None really up to date,Carlos newton I didn't care fore,or I don't like shields or any other lay and prayer as a champion,that's why Edgar needs to win. So just wondering what you think let me know
Forrest Griffin EDIT I was just teasing caleb. I agree with Will, Forrest earned his shot the hard way, and was winning against Evans relatively comfortably until Rashad cracked him with a brutal counter shot
Relative to their time and the evolution to the sport I assume? And just a quick question to the thread starter; do you really think the way Frankie Edgar fought BJ is any more exciting than a "lay n prayer"? I don't. I would say Tim Sylvia was the worst. Matt Serra was the second worst. Forrest Griffin was the third worst.
Not worse than Sylvia. And I'll tell you why. Sylvia was a champ of one organization, while the entire top 5 of the weightclass fought elsewhere. At least Serra beat the #1 guy in the world for his title.
If Sylvia's title run is bad then same goes for Overeem. Won both his belts off Buentello and Duffee, and has only defended the SF belt once in 3 years. Time is on his side though
Don't understand the idea Griffin was a bad champion. Defeated Shogun to earn the shot, defeated Rampage to get the title and didn't really disgrace himself in losing to Evans. Obviously the Silva fight was terrible but since then has defeated Ortiz and Franklin. He's by no means a great champion but hardly a bad one. Likewise don't understand why Serra was a bad champion - he beat the best for the belt and then lost the rematch. May make him the worst fighter to hold a major title but he hardly damaged the belt or disgraced himself while champion. To me that whole period between couture's second and third heavyweight title reigns is pretty weak stuff with all the best heavyweights fighting outside the division - either in Pride or the 205Ibs division (does anyone doubt that Tito or Chuck like Couture could have handled themselves against most of the guys in that division?). The other one has to be Alistair Overeem as Strikeforce Champion. He had done nothing to earn the title shot in the first place, beat a pretty mediocre fighter in Buentello to win it and then only managed to defend once in a now four year reign. And that defense was against a fighter that had lost his last fighter and turned up in terrible shape. Horrible reign.
Another one (and this is going to be controvesial) is perhaps BJ Penn at welterweight. Had done nothing at the weight to earn the shot, vacated as soon as he defeated Hughes and has since gone 2-3-1 in welterweight contests (and those victories were over a blown up ludwig and an old Hughes). Not sure if I could bring myself to say he is one of the worst given the quality of the welterweight fights he had...but something to consider.
Well I may as well say Brock before someone else does. Beat an old, outweighed 12 moth + (i may be wrong on the length) lay off in Randy, even though Randy was doing well before he was hit and Mir who's always had a weakness dealing with strikes when he's on his back
I think there is a disconnect here for what we are actually looking for. At least for me there is. Are we asking who was the worst "champion"? OR Who is the worst "fighter" to ever hold a legit world title? If it's the first one then yes, definitely WW BJ has to be up there, he never even defended. But if it is the second one than you are out of your mind to say BJ, since he's one of the best ever. Answers to the 1st question: BJ at WW, Griffin, Evans, Machida, Serra, etc Champs who never successfully defended. Answers to the 2nd question: Tim Sylvia definitely, then Serra, then Griffin.
i'm a newb as far as mma knowledge goes, but i do realize sylvia had some serious limitations and is not well respected but don't his victories over young ricco and non chin shot arlovski mean a little. i mean if he's the worst ever, doesn't ricco have to be the worst champ (don't know if there was a fluke ending or something)