bout. It has been used so many times in the Serra/GSP fight that you'd think Matt was trying to wipe some mustard off George's face and stunned him by accident.

Who's a better fighter? GSP. Who was the better fighter on that night? Serra. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me, it's a fact and if you know mma you know i'm right.

---

Posted by cmill21

Who's a better fighter? GSP. Who was the better fighter on that night? Serra. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me, it's a fact and if you know mma you know i'm right.

---

MMA? What's that?