Sherdogs Latest P4P Rankings Via ESPN

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Sherdogs Latest P4P Rankings Via ESPN
Next Page »
BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 8:46:42PM

For 7½ years, Fedor Emelianenko was a fixture in the rarefied air of pound-for-pound lists. Not anymore. Emelianenko's shocking June 26 loss to Fabricio Werdum radically resculpted the face of the heavyweight division and the pound-for-pound list.


Link

This is easily the most curious list I've seen in a while. I'm sure you could make a case for a couple guys, but I'd have some names on there that aren't.
theruler_
7/1/10 9:25:56PM
the top of the list looks okay to me. not sure about penn, fitch and possibly few others being on there with fedor missing. there are so many different ways of measuring p4p though, so who knows what the criteria is.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 9:28:13PM
I'm questioning Shields...to be honest.
gartface
7/1/10 9:42:04PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm questioning Shields...to be honest.


Ummm Fitch higher than Shogun?
Jackelope
7/1/10 9:42:44PM
So.... let me get this straight....

A guy who has a better record than every fighter on that list loses once and all of the sudden he's out of the top 10?

There's not a single fighter on that list that would have been able to get out of Werdum's triangle IMO. I have no problem with dropping Fedor's ranking or knocking on him a little bit for the loss, but this is a straight up insult. It just comes off as completely unprofessional and biased. I can't respect it. Especially with Shields on that list. I mean... what are you going to say to back up the claim that Fedor doesn't deserve a spot? He's fought nothing but cans? HELLOOOOOO... Jake Shields has a record built on cans and only with his win over Dan Henderson does he have the slightest claim at top 5 in welterweight or MW. Let alone p4p. Such a joke.
emfleek
7/1/10 9:47:10PM
I'd expect nothing less from Sherdog.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 9:48:10PM
I had to do a double take when I read this list. I was like....uhhhh....okay....
I was pissed they didn't list the author. Jake Shields above Machida and Evans is a complete f*cking joke. Either one of those fighters would decimate Shields.
Jackelope
7/1/10 9:57:01PM
Also- I just want to say that I understand that by their very nature p4p lists are completely arbitrary and totally unnecessary, but this is still like a giant slap in the face to a number of fighters.

I mean... I take some measure of pride in the fact that I don't necessarily believe in p4p. Even if I am to enter into a debate of p4p I think I can be a reasonable enough person to subject the criteria for a list to some kind of set of irrefutable facts, though. This is just completely asinine and horrible journalism IMO. The fact that ESPN, a leader in the sports journalism world, would produce this list is just a testament to how bad MMA journalism truly is. This is just straight disgusting and IMO Sherdog, ESPN, and anybody who lends any kind of credibility to this list should be ashamed of themselves.
theruler_
7/1/10 10:03:33PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm questioning Shields...to be honest.



i would probably have him there somewhere after the hendo win. henderson was probably ranked #2 at the time and shields has not lost since 2004. he's kinda in a similar boat to anderson silva bar quality of opposition. until they fight i'd keep both on the list. also successful at 170 and 185.

i just don't get how penn loses 4 out of 10 and is still so high. sure he fought at 170lb 3 times, but having lost on each occasion i don't see how that would be of value in a p4p list.

BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 10:10:51PM

Posted by Jackelope

Also- I just want to say that I understand that by their very nature p4p lists are completely arbitrary and totally unnecessary, but this is still like a giant slap in the face to a number of fighters.

I mean... I take some measure of pride in the fact that I don't necessarily believe in p4p. Even if I am to enter into a debate of p4p I think I can be a reasonable enough person to subject the criteria for a list to some kind of set of irrefutable facts, though. This is just completely asinine and horrible journalism IMO. The fact that ESPN, a leader in the sports journalism world, would produce this list is just a testament to how bad MMA journalism truly is. This is just straight disgusting and IMO Sherdog, ESPN, and anybody who lends any kind of credibility to this list should be ashamed of themselves.



To be honest, I think ESPN is just getting their feet wet with MMA and relies on Sherdog (the most easily recognized name) for their MMA columns. I have a feeling that as soon as they start launching off with MMA productions they won't rely on these people any longer.
Jackelope
7/1/10 10:17:44PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Jackelope

Also- I just want to say that I understand that by their very nature p4p lists are completely arbitrary and totally unnecessary, but this is still like a giant slap in the face to a number of fighters.

