Do you agree with these Tiers Of Greatness for the best MMA fighters ever?

I think most people would say Anderson Silva has been the undisputed best p4p fighter since the decline of Fedor though?

Well if you look at my other thread about fighters who were least intimidated by size disadvantages, you will see me argue in favour of Saku being potentially the numero uno of all-time in that regard. Agreed.

I would never say such a thing anyway. I don't think fighters are better now. They are more well-rounded now, but that doesn't equate to being better in my opinion. What they have gained in roundedness they have lost in expertise, what they have gained in versatility they have lost in specialism. Frankie Edgar is much more well-rounded than Mirko Crocop was, but I know who the more effective mixed martial artist was. The guy who decapitated people with his specialist skill, not the guy who wins unanimous decisions by 'mixing it up'.

Can't argue with this. However, does GSP's reluctance to test himself at a higher weight necessarily count against his greatness as a fighter? I don't recall too many people marking guys like Hagler and Monzon down in boxing for their failures to test the waters at lightheavy. I think we have to just consider guys for what they actually did, not what they could/should have done. That's a different discussion to a discussion of fighting/career greatness.

Same answer as above. I agree with you, but don't think they can be penalized for things they didn't do in a discussion of career greatness. I evaluate guys on what they actually did, and both of these guys have been extremely dominant, brilliant, long-reigning champions in two of the key divisions in the biggest organization.

Was Saku really as dominant as GSP and Anderson have been? I don't see that at all, though admittedly I don't know his career as well as you do. Can you enlighten me on this?

 

This is an excellent summary of why I rank Big Nog in Tier 1, and I agree he has the best MMA resume of all.

 

In my opinion, it is laughable to include Frank Shamrock in there. His resume in no way even comes close to justifying that. The very idea that he should be ranked higher than Nogueira is insane, by any criteria (because resume should always be the central factor in any criteria measuring greatness as a fighter IMO).

 

Because I don't think his resume merits it. The guy got edged by Duane Ludwig on the cards and stopped by Yamamoto. Much like Takanori Gomi, I respect Sudo as a very, very good fighter who had a very, very good career, but resume-wise I don't believe he cracks the tiers. JMHO.

 

Hughes dominated the welterweight division for years, Penn won a great fight, then got dominated by a lesser opponent, dominated, then got dominated by a lesser opponent. And so went Penns career. but anything I say is met wiht hostility by you isn't it kid?

 

Hughes resume murders Penns, and his victory over Penn subdues Penns two victories over Hughes because Hughes has a much more filled record than BJ.

 

- I disagree on Frank Shamrock, don't rate his resume

- Fair point on Wandy

- Agree on Aldo and Jones, we'll need to wait and see


- The king of the elite, the best ever, is Fedor Emelianenko IMO. :good

 

Pretty much, yeah. I still remember your appalling behaviour regarding top 10 p4p lists, criticizing my list, putting up your own which was absolutely lamentable, and once I ripped it to shreds you pretended it was (in an unforgettably pathetic lie + performance) a hilarious joke list, and enlisted the General Forum Troll Squadron to back you up. Yes, I do find it difficult to forgive such abysmal conduct. I don't respect you because of that tbh, simple as that. I don't think you have much integrity as a poster.

 

For me, this is like arguing over whether I prefer Kelly Brook or Nicole Scherzinger, ie: I rate the hell out of both of them and ultimately don't really have a very strong conviction one way or the other. My reasons for having BJ a little higher at this point in time would be:

- BJ > Hughes h2h, because of the 3 fights they had which were all at Hughes's weight none at BJ's, BJ got the better of it whichever way you look at it, he won the series 2-1, but also I think his 1st win was the most significant/meaningful/telling fight of the 3, where both of them were in top condition

- IMO, prime BJ was Hughes's superior in terms of ability, all-round/all things considered. Now obviously this is "terribly subjective", but there isn't really any way to make a decision on your own without being subjective, so that is my opinion

- Hughes has Penn beat resume-wise in terms of quantity, but does he have him beat in terms of quality?

First off, BJ-Hughes 1 is (imo) better than any single win on Hughes's resume. A lightweight beating the dominant ww champ is an achievement Hughes himself never matched.

Hughes's best ww wins are GSP 1 (twice avenged), Newton, Sakurai, Sherk(at ww), Trigg, Riggs, Penn(at ww), Lytle, Serra (I scored that fight for Serra).

His losses include Dennis Hallman (twice by sub), knocked out by 'Jose Landi-Jones', BJ, GSP twice, and a KO by Thiago Alves.

(even disregarding Hallman & Landi-Jones as they were kind of early in Hughes's career, IMO Hughes's loss to Alves is more of a blackmark than Penn's 2nd loss to Edgar, seeing as BJ didn't get KTFO plus Edgar is a much better fighter than Alves)

BJ's best wins (outwith Hughes 1) are Gomi (#2 lw ever), Pulver, Stevenson, Sherk(at lw), Sanchez, Florian, Ludwig, Uno, Serra.


Is Hughes's best wins really better than BJ's best wins? I don't think so, I actually think Penn's are better.

So is Hughes's longevity in itself enough to overhaul Penn? I don't think so. And this is before we have even considering the quality of some of Penn's performances where he didn't get the W at ww (Fitch, GSP 1), or that he could easily have got the decision in the 1st Edgar fight.


I'm sticking with BJ. :good