I'm not calling him perfect. I thought Penn won the first fight, and I thought he lost the 2nd by being too aggressive. I currently rank Edgar higher p4p, but I would have to see a 3rd fight with Penn to really determine who is better.
If you give BJ the 1st fight, which ever way you cut it twas close, so BJ didnt beat Edgar as convincingly in the 1st as Frankie did in the second, so yeah, it does as Im of the opinion the Frankie won both Some amazingly silly logic on display here guys
How many fights had Edgar had under 155? Is there any real evidence that he is a feather fighting as a light, or is this just a thing which is said because he's only 5ft 6in or because his camp has promoted the idea? As far as I know, Edgar was fighting as a lightweight in 2006 before he even signed to the UFC. Either way, it's a bit of a stretch to keep giving this guy props for fighting as a lightweight when that's all he's ever done at a high level. It'd be different if he was a top featherweight who moved up, but as far as I know Frankie has always been a lightweight. Maybe someone who knows his career better than me can enlighten me on this. It's getting tired continually giving the guy extra credit for fighting in the weight class he's always fought in, it's really not like he is Sakuraba weighing in at 180lbs for a 205lbs tournament.
If it's "amazingly silly logic" to say that one win doesn't make a guy a better fighter, then I suppose it's "amazingly silly logic" to say that Demian Maia is not a better MMA fighter than Chael Sonnen even though Maia beat him when they fought?
Im not giving him props for a feather fighting at LW, Im giving him props for beating BJ full stop. I brought up the weight/height thing as it was relevant to the post I was quoting
That's the exact opposite of what I said I said if you have two fights, one is a close loss, and the second is a decisive win, it is amazingly silly logic to compare that to a statement like the one I have highlighted
BJ gets props for drawing with Fitch because Fitch is a natural welterweight who cuts to make 170. In MMA fighting terms, he is a much larger man than BJ. Edgar doesn't deserve the same props for beating the so-called bigger Penn because if he's only ever fought at lightweight then he is a natural lightweight, as is Penn. I don't know if this was your point, but thought this was worth saying anyway. I see this type of comment too often, it's getting irritating. The size difference between Sherk and Edgar is simply not the same as the difference between Fitch and Penn, not even close IMO.
I don't see the big difference here. The first fight was extremely close, therefore Edgar has one convincing win over Penn in my view. Saying Edgar is a better fighter on the basis of one convincing win is a bit of a stretch IMO. There are many examples of an inferior fighter having the edge on a given night, it doesn't mean an overall judgement can be made from that.
Well Edgar beat both Sherk and Penn, two guys who have beaten a good list of WW's. make of that what you will
Yes, but Frankie's list of wins doesnt indicate he is an inferior fighter, amazingly have two wins against the ATG LW just because of 'styles'. It indicates that he is putting together a decent resume with the highlight being 2-0 against Penn That just sounds like fanboyism to me. And incase you try and accuse me of the same, Im more than willing to accept Frankie's short comings in regards to Maynard and not just dismiss it as 'styles' as if it's some kind of fluke, unless Im reading this wrong
And Frankie beat him twice. Not indicating that Frankie would beat them, but make of that what you will
I'm not too fussed by the fanboyism accusation, I never like to overreact to one fight, and I believe Edgar bested Penn once. To then follow that with a draw I don't think he deserved vs Maynard really doesn't make me think he is a superior fighter at all. I suppose things will become clearer after Edgar-Maynard III and Penn-Condit. I hope BJ and Frankie do meet again at some point.