I mean... I take some measure of pride in the fact that I don't necessarily believe in p4p. Even if I am to enter into a debate of p4p I think I can be a reasonable enough person to subject the criteria for a list to some kind of set of irrefutable facts, though. This is just completely asinine and horrible journalism IMO. The fact that ESPN, a leader in the sports journalism world, would produce this list is just a testament to how bad MMA journalism truly is. This is just straight disgusting and IMO Sherdog, ESPN, and anybody who lends any kind of credibility to this list should be ashamed of themselves.



To be honest, I think ESPN is just getting their feet wet with MMA and relies on Sherdog (the most easily recognized name) for their MMA columns. I have a feeling that as soon as they start launching off with MMA productions they won't rely on these people any longer.



Yeah, but it still reeks of "Rolling Stone's Top 100 {Insert Subject Here}"
BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 10:29:40PM

Posted by Jackelope

Yeah, but it still reeks of "Rolling Stone's Top 100 {Insert Subject Here}"



I'd say this one reeks more than Rolling Stone's lists. I do hope that ESPN's analysis of MMA catches up with their analysis of other sports. Relying on Sherdog isn't something they need to be doing as large as they are.
BustedKnuckle
7/1/10 10:40:45PM
Damn one loss got the russian expelled from the list. Hell BJ just lost is sitting at # 5. I am not a big Fedor nuthugger. But He is stil on the list for sure!
BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 10:46:28PM
Many people feel that BJ won that fight, so that's not a great comparison. Machida would have been a better comparison. He definitively lost, as did Fedor, however, they both lost to easily top 10 if not top 5 guys in their respective divisions.
postman
7/1/10 10:53:21PM
I wonder to myself we head Dana say that the Rankings are for sale Sherdog no longer has press creds to UFC. Dana wants Fedor but now he willl low ball. aaaahhhhh there are no back door conspericys in MMA!
BlueSkiesBurn
7/1/10 11:06:45PM
All I'm going to say is there's no way Jake Shields could beat Machida or Evans on his best day with Greg Jackson planning for him. Absurd.
jlock003
7/1/10 11:12:23PM
I like the top 3 personally but I'm confused as to how Machide gets put to sleep by Shogun, and IMO beaten in the last Shogun fight and still makes the list but Fedor (who I'm not a big fan of but respect) loses one fight to Werdum b/c he gets caught and he gets bumped all the way out.
hate4thestate
7/1/10 11:37:01PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm questioning Shields...to be honest.



why? hendo was on the P4P list before they fought. and shieilds has beaten many people that are or should be on most top ten weight class lists. and he hasnt lost in forever. shields makes absolute sense.

but what does bother me is fedor is gone. from number 1 to non existant. how the **** does that work?> penn and machida both coming off losses stay on. and imo edgar was more of an underdog then werdum. espn major major fail.
theruler_
7/1/10 11:59:05PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

All I'm going to say is there's no way Jake Shields could beat Machida or Evans on his best day with Greg Jackson planning for him. Absurd.



shields is 170 or 185
BlueSkiesBurn
7/2/10 12:03:23AM

Posted by hate4thestate why? hendo was on the P4P list before they fought. and shieilds has beaten many people that are or should be on most top ten weight class lists. and he hasnt lost in forever. shields makes absolute sense.

but what does bother me is fedor is gone. from number 1 to non existant. how the **** does that work?> penn and machida both coming off losses stay on. and imo edgar was more of an underdog then werdum. espn major major fail.



It's Sherdog's fail, ESPN just defers to Sherdog's rankings.

Shields does not belong on this list. Certainly not above Machida and Evans. The whole premise behind the P4P list is that, in an imaginary scenario where the fight would be on an equal playing field, one fighter could beat the other. Shields could not beat either of those two. Additionally, Please tell me how beating these people makes you a P4P great.

1. Dan Henderson (I'll concede this)
2. Mayhem Miller (Many people thought he lost this fight)
3. Robbie Lawler (He's not even fighting for WEC anymore)
4. Paul Daley (Decent win)
5. Nick Thompson (His best win was against Alvarez)
6. Mike Pyle (Not doing anything for me in the P4P rankings)
7. Renato Verissimo (No)
8. Ido Pariente (can)
9. Ray Steinbeiss (can)
10. Steve Berger (can)
11. Carlos Condit (good now, relative can then)
12. Yushin Okami (okay win, but would mean more now)
13. Dave Menne (decent name but was on the decline at the time)
14. Toby Imada (doesn't have a win over a top name)

