Title Writing: Ranking The MMA Fight Camps 6
by Luke Nelson on Jan 10, 2012 7:59 PM EST
Email
Print
Ranking the fight camps is a weekly feature that combines the USA Today/SB Nation consensus rankings with win/loss records over the past three months in order to provide a ranked list of the most successful MMA fight camps in the world. For previous installments, just search for "Ranking the Fight Camps" over on the right.
Each camp is designated as tier I, II or III, based on how many fighters from the camp appear in the top 25 for all 7 weight classes. Tier I camps have more than five top 25 fighters. Tier II camps have at least two and no more than five top 25ers and Tier III camps are those with just a single fighter in the top 25. A number one ranked fighter is worth 25 points to his camp, a number two ranked fighter is worth 24 and so on. In the past I totaled the score for each camp but moving forward I've decided to average out the score so that the big camps don't all end up at the top.
Over the past three months, each stoppage victory is worth +2, each decision victory +1. Each stoppage loss is worth -2, each decision loss -1. The total win/loss score for the camp is then added to the camp's consensus rankings average, providing us with their camp score. I'm going to rank the top 5 for each tier, as well as an overall top 15. Only Tier I and II camps will be eligible for the top 15 due to the fact that I am averaging out the consensus scores.
The rankings can be found after the jump.
TIER I
| Camp | Score |
| Nova Uniao | 24.50 |
| AKA | 18.12 |
| Black House | 17.30 |
| Xtreme Couture | 16.87 |
| Jackson`s MMA | 16.50 |
TIER II
| Camp | Score |
| Alpha Male | 25.66 |
| Cesar Gracie | 23.75 |
| Kings MMA | 23 |
| TriStar | 21.20 |
| Team Curran | 21 |
TIER III
| Camp | Score |
| Renzo Gracie | 25 |
| The Reem Training Center | 25 |
| MMA Lab | 23 |
| Combat Fitness | 22 |
| Universiadade da Luta | 21 |
OVERALL
| Camp | Score |
| Alpha Male (II) | 25.66 |
| Nova Uniao (I) | 24.5 |
| Cesar Gracie (II) | 23.75 |
| Kings MMA (II) | 23 |
| TriStar (II) | 21.20 |
| Wolfslair (II) | 20.66 |
| Imperial Athletics (II) | 19.50 |
| Red Devil Sport Club (II) | 19.50 |
| AKA (I) | 18.12 |
| Team Quest (II) | 18 |
| Alliance MMA (II) | 17.75 |
| Xtreme Couture (I) | 16.87 |
| Jackson`s MMA (I) | 16.50 |
| Grudge Training Center (II) | 15.66 |
| Paraestra Tokyo (II) | 15.66 |
I think this is the most accurate representation that I've come up with yet. It brings the overall score down quite a bit, which makes the effect that wins and losses have on the rankings quite larger than the past versions. Anything above +5 in the win/loss column is quite good, and using an average ensures that the camp will have no higher than 25 points for their consensus rankings score.
I'm going to change this to a monthly column at this point. Now that I'm fairly satisfied with the system, I'm going to give it time for the data to change before I do another one. In its place I'm going to be writing opinion pieces, something that I haven't really had too much of a chance to do since I started with Title Writing. I'm looking forward to that quite a bit and I can't wait to get some current events discussion started.
Thanks for reading. Comments are welcomed!
8 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting....
But I’m not sold on the system. I don’t think numbers can accurately assess the quality of a fight camp. For me, its the same logic as to why a fighters record doesn’t tell the whole story. There are intangibles that need to be taken into account. Also, no Roufusport?
Interesting concept.
Like my post? Well, follow me on Twitter anyways. @LenBarson
by LenBarson on Jan 11, 2012 11:14 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Roufusport is on the list
But they didn’t make the cut. They have six top 25 ranked fighters, so they qualify as a Tier I camp, yet they lack the true big stars that the other Tier I camps have, so they have a low average score.
The way I see it, above all else, the two things that a fighter thrives on are good training and good results. We’ve seen what a few losses can do to a fighter’s physche. Conversely, we’ve seen what a win can mean.
So in terms of fight camps, my theory is that if you have good training partners and everyone is winning, the training is going to reach another level. Positive re-inforcement, if you would. And fighting is a very mental sport, despite it’s outward appearance.
