Sorry Dana, Frankie Edgar’s Not #2 Pound-for-Pound

Every now and then, Dana White makes a proclamation of where a fighter should stand in the MMA rankings, and we are all apparently supposed to just observe said proclamation as fact. If you don’t remember any of the numerous examples of White admonishing MMA writers for getting it “wrong”, don’t worry…I brought links.

There was last year, when Dana said that “you should be fucking embarrassed” if you had Alistair Overeem in your heavyweight top ten. Of course, maybe you simply got paid to rank him there, as Dana also said that he believes MMA sites were getting paid to rank certain fighters in the top ten. He complained last year that Ben Henderson wasn’t ranked number two and referenced Gilbert Melendez by saying that if Henderson was fighting in Japan or “some other place” he’d be ranked at that spot. Of course, just two weeks ago he seems to have changed his tune, saying he wants to bring Melendez to the UFC right away and that an immediate title shot is a “possibility” for the Strikeforce champ. What changed, exactly? I mean, Melendez is still fighting sub-par competition in the minor leagues, right? Oh wait, Zuffa bought Strikeforce, so now it’s a legitimate promotion.

Look, while I don’t agree with everything he says and does, I think Dana’s a pretty likeable guy, and you’d have to be a nutbag to ignore his contributions to the sport. However, one of his least enduring traits is when he “digs in” on a matter of pure opinion and proudly proclaims that not only is he right, but that you are an idiot if you don’t agree. All of those stories I linked to had one thing in common; at the same time that he addresses an opinion that he believes is flawed, he presents (as fact) his opinion as to why people hold that opinion.

Overeem was only ranked because writers like to rank non-UFC fighters. Melendez was only ranked highly because writers didn’t like the WEC since Zuffa owned it. Those theories are similar mainly in that they are absolutely crazy. Well, there is another similarity: that these theories (and the rankings-for-cash theory) always deny the radical idea that perhaps the writers in question simply have different opinions about some fighters than Dana does.

(On a side note, I always thought it was hilarious when Dana would complain about writers ranking non-UFC fighters. Doesn’t anyone else remember that Dana would consistently deny watching Strikeforce shows back before Zuffa bought the promotion? Dana would make fun of Strikeforce, then when someone would ask him if he saw their latest event, he’d say that he hadn’t and wasn’t planning on it. Yet, somehow, he’s able to speak authoritatively about where fighters that he doesn’t watch should be ranked? Tell me how you would respond to someone at the local sports bar telling you that Eddie Alvarez sucked and shouldn’t be ranked, then revealing that he had never seen a Bellator event in his life. Yeah. But because it’s Dana, people don’t bring it up.)

You take a big chance by stating your opinion with the caveat that anyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot, doesn’t understand or has an ulterior motive. Yet, there’s a reward, too: many people, perhaps those who are prone to being bullied, will keep their disagreement to themselves when such a tactic is used.

So when Dana White not only said that Frankie Edgar should be number two on everyone’s pound-for-pound list, but that anyone who doesn’t comply doesn’t understand the meaning of “pound-for-pound”, I wasn’t surprised. It followed all of the Dana patterns when discussing rankings. Make the proclamation, then pre-emptively attack the credibility of anyone who doesn’t agree.

Here’s the problem: he’s wrong.

I know what Dana’s getting at when he talks about understanding the meaning of “pound-for-pound”. He’s talking about how Edgar, who walks around barely over 155 pounds, has defeated BJ Penn, who has fought at welterweight and does so currently, and Gray Maynard, who probably could do so himself. It’s a solid point and yes, besides being imaginary journalist bullshit, pound-for-pound rankings are supposed to measure just this sort of thing.

I get all that, and that’s why Edgar will be number three when I revise my pound-for-pound rankings later this month. It’s why he was already number four before he defeated Maynard last Saturday night. However, it’s not a strong enough reason to bump him ahead of Georges St. Pierre.

Pound-for-pound does not mean that if Champion A cuts a lot of weight, he should automatically be ranked below Champion B who does not. What’s wrong with simply comparing the skill sets of the fighters based upon their performances? Sure, weight is important, which is why BJ Penn is ranked in my pound-for-pound rankings. He has a history of doing very well against bigger fighters, in addition to simply being an amazing fighter in the first place.

So, if Edgar should be ranked ahead of GSP because GSP cuts a lot of weight to fight and Edgar does not, shouldn’t he also be ranked ahead of Anderson Silva? Or do Silva’s two appearances in the light heavyweight division (against James Irvin and Forrest Griffin) grant him the benefit of the doubt? Does St. Pierre have to go up to 185 pounds to fight a couple of mid-ranked opponents to prove to us that he could beat them, or can we just use our brains to decide that yes, he could do so if he tried?

You know what really gets me about this? That we all know that a big part of Dana’s reasoning is the dramatic way that Edgar’s last two fights against Maynard have unfolded. Was it amazing that Edgar was beaten from pillar to post not once, but two times in the first round, only to come back strong? Of course it was. Does it show a great amount of heart, perseverance, and other qualities that ensure we’ll be sitting through a Frankie Edgar biopic one day? Of course it does. But does it mean that Edgar should be ranked higher than St. Pierre? No way.

You may find St. Pierre boring; you may not enjoy watching his fights because he no longer takes risks. However, you can’t deny that nobody has been close- not even close!- to beating this guy in four years. Four years! Contrast that with Edgar, who has been absolutely demolished in the first round of each of his last two fights. Now, you’re telling me that Edgar should be ranked above St. Pierre?

Is it nit-picking? Of course it is. But you have to do that when you get down to ranking the top three or four fighters in the entire sport. My point is that Silva and St. Pierre have set the bar extremely high. If you don’t rank Edgar ahead of St. Pierre, it doesn’t mean that you don’t think he’s a great fighter. It doesn’t mean you weren’t impressed with his performances thus far. It doesn’t even mean that you don’t understand the term “pound-for-pound”, as Dana White says. It just means that you have a different view on a volatile issue that is extremely highly based on opinion, interpretation, and yes, your own biases. Is it really that radical to not agree with Dana that Edgar is a better fighter right now than one of the five greatest combatants to ever wear step in the cage? To say that, “hey, Edgar is amazing, but I need to see a bit more before I put him at number two in the entire world”?

Rankings are always going to be heavily based on interpretation and opinion. You can try to make your rankings based only upon who has beaten who, but that doesn’t work out for very long. Soon enough, you will have to actually put your opinion out there and decide that one fighter is better than another. With pound-for-pound rankings, when you are ranking a fighter against another fighter who weighs forty pounds less, this is even more true. The entire basis for pound-for-pound rankings is that of fantasy, so how seriously can you be offended when someone else’s imagination differs from yours?

E-Mail Jon Hartley

Tags: Anderson Silva, Dana White, Frankie Edgar, Georges St. Pierre, imaginary journalist bullshit, Strikeforce, UFC