10 of his last 14 wins were against cans or people with a good win or two. Sh*t, Henderson is 39. If your best win is against a 39 year old fighter, you're not in the P4P top ten.
bjj1605
7/2/10 12:08:25AM
this is pretty dumb. Rashad shouldn't be on there. Shields should be lower. Fedor should still be on there pretty high.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/2/10 12:08:37AM

Posted by theruler_


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

All I'm going to say is there's no way Jake Shields could beat Machida or Evans on his best day with Greg Jackson planning for him. Absurd.



shields is 170 or 185



The whole P4P argument is that, were the able to fight at an even weight with all their skills and such intact, the higher ranked fighter would win. That's why it's P4P. Simply put, in an imaginary world, if Shields and Machida met at any weight but were able to keep their skill, conditioning, cardio, etc..(all the stuff you'd lose if you were fighting at an unnatural weight), Shields would beat Machida and Evans according to these rankings.

tcunningham
7/2/10 12:15:10AM
ive never been impressed with shields. hes good but i would go as far to say he would have some serious problems with sonnen or marquart. some times i think people get put on these lists because their champs but without taking into consideration that not all organizations are equal. im ok with fedor not being on there. i would have put overeem in front of fedor anyway, who cares about records its about the fighters current status. fedors been over hyped for too long.
Jackelope
7/2/10 12:22:25AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by hate4thestate why? hendo was on the P4P list before they fought. and shieilds has beaten many people that are or should be on most top ten weight class lists. and he hasnt lost in forever. shields makes absolute sense.

but what does bother me is fedor is gone. from number 1 to non existant. how the **** does that work?> penn and machida both coming off losses stay on. and imo edgar was more of an underdog then werdum. espn major major fail.



It's Sherdog's fail, ESPN just defers to Sherdog's rankings.




You seem to be covering for ESPN for some reason. They attached their name to the list, so it's just as much their fail as it is Sherdog's. That's like saying if your employee does something for your company that you don't like which you personally supervised and had the power to change but did not, he's not representing your company. It's a complete lack of accountability for what the people under your umbrella do. It's poor business at best.

On top of that, I don't buy the whole "ESPN doesn't know any better" argument. This isn't the dark ages anymore. A company with as much clout, money, and connections as ESPN has no excuse.
Bloodhound
7/2/10 12:29:47AM
Rashad Evans #10???? you gotta be kidding
theruler_
7/2/10 12:35:09AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by theruler_


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

All I'm going to say is there's no way Jake Shields could beat Machida or Evans on his best day with Greg Jackson planning for him. Absurd.



shields is 170 or 185



The whole P4P argument is that, were the able to fight at an even weight with all their skills and such intact, the higher ranked fighter would win. That's why it's P4P. Simply put, in an imaginary world, if Shields and Machida met at any weight but were able to keep their skill, conditioning, cardio, etc..(all the stuff you'd lose if you were fighting at an unnatural weight), Shields would beat Machida and Evans according to these rankings.




yes p4p rankings are based on an imaginary scenario where fighters are on a level playing field. which is exactly why you can't compare them directly as you did initially.
the reality is that neither you or i know who would win if shields stood 6 foot 2 and cut from 220 to 205. so.... we have to look at the facts alone. such as how dominant they have been within their given weight class; quality of opposition; have they ventured successfully into other weight classes etc.
jake shields has been more dominant within his weight class(es) than rashad or machida and has not suffered a defeat like both guys. he has successfully ventured into a different weight class and, while his quality of opposition may be slightly lower than those two guys, he has defeated dan henderson who has recently only been bested by the #1 p4p. not to mention condit, lawler, daley, okami who all are, or have been, highly ranked and several other decent quality opponents.
i can't see any way shields can be lower than machida or rashad until he loses.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/2/10 12:58:55AM

Posted by Jackelope
You seem to be covering for ESPN for some reason. They attached their name to the list, so it's just as much their fail as it is Sherdog's. That's like saying if your employee does something for your company that you don't like which you personally supervised and had the power to change but did not, he's not representing your company. It's a complete lack of accountability for what the people under your umbrella do. It's poor business at best.

On top of that, I don't buy the whole "ESPN doesn't know any better" argument. This isn't the dark ages anymore. A company with as much clout, money, and connections as ESPN has no excuse.



ESPN as a company has to, at this point, defer to people who have "experience" within the realm of MMA. Sherdog is an affiliate of ESPN. They are not ESPN. You can distance yourself from an affiliate. People/companies do it all the time. There are several reasons I am pardoning ESPN slightly for this article.

