Posted by ncordless
In seeding the tourney, I am not really basing it on their recent won/loss record so much as who I think the best 8 fighters are. I think the 8 guys I listed would beat the others not listed. As far as a fighter losing their last two getting a title shot, the tournament would take care of that. If it's for the title, the two finalists will have won their last two fights against top competition. If it is for a title shot, they eventual title contender will have gone 3-0 against the best.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.
At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.
The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by ncordless
In seeding the tourney, I am not really basing it on their recent won/loss record so much as who I think the best 8 fighters are. I think the 8 guys I listed would beat the others not listed. As far as a fighter losing their last two getting a title shot, the tournament would take care of that. If it's for the title, the two finalists will have won their last two fights against top competition. If it is for a title shot, they eventual title contender will have gone 3-0 against the best.
Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.
At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.
The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.
At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.
The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.
But the Pirates managing to beat the Indians and Royals in order while the Red Sox drop to the Yankees and Phillies in order kind of makes a playoff analogy inaccurate if the level of competition is miles apart. You have to take into account their full body of work, not their last 2 games.
Dan Hardy just lost to GSP and Condit
Martin Kampmann just lost to Shields and Sanchez
Brian Foster just beat Forrest Petz and Matt Brown
I have Hardy or Kampmann over Foster any day in any WW tourney and thats 0-2 versus 2-0. In the same way you wouldn't say the Pirates are better than the Red Sox in the above analogy.
Posted by ncordless
I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.
Posted by Kpro
Exactly. "Full body of work".
EDIT: I'd be fine as well with them fighting for an alternate but I think even more-so than that, the winner of Hardy/Rumble becomes number 8 with Kampmann at 9.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by ncordless
I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.
But they won in their division, which is PRECISELY what Kampmann hasn't done.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Kpro
Exactly. "Full body of work".
EDIT: I'd be fine as well with them fighting for an alternate but I think even more-so than that, the winner of Hardy/Rumble becomes number 8 with Kampmann at 9.
Full body also includes the home stretch. Kampmann not only lost his "playoff eliminator" against Shields, he lost to a guy who's only 1-1 since returning to WW.
Posted by ncordless
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by ncordless
I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.
But they won in their division, which is PRECISELY what Kampmann hasn't done.
But there is no season (or did Foster getting kneebarred in the first by Lytle happen last season), nor are there any divisions beyond the welterweight division, which no one has won besides GSP.
Posted by Kpro
In baseball, is a 12-1 loss the same to you as a 7-6 13th inning loss?
There's no wrong answer; in fact my mantra has always been a loss is a loss when I compete in sports. But baseball results are more clear cut.
Do you really feel it doesn't matter how the fight ends when ranking Welterweight contenders? Can you name 10 more deserving UFC WW's skill-wise?
Posted by Pookie
Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Pookie
Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.
Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
I can't name 10 more deserving welterweights, but I also said that I don't feel an 8 man tournament is necessary for precisely this reason.
I advocate a 6 man tournament.
Posted by Pookie
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Pookie
Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.
Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.
Not even, Thiago showed he was a top fighter in his fights against Fitch and Koscheck two top fives in the tournament.
Kampmann beat Thiago and Condit. And Lost controversially to Diego and Shields. Personally i'd rank him in the top 5, as in my eyes hes 4-0 against the talent pool in the tournament and the fighters in the reserves.
Posted by Kpro
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
I can't name 10 more deserving welterweights, but I also said that I don't feel an 8 man tournament is necessary for precisely this reason.
I advocate a 6 man tournament.
Posted by Kpro 36 posts ago:
----->I'd say for a 4 man tourney:
Fitch vs. Penn
Shields vs. Koscheck
with Condit vs. Alves as an alternate bout.<<<<<
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Pookie
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by Pookie
Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.
Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.
Not even, Thiago showed he was a top fighter in his fights against Fitch and Koscheck two top fives in the tournament.
Kampmann beat Thiago and Condit. And Lost controversially to Diego and Shields. Personally i'd rank him in the top 5, as in my eyes hes 4-0 against the talent pool in the tournament and the fighters in the reserves.
Thanks for making a case for the subjective nature of "top 10."
Allow me to put this in a different way. I'll phrase it two different ways.
Law
You convict a person based on the evidence, not the possibility of what they WILL do in the future. As a juror you're required to look at the facts. In this case, whether you agree with the judges or not, the facts ARE that Kampmann has two consecutive losses.
Thiago beat Koscheck but lost a UNANIMOUS decision to Fitch. Thiago is 1-3 against the possible names mentioned in this tournament.
Fact.
Kampmann is 2-2 against possible names mentioned for this tournament with one of this wins coming against someone who is 1-3 and the other win coming against someone who is 0-1 against names mentioned for this tournament.
Fact.
Kampmann's 2 wins have come against opponents who are a combined 1-4 against these people. Hardly a world beater.
Positive Reinforcement
You reward people based on actions not on the possibility of actions.
