Defining “Best” on Paper

Kevin Iole has a piece on Anderson Silva, going into UFC 90, about whether he is the greatest fighter in the world. Obviously, Iole acknowledges the subjectivity of this question, but the reality is that when we act the numbers of the “greatest” fighters of all time, there are a few different ways to see them, and those points of subjectivity can make this even more confusing than any debate already is.

As a hard data guy, though, I thought I’d dig through the statistics I usually dig up when talking about the greatest fighters in any timeframe, along with talking about pound-for-pound rankings.

Obviously, there is a massive subjective debate. Obviously, I do not account for skills. Obviously, the numbers are blind, to a great degree, about the nature of a fighter’s victory, or the epicness of their encounters. That said, I’m not necessarily making an argument, but I thought that it was curious that, when a numerical standard is applied to greatness, we have a lot of wierd data to crunch.

Career Win Percentage

While this fails, as most of these statistics will, to note the quality of a fighters opposition, it presents us with a handful of very interesting considerations. Anderson Silva (84.6) is passed easily by WEC champ Urijah Faber (95.5). Fedor Emelianenko (96.5) does very well, but is still passed by Miguel Torres (97). Obviously, this is a faulty system, and it caters to the undefeated fighter, as it gives Paulo Filho (100) an unprecedented edge over guys with far more impressive careers.

Career Finish/Fights Ratio

I thought that this was an interesting statistic, as it gives a reward for dominance. On this scale, Anderson (65.4) isn’t as successful as he could be, and Fedor (72.4) barely breaks 70. Filho (50) does fall below them, but the idea that Rickson Gracie (100) should be so far ahead is a little bit out there for me. I have plenty of respect for Rickson, but this system again favors fights who’s opponents are not substantial.

Stretch Ratios

Just in general, these grading systems that measure stretches of time give a nice idea about reigns of dominance, but a lot of them fail to capture the full career. Mark Kerr, for instance, had a dominant stretch of his career (11-0, 11 finishes) until the year 2000, but we would hardly call him in as one of the greatest fighters of all time. Though, if you want to make an argument about a fighter’s run as one of the most dominant, Wanderlei’s Japanese run from late 2000 to New Year’s Eve 2004 has to be included, as he went 16-0-1 with 14 finishes, while holding fights across two weightclasses. Does it qualify him as one of the best ever? Probably not, but it’s an interesting idea to look at the stretches of dominance for a fighter. That said, Anderson’s UFC stint of 7-0 with 7 finishes looks solid, and arguably one of the greatest ever. The fact that it’s ongoing as we can see how great it is makes it that much more incredible, in my opinion.

Wins Over Top Ten Opponents

This is my qualified, and I have to remind people that there are some controversies within this system, as there are always arguments over what is and is not a top ten fighter (if there are questions about my choices, feel free to post them, and hopefully I can lay out the logic), especially when we have hindsight. Fedor Emelianenko (6) does well for himself in this respect, as does Wanderlei Silva (6). Anderson (6) does very well depending on whether or not we choose to include Hayato Sakurai and Carlos Newton, who were top ten fighters in their weightclass. There are some interesting warriors in this weightclass, as well as some dark horses. Matt Hughes (8) gets it a little too good in my opinion, because there was no Japanese market for 170 pound fighters, which tipped the rankings towards the UFC (but, if you remove Trigg and Newton, who were arguable at the time, from his record, it is cut in half). Randy Couture (9) is a surprise favorite, but none of the fighters listed seem arguable.

Obviously, all of these number systems fail in many ways, but hopefully they help us understand the raw data a little better, so that we can have an appreciation not just for our awe of a particular fighter and his style, but an adequate grasp on reality.