1. Per your own admission, you believe P4P rankings are arbitrary, unnecessary, and you don't believe in them. P4P rankings, to me, is an opinion piece. It's impossible to deny someone's opinion. In this particular case, it's impossible to settle this argument period. Jose Aldo cannot fight Lyoto Machida. Were Lesnar on this list, he couldn't fight Lesnar either. It's an opinion, even if I, and you, think it's completely ludicrous, someone out there is, invariably, going to find a reason to say that one of these fighters belongs on this list. Hate4thestate believes that Shields belongs on this list. That's his opinion, just because I think otherwise, doesn't mean I'm right and he's wrong. We're just going to debate over it.

2. ESPN, as a network, is just getting into the game of MMA. Despite the fact that they have all of the clout, money, and connections, it's not something they've had interest in covering because it's not as worldly popular as the other sports they cover. Every market is different, and ESPN caters to those markets. They cover surfing in ESPN Australia, Rugby, etc..in Europe. MMA isn't as big as the four major sports here in the U.S.

3. Their top analysts are usually Hall of Fame players/voters, ex-champions, and soon to be HOF'ers. I think that if MMA Live takes off and they continue to do weigh-ins, ESPN will assemble a team of analysts that would compile a better list than this. They just need to develop a division of their network solely dedicated to the sport and that has knowledgeable analysts/fighters on hand to lend an opinion. As it stands, the only real ESPN employee that covers MMA semi-regularly is Tony Reali. That's pretty much a wash because the consultants he's asking to debate on it know jack and sh*t about the sport.


I'm not trying to be condescending in the slightest to you, Jackelope. ESPN is more than a hobby of mine. I pretty much break down everything they report, who's reporting it, what that individual's credentials are, etc...sports is a passion of mine, and ESPN is where I get the majority of my sports information, so I like to know the inner-workings of the company that's providing me with stats and facts I'm going to repeat to other people so I don't sound like a jackass.

You once said, something like, you'd hope I'd be smart enough to gather all of the facts on something before entering into a debate. ESPN is something I have gathered countless facts on. Inner workings, business practices, consultants, etc...Sherdog is a relative joke to me and I believe, as ESPN becomes more vested in the sport of MMA, that they will distance themselves from Sherdog, or buy them out and make Sherdog as respectable as the rest of their business.
godofdixie
7/2/10 1:27:34AM
i think my p4p rankings are better
Jackelope
7/2/10 1:53:20AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

ESPN as a company has to, at this point, defer to people who have "experience" within the realm of MMA. Sherdog is an affiliate of ESPN. They are not ESPN. You can distance yourself from an affiliate. People/companies do it all the time. There are several reasons I am pardoning ESPN slightly for this article.

1. Per your own admission, you believe P4P rankings are arbitrary, unnecessary, and you don't believe in them. P4P rankings, to me, is an opinion piece. It's impossible to deny someone's opinion. In this particular case, it's impossible to settle this argument period. Jose Aldo cannot fight Lyoto Machida. Were Lesnar on this list, he couldn't fight Lesnar either. It's an opinion, even if I, and you, think it's completely ludicrous, someone out there is, invariably, going to find a reason to say that one of these fighters belongs on this list. Hate4thestate believes that Shields belongs on this list. That's his opinion, just because I think otherwise, doesn't mean I'm right and he's wrong. We're just going to debate over it.

2. ESPN, as a network, is just getting into the game of MMA. Despite the fact that they have all of the clout, money, and connections, it's not something they've had interest in covering because it's not as worldly popular as the other sports they cover. Every market is different, and ESPN caters to those markets. They cover surfing in ESPN Australia, Rugby, etc..in Europe. MMA isn't as big as the four major sports here in the U.S.

3. Their top analysts are usually Hall of Fame players/voters, ex-champions, and soon to be HOF'ers. I think that if MMA Live takes off and they continue to do weigh-ins, ESPN will assemble a team of analysts that would compile a better list than this. They just need to develop a division of their network solely dedicated to the sport and that has knowledgeable analysts/fighters on hand to lend an opinion. As it stands, the only real ESPN employee that covers MMA semi-regularly is Tony Reali. That's pretty much a wash because the consultants he's asking to debate on it know jack and sh*t about the sport.