If you look at the Diaz/Cerrone fight with my system in mind, you’d see two camps going in different directions. Jackson’s has had decidedly mixed results lately, save for Jon Jones. Clay Guida lost his last fight. Melvin Guillard lost his last fight. Leonard Garcia as well. These guys are all primary training partners for Cowboy. On the flip side, you have Nate Diaz and Cesar Gracie. The Gracie camp has been on a tear. Melendez, won his last fight. Nick Diaz, won his as well.
Diaz was a fairly large underdog and he had a dominant performance in his victory. Now of course I’m not saying that it proves my theory but I think it shows that there is a place for my theory in the MMA discussion.
Can you give me an example of some unmeasurables that need to be considered when evaluating a fight camp?
If you are going to lie to me, then we are going to box
Let me rephrase....
I think the numbering system doesn’t allow for enough wiggle room. In short, all victories are not created equal. You have to factor in how good or bad a fighter’s performance was. Perhaps I missed something in the original post, but I think there needs to be a more representative scale of a fighter’s performance, rather than simply decision or stoppage.
Fighter A and Fighter B can both win decisions, but what if Fighter A looks like horseshit but does enough to win while Fighter B looks like a straight up killer in a dominant decision. Also, quality of opponent needs to be factored in somehow. Maybe I missed something there, and if so I will happily eat my words.
Cool idea for some good debate fodder, but I think it needs some tweaks.
Like my post? Well, follow me on Twitter anyways. @LenBarson
I see what you are saying.
Fighter A and Fighter B can both win decisions, but what if Fighter A looks like horseshit but does enough to win while Fighter B looks like a straight up killer in a dominant decision.
Good point. I thought of these two alternatives:
1. Add a half point in, to be given in the case of any fights that wind up 29-28 or as split decisions.
2. For fights between two top 25 guys, the difference between their ranking is on the line but only in the case of an upset. So for example, one point separates Jose Aldo and Chad Mendes, going into this weekend. If Mendes beats Aldo, he’ll gain a bonus point and Aldo will lose an extra point, on top of the one or two he would lose in the current set up. If Aldo wins though, because he is the favorite, no bonus points are involved.
The only problem with that would be in weird cases like Chan Sung Jung being ranked in the mid thirties and fighting a top ten guy, Mark Hominick. I could put a cap on it, maybe a maximum of 5 spots?
Also, quality of opponent needs to be factored in somehow.
That is why I used the rankings. Think of the rankings as the long term and the record over the past 3 months as the short term.
The quality of competition is addressed in the fighter’s rank. The higher the rank, the higher the level of competition faced. There are some anomalies but it’s a good reference. As for the record over three months, it’s basically meant to include the fighter’s last training camp.
If you are going to lie to me, then we are going to box
Ok. I can dig #2
The first solution is an improvement but has the same problem. Its too black and white. I think a fighters performance should determine the score he receives, rather than the outcome of the fight. There has to be some kind of analysis rather than a number value based on the outcome of the fight.
Number 2 is a nice additional factor.
What rankings are you using? I would assume SBN/USAT.
Like my post? Well, follow me on Twitter anyways. @LenBarson
by LenBarson on Jan 12, 2012 11:36 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yep i'm using the SBN rankings....
I think I`m going to add number 2 to my scoring system. I want to stay away from coloring the rankings with my own analysis of fights, or any one single analysts take.
I`ll keep it in mind though and perhaps down the road I`ll make some changes.
Thanks for the discussion man, really enjoyed hearing some feeback on this particular piece.
New author at Head Kick Legend
by Luke Nelson on Jan 12, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Not a problem
Like I said, interesting idea. I’m sure this was a pretty time consuming project, so my hat is off.
Like my post? Well, follow me on Twitter anyways. @LenBarson
I’m not sure that you could ever predict future success in MMA in terms of wins and losses. It’s so very difficult at the highest of levels.
Can you organize past performance in such a way that you can accurately say which group of fighters is winning the most, at the highest of levels? I think you can.
Whether or not I have the ability to organize it that way is another thing entirely!
If you are going to lie to me, then we are going to box
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Head Kick Legend
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