The majority of parents do not purchase video games for their children based on the POSSIBILITY of them doing certain chores. They're purchased after the chores are done.
Posted by ncordless
The worst way to corrupt the law is to consider some facts and not others.
BJ Penn is 2-3-1 at WW with his only wins coming against Matt Hughes
Diego Sanchez is 1-3 against names mentioned
Brian Foster has no wins against names mentioned
Koschek's only win against names mentioned are Diego who is 1-3 against names mentioned
Anthony Johnson is 0-1 against anyone mentioned.
I could go on, but I am sure you catch the drift. Looking only at Kampmann's record, without comparing to those who would go in his place isn't a fair assessment.
I chose 8 because I thought the field looked good. I can see the arguments for a smaller field (although a 6-man tourney is kind of bunk because of the bye rounds), but once if the question is who gets the last couple spots, it can be nothing except subjective because there is no way to objectively say that one fighter's record is more deserving than the other without going to something arbitrary like "wins in a row" or something that doesn't take into account the quality of oppposition. If we are going by wins in a row, then the top seeds are Kim and Story, but that's laughable. All fights are put together with through a subjective analysis.
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by ncordless
The worst way to corrupt the law is to consider some facts and not others.
BJ Penn is 2-3-1 at WW with his only wins coming against Matt Hughes
Diego Sanchez is 1-3 against names mentioned
Brian Foster has no wins against names mentioned
Koschek's only win against names mentioned are Diego who is 1-3 against names mentioned
Anthony Johnson is 0-1 against anyone mentioned.
I could go on, but I am sure you catch the drift. Looking only at Kampmann's record, without comparing to those who would go in his place isn't a fair assessment.
I chose 8 because I thought the field looked good. I can see the arguments for a smaller field (although a 6-man tourney is kind of bunk because of the bye rounds), but once if the question is who gets the last couple spots, it can be nothing except subjective because there is no way to objectively say that one fighter's record is more deserving than the other without going to something arbitrary like "wins in a row" or something that doesn't take into account the quality of oppposition. If we are going by wins in a row, then the top seeds are Kim and Story, but that's laughable. All fights are put together with through a subjective analysis.
I agree with everything you said before "I chose...", but those fighters aren't entering on a two fight losing streak.
For the record, i also agree with everything after as well.
Posted by ncordless
So 0-2 is the cut-off line? Why? What about 1-2, 0-1, or 2-1 with a loss to Ebersole, or 3-0 with wins over Matt Brown, Goulet, and Baroni?
If they didn't call it a tournament, and Kampann's next three fights were Fitch, Penn, and Shields and he won them all, would he not be deserving of a title shot subject to what other fighters have done in that time? If so, then why does calling it a tournament instead of just making the matches that way matter?
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by ncordless
So 0-2 is the cut-off line? Why? What about 1-2, 0-1, or 2-1 with a loss to Ebersole, or 3-0 with wins over Matt Brown, Goulet, and Baroni?
If they didn't call it a tournament, and Kampann's next three fights were Fitch, Penn, and Shields and he won them all, would he not be deserving of a title shot subject to what other fighters have done in that time? If so, then why does calling it a tournament instead of just making the matches that way matter?
YOU introduced the term "tournament."
Kampmann doesn't deserve a fight against Fitch, Penn, OR Shields right now. He's rocking a two fight losing streak. Keep in mind, I'm saying this about a fighter I LOVE.
Assuming your argument, he wouldn't get a fight against either of those guys right now. He would need to work his way up to them.
Either way you hack it; tournament or straight fights, Kampmann doesn't deserve any of the aforementioned names because he's lost two in a row.
I don't see anyone making this same case for Machida. Would you give him Jones or Rashad at this point?
Posted by Hendo67
Posted by State_Champ
Thoughts:
I hope GSP doesn't vacate and instead rules the WW as long as he can.
I hope he does, i don't want to see him flutter between 185/170 and fight once a year.
I'd rather GSP vacate, leaving the WW division the best in the world, than fight the same cycle of 3 fighters over and over and over again.
Posted by ncordless
In the past week, instead of the clarity that Penn/Fitch, Kampmann/Sanchez, and the ill-fated Condit/Lytle was supposed to instill in the division, we have a jumbled mess. Add to that the rumors of GSP moving up to 185lb. if he wins against Shields, and there seems to be a cluster@#$% at WW.
Diego v Fitch or Penn seems the most likely title eliminator/championship match at this point. But Diego has fought both of them and lost within the last few years, so it seems like they would be a little counterproductive. Maybe a Diego/Condit fight is in order? That's a possibility. But are Diego and Condit really the best, most deserving guys out there right now?
If GSP wins and then moves up temporarily or permanently, I'd love to see them set up a "tourney" with Diego, Kampmann, Fitch, BJ, Condit, Alves, Koschek, and Shields. The schedules should work, and it would be one of if not the best tourney fields. They wouldn't even have to call it a tourney, just match them up in a way that it is.
However, I doubt that happens. But I really have no idea what will!
Give me some thoughts and predictions on the WW division.