I'm not a fan of Anderson Silva, but he is a special fighter.

Fair enough.

For me, a martial art should never be about purposefully scoring points and accumulating rounds, scoring points is just something that happens naturally as you explore ways to finish the fight throughout the fight (but GSP seems to have moved away from that over the last few years and moved towards a Frankie Edgar style point-scoring approach).

But different strokes and all that.

That's a difficult statement to prove, considering GSP has been submitted by Hughes and knocked out by Serra in UFC 170 division, whereas Silva has not been defeated in any way in UFC 185 division.

 

I honestly can't decide between them at the moment. I go back and forth. Silva has the edge as a mixed martial artist because he is the superior finisher of fights, GSP has the edge in well-roundedness/completeness/consistency. I see both sides.

PS: GSP's strategy these days is to score points though. That is clearly what he sets out to do. He doesn't try to win by any other method, he tries to win each round, there are very few submission attempts or attempts to go for the KO. I mean, this doesn't mean he isn't an effective fighter so I see your point, but from a purist perspective this is not a mixed martial artist's approach. Fedor never, ever set out trying to win a UD.

 

Nothing can be proven with statistics alone. Such a hypothetical is meaningless, because quality of performance and quality of opponent are critical factors in determining who the better fighter is.

Randy Couture's record is 19-10, while Rashad Evans is 15-1-1.

Looking at the numbers only, Evans is the greater fighter.

Except we know he isn't.


In the real life example of Silva and GSP, Silva's vastly superior capacity for finishing fights must be taken into consideration. It cannot be ignored by any MMA fan.

Would Fedor be the undisputed GOAT if he had won most of his fights by grinding decision? The manner of victory is of great importance in a sport where you train to have striking skills and submission skills.

 

It's a pointless analogy.

I could very easily say:

"Imagine two fighters, both with a record of 30 wins, 2 decision losses. Fighter A has 26 decision wins, 3 submissions and a TKO. Fighter B has 18 KO/TKOs, 9 submissions and 3 decisions. Who is the better fighter?"

But such a meaningless hypothetical where we have no knowledge of the quality of performances proves nothing.

As I said in my last post, I cannot accept that the ability to finish fights by using the skills of MMA can be disregarded, as long as you get the W.

It is of extreme importance in the sport of MMA. :deal

 

gsp has beaten much better opposition in a better division. its not like silva moved up and fought the best. he fought a fight he was always going to look good in. either way a case can be made for both of them

 

Please don't say "he beat Shogun" when trying to big up Forrest Griffin, just stop. That's like saying Gonzaga and Kongo are great fighters because they beat CroCop. The reality is that Forrest beat a horrible version of Rua who was patently unfit.

The Rampage that Forrest beat was also a far cry from the Pride version, and Rampage has always been one-dimensional, his failure to defend against simple leg kicks was dire.

I care if he was coming off a loss to Rashad because beating someone who was fresh off a KTFO loss to a Rashad-level fighter is not a stellar achievement.

At his best, what was Griffin? A guy with no power who won fights virtue of being huge for his weight class and having great cardio.


I have no problem with anyone rating the **** out of Silva-Griffin, that's fair enough, but I don't see why so many tears are accompanying me saying I prefer his wins over Hendo, Belfort and Franklin. I just don't rate the guy very highly from what I've seen of him, sorry if that offends/upsets anyone. I rate Silva-Griffin as a great performance from Silva, but I don't rate it as a great win because I don't think Griffin was a great fighter, nor even a very good one.