Do you think this is a fair top 10 MMA fighters of all-time?

I miss Genki Sudo

 

:nod

 

Pretty good list, yep. I'd have Chuck further down, and saku and Wandy should always be next to each other, in that order.

 

it needs frank shamrock in there somewhere.

 

Actually, I'm thinking the exact same way you are.

CroCop had "better" technical striking skills, maybe, but it wasn't a K-1 match nor was it a kickboxing match (or boxing, might as well throw that in there). We're talking about overall skill in the context of MMA.

What part of Fedor's A++ ability led to him almost getting submitted my Mark Hunt, twice? Yes, he still won that fight but it wasn't an amazing display of technical skill that allowed him to do so. (It was skill but not an overwhelming display of it)

Don't get me confused, I'm not saying that he's not a technical fighter. For a Heavyweight he certainly is, but in the context of the best in the sport's history, he does not have the best and it's not even close.

If finishing fights were all that mattered, Shane Carwin, prior to the Lesnar fight, would have been the second coming of (insert whatever here, Fedor, Jesus, The Easter Bunny, etc...)

 

You don't see a distinct difference between technical ability and overall ability. I do.

Technically (at least in my opinion) Urijah Faber is better than Dominick Cruz. Faber has technically better wrestling, better BJJ, more orthodox and conventional striking technique, etc.

But overall, Cruz has better ability because he is more effective.

Yes, effective is the word which can convey my meaning better than in my previous post.

You equate ability with technical ability.

I do not. I equate ability with overall effectiveness.

So to return to my previous example, Arlovski is technically a better striker than Fedor, but Fedor is overall the more effective striker, therefore better and so has better ability.

You do not beat Crocop on the feet and Big Nog on the ground without having A++ ability, IMO. Whether everything Fedor did in those fights was technically correct or technically excellent is irrelevant, other than from a purists/aesthetic point of view, the fact is he won and he deserved to win, by virtue of having greater abilities than his opponents.

I don't think I can be any clearer than this post.

 

Where would he fit in for you, behind and in front of whom, roughly?

 

id be here all night weighing the pros and cons but i think you could make a reasonable case to have him over hendo, chuck, hughes, saku and wanderlei.
seems weird for the guy voted fighter of the decade not to be there imo.

 

I did say that resume was the main factor for me, and I don't see Frank's as being as good as any of the guys in my top 10, and not as good as Crocop's or Shogun's or Rampage's, or many other fighters I didn't even list. Other than wins over Tito Ortiz and Jeremy Horn, what else is there of any real value? Sinosic? An old Phil Baroni? Although Shamrock had great ability, I really don't see him fitting in here at all.

 

fair enough

 

I didn't think I could be much clearer either. You're the one failing to see the distinction I'm making. I got your point before you even said it.

(See Shane Carwin example)

 

You think we mean the same thing.

We don't.

Not much else to say really.

 

Very solid list.

 

I wouldn't say A. Silva's win over Sonnen was a positive thing. He got destroyed 99% of the fight before sneaking a sub in. 1 less minute in that fight and Silva would've lost 5 rounds to none. That fight is something Silva fans want to forget.

 

I dont