Vitor was also ranked. If you want to check the rankings. Its a fact that he was ranked.
Now you are making it seem like only HWs can be in consideration for GOAT. LHWs cut because they want to have a size advantage but it doesnt mean they couldnt compete at HW.
GOAT HWs: Fedor, Nog, Cro Cop, Randy all could have been LHWs.
Current best HWs: Cain, JDS both smaller HWs.
LHWs have moved up and done well. Rashad is undefeated at HW, Randy was a champion at HW, Bigfoot Silva was almost KTFO by a LHW before he beat Fedor.
IF HW was weak, then the top LHWs would just not cut and fight at HW and dominate and have much better careers. Fact is, HW is as tough as it gets.
JDS and Cain are not small HWs, not even close. Rashad didnt fight anybody at HW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShreddinMMA
Arlovski was #2.
Idk where the fuck u got Vitor wasnt top 20 when he fought Anderson. He was ranked around 6 or 7.
Why dont you guys explain to me why Vitor was ranked, with facts.
Lets just say that the true greatest boxer of all time lived today. He wouldnt be recognized as such because boxing isnt as popular. And guys like Rocky, he never lost, but people just ASSUME he wasnt as good as the boxers in the 60s and so on even tho he was KOin guys left and right.
It really isn't that hard to compare if you know what you're looking at. We're talking about the Golden Age of boxing, there were tons of awesome fighters and they all fought each other (although Sugar Ray notoriously ducked Charley Burley along with every other great welter/middleweight of the time).
__________________
"Les liens entre un être et nous n'existent que dans notre pensée"
jmcharlton, you are truly a idiotic ignorant fool, who's oblivious to fact he knows jack-shit about MMA. The more you type the less people will take you serious.
It really isn't that hard to compare if you know what you're looking at. We're talking about the Golden Age of boxing, there were tons of awesome fighters and they all fought each other (although Sugar Ray notoriously ducked Charley Burley along with every other great welter/middleweight of the time).
Just because it was the golden age of boxing, doesnt mean the fighters of today arent just as good for example. I would love to see the Klitchkos against the top guys from 30-40 eyars ago.
Just because LHWs cut doesnt make HW strong. You said MW is the weakest but I could use your argument to prove it is strong. Why do GSP and WWs cut to WW if MW is the weakest?
jmcharlton, you are truly a idiotic ignorant fool, who's oblivious to fact he knows jack-shit about MMA. The more you type the less people will take you serious.
Just because it was the golden age of boxing, doesnt mean the fighters of today arent just as good for example. I would love to see the Klitchkos against the top guys from 30-40 eyars ago.
Uh yeah actually it does, they fought better competition, boxing is something where actually fighting in the ring makes you gain a wealth of experience. Could you imagine a boxer of today going 128-1-2 at the BEGINNING of their career? Or having 27 fights in 1 year and winning 26 by KO at featherweight? No. The Fighters of that era honed their skill to perfection, all you have to do, if you know what you're looking at, is watch the tapes.
__________________
"Les liens entre un être et nous n'existent que dans notre pensée"
Just because LHWs cut doesnt make HW strong. You said MW is the weakest but I could use your argument to prove it is strong. Why do GSP and WWs cut to WW if MW is the weakest?
Those arent facts. How about YOU use facts to prove it. Instead you used a source that has Brock as the #2 HW and Randy a top 10 LHW.
Was it his last win that got him in the top 10? The big win TWO years ago over Lindland?? OR was it the epic win over Martin two and a half years ago? Becuase those were his last MW wins.
Uh yeah actually it does, they fought better competition, boxing is something where actually fighting in the ring makes you gain a wealth of experience. Could you imagine a boxer of today going 128-1-2 at the BEGINNING of their career? Or having 27 fights in 1 month and winning 26 by KO at featherweight? No. The Fighters of that era honed their skill to perfection, all you have to do, if you know what you're looking at, is watch the tapes.
That just means they fought shit competition. And it was just a different era, doesnt mean they were better. You act like the top boxers of today dont get up every single day and train. (and have plenty of real fights)
