With another loss, I couldn’t help but think that Melvin Guillard is one of the most inconsistent long-time fringe contenders that I can recall. Does this mean he’s inconsistently good or consistently good? After all, he keeps on keeping on, continually reaching a status of top-level journeyman after losing.
Using the Generated Historical Rankings as analytical fuel, it turns out that Melvin Guillard is 1 of only 10 fighters to have at least 25 quarterly rankings in the Lightweight division, with none of them in the Top 5 or below the Top 150 and an average ranking equal or better than #50.
Out of those 10, his standard deviation for rating points is 3rd highest, behind only Clay Guida and Jorge Masvidal. By rank, he is 4th, behind Spencer Fisher, Tyson Griffin, and Masvidal.
Spencer Fisher and his steep decline at the end, essentially disqualifies him from above, and you can argue that Griffin’s move out of the division and back in while still near his prime caused some anomalous data that a simple formula cannot really deal with. After considering all of this, Masvidal is Guillard’s only competition in the most inconsistent good, but not great Lightweight of all-time, though I’d say the award goes to Guillard as he spent more consecutive time in the Lightweight division. They both had short trips to 170, but Masvidal’s were more frequent and more recent.
But the question remains, has Guillard been consistently good? Or inconsistently good?