Our own Michael Rome opined about the merits of ranking lists in mixed martial arts. As someone with an interest in logical ordering and figuring out an entity’s value, rankings have always been something that have fascinated me. I understand why others find them frustrating or imperfect, but I believe they are essential for combat sports. There are a few points I want to make.
1. Rankings are not a valuation of a group of fighters’ abilities; they provide a champion and a sequential list of challengers. In every discussion about rankings, I believe this axiom is most misunderstood. B.J. Penn may have been the most talented lightweight in the world when he defeated Jens Pulver in 2007. However, a victory over Pulver doesn’t amount enough credit to be placed on a top ten list. The ability to understand this concept is paramount to any discussion of fighter rankings.
2. Rankings provide a sense of accountability for promoters. Without legitimate sanctioning bodies, the major titles in MMA are handled in-house by promotions. As no promotion, specifically Zuffa, provides official rankings to the public, it’s important for third parties to fill in the gap. (Which is an interesting contrast to boxing where a magazine has become the de facto standard because of an oversaturation of sanctioning bodies.) For the most part, I believe Zuffa has done a quality job of finding credible challengers for their champions.
3. Rankings provide structure in a sport with no “off-season.” In stick-and-ball sports, rankings are a superfluous practice as a champion is crowned each season. Combat sports, however, don’t follow a rigid schedule. In this sense, rankings provide a valuable snapshot in time of a division’s hierarchy.
4. Rankings offer a blueprint for matchmaking and contendership. Without a sense of where a fighter stands in a division, there’s no frame of reference for the merits of a fight. Rankings provide a valuable context for the relevancy of a contest.
5. Rankings are fun. ‘Nuff said.