How UFC ranking system works?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2024
- The UFC ranking system is relatively new and first introduced in 2013.
It plays some role when determining fighter’s next opponent, place in the upcoming fight card, and a fighter’s new contract terms.
Who decides the fighter ranking?
The Panel consists of 22 media members, who set the ranking after each event. Originally there were 14 members; UFC did handle recruiting directly and via an application form on their website. From the moment of the ranking implementation in 2013, questions and controversies around it raised: whether the members have the necessary qualifications for voting, what is the level of transparency, and if UFC influence the voting process at any level? All the votes from the panel are collected by the third party who is led by Kirik Jenness. The main goal is to keep the Panel separated from the UFC.
Interesting and very informative.
Glad you enjoyed it
Ufc ranking members should be ex fighters over media members who have never been in a fight in their lives and are 100% biased to their favorite fighters.
I’d argue fighters would have more biased based on personal experiences within among gyms
Weren’t the old UFC’s tournaments? Or am I wrong?
Yes they were, reminded me of Dragon ball tournaments lol.
why can't we just do wins - losses? like.... a normal sport?
Most of the time popularity of the person makes huge impact....for ex assume if conor decides to come back he can be easy given title match without a ranking as he is famous more people will thus the revenue.
@@ramkaranverma8862 yeah felt proper sly on Dariush like having lost to chuck cause he should've gotten a shot AGES ago
It should be Determined based off Win Lose record simple
Idk cause if fighter Y beats one person 10 times but cant beat fighter x, fighter y shouldn't then rank above fighter x. See what I mean? Fighter y should have to beat fighter x to rank above him or beat a fighter ranked higher than fighter x.
So it's completely subjective?
No, they surely use objective facts to determine a top rank fighter would likely beat all lower ranked fighters, or how much they deserve a title based on wins against higher tiered fighters, but a judge is a judge because their judgment, a subjective thing on its face, is trusted, so some subjectivity has to come into play otherwise there would be no need for judges, just scorekeepers.
2:30 this is stupid. Rationalizing the effectiveness of a mode of action is useless and wrong when you have proof of said mode of action in use as being inadequate. In other words saying a fighter is good/better "in theory" is a useless way to rank when, when that fighter tests that theory against another, he loses. The winner is better, and the proof is the victory. You're just cherry picking or trying to ideologically rationalize if you try to say the loser is better. Even with punchers chance, if you're truly better you'd have dodged it or blocked it. If you were not at 100% cause you were hungover, then that's your fault.