I'm not trying to be condescending in the slightest to you, Jackelope. ESPN is more than a hobby of mine. I pretty much break down everything they report, who's reporting it, what that individual's credentials are, etc...sports is a passion of mine, and ESPN is where I get the majority of my sports information, so I like to know the inner-workings of the company that's providing me with stats and facts I'm going to repeat to other people so I don't sound like a jackass.

You once said, something like, you'd hope I'd be smart enough to gather all of the facts on something before entering into a debate. ESPN is something I have gathered countless facts on. Inner workings, business practices, consultants, etc...Sherdog is a relative joke to me and I believe, as ESPN becomes more vested in the sport of MMA, that they will distance themselves from Sherdog, or buy them out and make Sherdog as respectable as the rest of their business.



All that is fine and dandy, and I definitely see where you're coming from. (Even as much as I don't understand your logic since I don't think it addresses the issue of accountability very well) You know ESPN has employees who could do a better opinion piece than this, though. I don't think you'll disagree with that. Kenflo, Pat Miletich, or hell even Jim Rome could compile a better list IMO. Plus, doesn't Rashad Evans co-host sometimes? I'm sure he could compile a much better list, too.

Personally I'm a big believer in accountability. The top of the page says ESPN, and the URL says espn. So to me it doesn't matter whether it says "Sherdog Affiliate" below that or not. All I read is ESPN and then an article which lacks credibility and forces me to call into question the knowledge of the supposed professional who wrote it. That probably sounds elitist as hell of me, but so be it. If I'm the president of ESPN I ask people who know something (of which there are plenty out there) and based on their responses I make a decision on whether or not to ever let this writer put something out there with my name on it again. It all just sounds like a huge blame game you're playing to me. Like BP trying to blame halliburton's concrete work for the oil spill. A pile of doodoo may roll down hill, but there had to be a point when it started its ascent up high.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/2/10 2:13:31AM

Posted by Jackelope

All that is fine and dandy, and I definitely see where you're coming from. (Even as much as I don't understand your logic since I don't think it addresses the issue of accountability very well) You know ESPN has employees who could do a better opinion piece than this, though. I don't think you'll disagree with that. Kenflo, Pat Miletich, or hell even Jim Rome could compile a better list IMO. Plus, doesn't Rashad Evans co-host sometimes? I'm sure he could compile a much better list, too.

Personally I'm a big believer in accountability. The top of the page says ESPN, and the URL says espn. So to me it doesn't matter whether it says "Sherdog Affiliate" below that or not. All I read is ESPN and then an article which lacks credibility and forces me to call into question the knowledge of the supposed professional who wrote it. That probably sounds elitist as hell of me, but so be it. If I'm the president of ESPN I ask people who know something (of which there are plenty out there) and based on their responses I make a decision on whether or not to ever let this writer put something out there with my name on it again. It all just sounds like a huge blame game you're playing to me. Like BP trying to blame halliburton's concrete work for the oil spill. A pile of doodoo may roll down hill, but there had to be a point when it started its ascent up high.



I think we are getting at the same thing here. I do believe that as MMA Live becomes more and more relevant on ESPN, I DO believe KFlo, Pat, or Evans could write these lists. However, I wouldn't really let KFlo or Evans contribute to this list because they're still active fighters. Personal bias is a b*tch.

The guy who wrote the article for Sherdog didn't even include his/her name on it, which pisses me off all over the place. I get that ESPN has their name attached to it. I'm not COMPLETELY excusing the piece. I'm just saying that, given time, ESPN won't be allowing things like this to happen, and they will be more professional in their approach to MMA coverage.

Sherdog has been sh*t on for some time now (they're banned from UFC, or were). This is the first time we've had beef with ESPN. That's why I am excusing ESPN a little. This isn't Sherdog's first f*ck up, it is ESPN's. I'll allow for a few mistakes from the World Wide Leader in Sports until they have the proper people covering these events and aren't relying on Sherdog.

Which, as you said, with Pat Miletich, Jim Rome, MMA Live staff, it's bound to be coming soon. Once ESPN is putting out their own pieces on MMA, I'll be highly critical of them. Right now, it's Sherdog using ESPN and vice versa, to bring MMA coverage to ESPN. ESPN is taking the steps to get their own team of analysts and professionals in place. Pat Miletich was a great acquisition. I think it only continues to grow from here.

But, for right now, I'll give ESPN a couple free passes, whereas, I won't allow Sherdog any because they do this all the time. Does that give you a little more insight to my twisted logic?
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics