I can't tell if this comment is genuine or scornful. Either way, you could tell me who you think was the better fighter?
It's genuine, because I really don't know upon reading the question. I'm not saying your "Very Good or Great" threads were crap, because they were not. I just had my mind made up not long after reading the thread titles. This time, I don't have an answer within seconds. I think Randleman was a better athlete, and may have been harder to defeat, but I can't say he accomplished a lot more than Newton. I'll have to get back to you.
After a walk down memory lane, I'll go with Randleman. Randleman defeated Williams after Williams defeated Coleman. Randleman also defeated Maurice Smith after defeating Coleman. Once you add in wins over Rizzo and Cro Cop, and I'm convinced. I had to glance at their records. I remember back when Newton was highly touted, and needed a fresh look. I believe Newton had a better submission game than a lot of mma fighters in his day, and has a better record because of this. I believe Randleman had the wrestling background and athleticism to be a force at any time.
Newton simply because I love the "shogun" attitude he displays. (Not shogun rua either) His submission game was so advanced. Love Randleman though and hate that both these guys still fight.
Tough call these guys in ways have similar careers. Both known for one big strength Newton with his submissions and Randleman's wrestling, both guys held UFC gold but never successfully defended it, both have fought a whos whos list and probably lost more big fights then they won. Id go with Randleman though I think his resume is slighty better. Randleman's beat Cro Cop, Babalu, Maurice Smith, Ninja Rua, Pedro Rizzo, and really should have Bas Rutten. Thats better IMO then Newton over Renzo Gracie, Pat Miletich and Pele.
