What really makes a fighter considered great?

emema

Purple Belt
@purple
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
1,815
Reaction score
10
I see a lot of disputes about who is the GOAT of MMA. And a lot of people are saying Conor which makes me wonder what MMA fans think makes a fighter great.

On the one hand, you have fighters that have tremendous success but carefully control who they face and approach the sport like a business and don't even care about defending the belt. They see MMA as a game of statistical probability of winning and have tremendous success. They are constantly looking for money fights.

Then you have fighters that are willing to fight anybody at anytime but have a significant number of losses as a result (Bj penn, shogun, Anderson and more) however have proven to be tremendous fighters in their prime.

So, what do MMA fans value more? A Fighter that fights anybody or a fighter that approaches the sport like a game of chess?
 
It really depends on the individual MMA fan. Some consider title defenses the most important. Other fans prefer win streaks, and some prefer the BJ Penn attitude.
 
MinowaChoi.jpg


Taking on (t)all competition!
 
Last edited:
History decides the greats, come back in 40 years
 
Your OP is contradictory. You reference Conor, then suggest he chooses fights with high probability of winning. That's crap. Total, utter crap.

Conor is judicious in a key sense: he likes high reward. He is not risk averse in chasing that reward. He took on Mendes (allegedly his stylistic kryptonite) as a late replacement in spite of having little chance to train wrestling through his camp for UFC 189. He challenged RDA immediately after beating Aldo - RDA, who had crushed Cowboy and looked like a destroyer of worlds - without hesitation. When RDA was forced to withdraw Conor took another late replacement, and after that replacement humiliated him, Conor requested a rematch, giving Nate a chance to have a full camp and come in totally prepared, and requested the fight take place at a weight which advantaged Nate.

Conor is closer to BJ Penn than Floyd Mayweather in his choice of opponents. Conor is super ballsy. That's great. He wrecked the FW GOAT, then wrecked the LW champ. That's great.

But there are degrees of greatness. Conor hasn't reached Fedor, or Anderson, or GSP level of great. Aldo is greater than Conor, in the sense that he achieved divisional domination and was extremely consistent. That's exactly what makes Conor's win over Aldo so damned great in the first place!

On a final note, defending a belt has literally nothing to do with greatness. Absolutely nothing at all. Consistent wins over a high quality of competition is vastly more important. Look at Hendo's career - amazing strength of schedule. His belts or lack thereof at points in his career mean very little.
 
Last edited:
Then you have fighters that are willing to fight anybody at anytime but have a significant number of losses as a result (Bj penn, shogun, Anderson and more) however have proven to be tremendous fighters in their prime.

Anderson? Only when he passed his prime
 
To me, more than anything in Mixed Martial Arts sustained consistency at a high level makes you truly great. Very few are capable of it, many fighters flirt with greatness, many fighters show greatness at times but day in and day out very few are great on any given night, time and time again vs world class opponents.
 
Last edited:
History decides the greats, come back in 40 years

The winners write the history books; losers don't. The thing that makes a fighter great is becoming the champ and then being able to defend the belt successfully and stay the champ. The only thing in sports harder than becoming champion is staying champion.
 
Time at the top.

Pretty simple really.
 
Fedor epitomizes greatness for me personally. Small for HW and showed the heart of a champion in numerous fights. No give up attitude in the cage and extremely humble outside of it. Never called himself the greatest and always respected his opponents.
 
In real life Mentality,Heart,Skill,Cardio
In sherdog Looks,Trash talk skills
 
Strength of schedule, title wins, title defences, manner of win. A mixture of those with a big emphasis on the 1st and 3rd IMO.
 
Your OP is contradictory. You reference Conor, then suggest he chooses fights with high probability of winning. That's crap. Total, utter crap.

Conor is judicious in a key sense: he likes high reward. He is not risk averse in chasing that reward. He took on Mendes (allegedly his stylistic kryptonite) as a late replacement in spite of having little chance to train wrestling through his camp for UFC 189. He challenged RDA immediately after beating Aldo - RDA, who had crushed Cowboy and looked like a destroyer of worlds - without hesitation. When RDA was forced to withdraw Conor took another late replacement, and after that replacement humiliated him, Conor requested a rematch, giving Nate a chance to have a full camp and come in totally prepared, and requested the fight take place at a weight which advantaged Nate.

