All UFC divisions ranked STATISTICALLY!


Because the range of height to weight in a division measured against the general population bell curve for height is too restricted to give any valuable information about the quality of that division.

That's if you can even trust the information given about fighter height.
 
Last edited:
Can you statistically weigh the difficulty of a division by the number of potential competitors in that division?
k3tG7Jn.png

(Height based on average of top 10, within two inches.)
If so....
HW- 6’3’’ or taller around 3% of population
LHW- 6’1.5’’ around 5% of population
MW- 6’.5’’ around 10% of population.
WW- 5’11.5’’ around 13% of population.
LW- 5’10’’ around 15% of population.
FW- 5’8.5’’ around 12% of population.
BW- 5’6.3’’ around 7% of population.
Fly- 5’4.1’’ around 2% of population.

Divisions from BEST to WORST:
Lightweight
Welterweight
Featherweight
Middleweight
Bantamweight
Light Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Flyweight

Thoughts?

Flyweight last?Are you serious?Sorry...but that's just insane.Fucking Sherdog.
 
You can rank them statistically by population, not sure about the relevance because I don't think it's a direct translation to skill level.
 
Height cutting neglected in that statistic

Also listed height = real height + 2 inches.
 
I know what you did, it's just not relevant to weight class.

You could measure dick size and get the same outcome. I'm sure it somewhat correlates.

It's relevant if he used the stats of the guys actually in the divisions...

Makes sense since hes showing the Flyweight sized guys take up the smallest % of the population indicating theres less potential talent out there which is reflected by the fact theres less guys signed at flyweight than at HW.
 
You can rank them statistically by population, not sure about the relevance because I don't think it's a direct translation to skill level.

Less potential guys at that size means a smaller group of athletes and likely to be a weaker division than where there's twice as many guys that size.

How many athletic guys do you know who are 5'4?
 
It's relevant if he used the stats of the guys actually in the divisions...

Makes sense since hes showing the Flyweight sized guys take up the smallest % of the population indicating theres less potential talent out there which is reflected by the fact theres less guys signed at flyweight than at HW.

It really isn't though. Heights not the cause of the weight.

Try looking at it from the other side.

Fighter A is 6'0. What weight class is he in?

So, without any thought at all, this could be anyone from Pablo Garza who fights at Featherweight to Roy Nelson, a guy who cuts to reach 265. This is crossing 6 weight divisions.

Mike Chiesa is 6'1. Daniel Cormier is 5'10. Is Chiesa bigger than Cormier?

Height is not size.
 
Can you statistically weigh the difficulty of a division by the number of potential competitors in that division?
k3tG7Jn.png

(Height based on average of top 10, within two inches.)
If so....
HW- 6’3’’ or taller around 3% of population
LHW- 6’1.5’’ around 5% of population
MW- 6’.5’’ around 10% of population.
WW- 5’11.5’’ around 13% of population.
LW- 5’10’’ around 15% of population.
FW- 5’8.5’’ around 12% of population.
BW- 5’6.3’’ around 7% of population.
Fly- 5’4.1’’ around 2% of population.

Divisions from BEST to WORST:
Lightweight
Welterweight
Featherweight
Middleweight
Bantamweight
Light Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Flyweight

Thoughts?
MW is more stacked than than FW
UFC just had a LW fight with a 6'3 dude who was pretty muscular. Can't remember his name but he made Sage look like a dwarf. It looked at Struve competing at WW or something.

The new meta in MMA is to be 6 inches taller and 25 lbs heavier than whoever you are fighting.

So I think the most stacked division in the weight cut era would be bantamweight, which is where most 5'10" guys will be fighting in 5 or 6 years.
Alright approximation but there is some population bias here as the population subset of fighters would not be the same as normal population. I think the relevant pdf would be shifted to the right, negative skew, and less kurtosis. This is probably why in reality we see WW/MW tends to be more stacked than FW and either LW/WW being arguably most stacked
WW, then LW, then MW, then FW, then you have non competitive divisions.
According to FightMatrix' rankings, the number of fighters in each division is as follows...

(Descending Order)
Welterweight: 650
Lightweight: 650
Featherweight: 550
Middleweight: 400
Bantamweight: 400
Flyweight: 250
Light Heavyweight: 250
Heavyweight: 250
 
It really isn't though. Heights not the cause of the weight.

Try looking at it from the other side.

Fighter A is 6'0. What weight class is he in?

So, without any thought at all, this could be anyone from Pablo Garza who fights at Featherweight to Roy Nelson, a guy who cuts to reach 265. This is crossing 6 weight divisions.

Mike Chiesa is 6'1. Daniel Cormier is 5'10. Is Chiesa bigger than Cormier?

Height is not size.

You're talking about outliers.

Theres a reason there's no guys at 5'5 fighting at heavyweight.
 
UFC just had a LW fight with a 6'3 dude who was pretty muscular. Can't remember his name but he made Sage look like a dwarf. It looked at Struve competing at WW or something.

The new meta in MMA is to be 6 inches taller and 25 lbs heavier than whoever you are fighting.

So I think the most stacked division in the weight cut era would be bantamweight, which is where most 5'10" guys will be fighting in 5 or 6 years.
Bellator BW champ is 5´10. They are a little ahead of the midgets 135lbs UFC division.

But yes.. weightcut has became ridiculous. Guys keep getting bigger and bigger.
Aldo was a huge FW now he looked a division lighter than Holloway.
GSP was a giant WW and he is average at best now.
Anderson was 235lbs according to sherdog and now he is way smaller than most guys in his division.
 
According to FightMatrix' rankings, the number of fighters in each division is as follows...

(Descending Order)
Welterweight: 650
Lightweight: 650
Featherweight: 550
Middleweight: 400
Bantamweight: 400
Flyweight: 250
Light Heavyweight: 250
Heavyweight: 250

That looks about right to me.

The more fighters, the harder it is to get to the top of the mountain.
 
HW is one of the worst divisions? TS is definitely a manlet
<puh-lease75>
 
HW is one of the worst divisions? TS is definitely a manlet
<puh-lease75>
The heavier the weight class, the older the average age of the division, and heavyweight has the oldest average age (and if you look at the top ten, that couldn't be more obvious).
 
That is an interesting way to look at it.

I have the divisions ranked in almost that exact same order.

Everything but the bottom three. I would actually put flyweight above HW and HW above LHW. LHW is the worst right now unfortunately
 
Flyweight last?Are you serious?Sorry...but that's just insane.Fucking Sherdog.
Flyweight was last based purely on statistics. DJ is a great fighter but the rest of the division is underwhelming at best. Again, this is based on the stats not opinion.
 
I used average height of the division and within two inches.

You can’t do average weight because the average American male is fat and/or horribly overweight. Frame is much more important.
That's true but the average MMA fighter is pretty jacked compared to the average male so your stats don't tell the whole story either.
 
There are heaps of tall fighters in welterweight. Magny, condit, dirty bird, millender, ryan laflare, saunders, randy brown, tom breese, dong, hyun.
 
HW is one of the worst divisions? TS is definitely a manlet
<puh-lease75>
I didn’t say that as a matter of opinion, this is what the statistics show.

And they also showed that flyweights would be considered the worst division.
 
Less potential guys at that size means a smaller group of athletes and likely to be a weaker division than where there's twice as many guys that size.

How many athletic guys do you know who are 5'4?

It doesn't matter how many "5'4 athletic guys" I know. That would be anecdotal evidence and irrelevant.
 
Back
Top