Conor is closer to BJ Penn than Floyd Mayweather in his choice of opponents. Conor is super ballsy. That's great. He wrecked the FW GOAT, then wrecked the LW champ. That's great.

But there are degrees of greatness. Conor hasn't reached Fedor, or Anderson, or GSP level of great. Aldo is greater than Conor, in the sense that he achieved divisional domination and was extremely consistent. That's exactly what makes Conor's win over Aldo so damned great in the first place!

On a final note, defending a belt has literally nothing to do with greatness. Absolutely nothing at all. Consistent wins over a high quality of competition is vastly more important. Look at Hendo's career - amazing strength of schedule. His belts or lack thereof at points in his career mean very little.

Title defences are all that matter really. Anyone can become a champion. Staying on top is the hardest thing to do in sport.
 
Title defences are all that matter really. Anyone can become a champion. Staying on top is the hardest thing to do in sport.
Title defences mean nothing - who cares if a fighter racks up ten defences against the Elvis Sinosic's of the world?

GSP isn't the best because he defended the belt. He's the best because he beat Penn x 2, Hughes x 2, PED Alves, Koscheck x 2, Shields, Condit, Diaz and Hendricks. The belt is a promotional tool, that's all.
 
Names on resume (in or near their primes).
 
Your OP is contradictory. You reference Conor, then suggest he chooses fights with high probability of winning. That's crap. Total, utter crap.

Conor is judicious in a key sense: he likes high reward. He is not risk averse in chasing that reward. He took on Mendes (allegedly his stylistic kryptonite) as a late replacement in spite of having little chance to train wrestling through his camp for UFC 189. He challenged RDA immediately after beating Aldo - RDA, who had crushed Cowboy and looked like a destroyer of worlds - without hesitation. When RDA was forced to withdraw Conor took another late replacement, and after that replacement humiliated him, Conor requested a rematch, giving Nate a chance to have a full camp and come in totally prepared, and requested the fight take place at a weight which advantaged Nate.

Conor is closer to BJ Penn than Floyd Mayweather in his choice of opponents. Conor is super ballsy. That's great. He wrecked the FW GOAT, then wrecked the LW champ. That's great.

But there are degrees of greatness. Conor hasn't reached Fedor, or Anderson, or GSP level of great. Aldo is greater than Conor, in the sense that he achieved divisional domination and was extremely consistent. That's exactly what makes Conor's win over Aldo so damned great in the first place!

On a final note, defending a belt has literally nothing to do with greatness. Absolutely nothing at all. Consistent wins over a high quality of competition is vastly more important. Look at Hendo's career - amazing strength of schedule. His belts or lack thereof at points in his career mean very little.
Good reply. However I was not trying to suggest Conor doesn't take risk, he does..he takes calculated risk which means he chooses opponents. I don't buy Dana Whites bullshit that Conor is willing to fight anyone. Then why is he fighting Floyd when he hasn't come close to dominating the lightweight division? Cuz he knows he's expected to lose to Floyd and his stock won't drop that much. Yet the killers at lightweight are much higher risk and less reward. Like I said he approaches MMA like chess which is fine. Other fighters that I consider true GOATs will just fight and dominate their divisions for as long as they can.
 
Title defences mean nothing - who cares if a fighter racks up ten defences against the Elvis Sinosic's of the world?

GSP isn't the best because he defended the belt. He's the best because he beat Penn x 2, Hughes x 2, PED Alves, Koscheck x 2, Shields, Condit, Diaz and Hendricks. The belt is a promotional tool, that's all.

Revisionist nonsense. Belts are just poromotionsl tools now because of fighters like Conor and Bisping refusing to fight top contenders. But it used to mean you were the best fighter in your division and you only fought the toughest and most proven fighters that could be found. Staying a champion when you actually fight top contenders is the hardest thing to do in MMA and why the mark of all the greats has been longevity of their title reigns.
 
The only thing that matters is your own personal preference.
 
Back
Top