NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE knows if Anderson or Weidman is the better fighter!

Status
Not open for further replies.

MMA-Aficionado

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
0
I have been watching MMA since the late 90s. I have watched everyone of Anderson's fights (including in Pride/Cage Rage) and every one of Weidman's fights.

I write this in disgust at the many uninformed comments on here stating that Weidman is clearly better than Anderson or that he will definitely win if they fight again, is the better fighter blah blah blah.

I read another thread where someone wrote similar to what I am writing and was roundly flamed,told by someone to "curl up and die". For real. Its like the majority of people on here have been following MMA for one or two years and are 15 years old with no understanding of MMA, Anderson Silva and his fights and what it takes to establish that one fighter is better than another

Both Weidman's wins ARE legitimate. But both were in highly unusual circumstances and do not clearly indicate that he is the better fighter and I will set out why below. NOTE, I am NOT saying they clearly indicate Anderson is the better fighter either. Simply, it was never PROVED EITHER WAY. What was proved is that Weidman is the most dangerous opponent Anderson ever fought. But THAT IS IT. This is why:

1) Anyone who watches/understands Anderson will know that he has lost first rounds on multiple occasions and come back to win dominantly. Against Hendo. Against Chael (2nd fight). One dominant round against Anderson does not = a win OR MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS A BETTER FIGHTER.

First Anderson/Weidman Fight

2) Round 1: In my opinion Weidman won it 10 - 9. However by the end, Anderson was on his feet and starting to take over.

3) Round 2: By round 2 Anderson was taking control in typical Anderson fashion. Stuffing Chris's takedowns and making it a striking match, keeping it in his world. The same pattern as above re bad Anderson first rounds seemed to be repeating itself. However, Anderson clowned around too much and got caught. But it was a fight he seemed to be taking control of up until he lost control. And I and all the friends I was watching with fully expected another Anderson demolition was about to occur.

4) I came out of this fight thinking Anderson was the better fighter who if he had just focused and counter-struck instead of playing games would likely have won. Albeit we will never know.

Second Anderson/Weidman Fight

5) Round 1: dominant impressive round by Weidman. I would score it a 10 - 8 1/2 if there were half points. It wasn't a 10-8 though. Hurt Anderson more then anyone else. But again, as we have seen before, winning one round dominantly against Anderson does not make one a better fighter nor mean they will win the fight.

6) Round 2: Anderson was starting to get his striking going, albeit he hadn't hurt Chris yet and then Chris checked and Anderson broke his leg. Again, legitimate TKO win for Chris due to injury. However, it does not indicate that Chris is the better fighter. The fight ended prematurely due to injury.

In conclusion Chris won twice, the first time when Anderson looked like the better fighter but clowned around. Now Chris may ultimately have proved that wrong, but Anderson robbed him of the opportunity. And second time, Chris was certainly winning the fight, but Anderson's broken leg robbed him of the opportunity to prove he was the better fighter. And no one knows if in the absence of that broken leg, Chris would beaten Anderson anyway, or it would have been another Anderson come-from-behind KO. No one knows.

Its incredibly frustrating because I wanted Anderson to win. But even more, I wanted to know who the better fighter was on the merits.

And no one knows based on two highly unusual fights.

So uneducated frustrate trolls flame away, but the above is correct. Or maybe, surprise me, give it some logical thought and go and re-watch (or watch for the first time) Anderson's fights, including the first fight with Chris. Once again, I am NOT saying that we know Anderson is the better fighter.

EDIT:

I am extremely surprised by people's reactions - its like all logic has gone out the window. Like they went toe to toe twice and Weidman KOd Anderson twice, despite his hands being up and him fighting his heart out.

There is something very strange to me about 95% of the sherdogger's reactions. Like they want to give Weidman more credit than due and cut down Anderson. Very strange.

FYI - almost all the commentary/analysis I have seen shares a same or similar view to me. There are articles about how Weidman didn't get a chance to become a legend-killer because of the way both fights ended. But I guess all the commentators are delusional too and sherdoggers who have been on here for two months, or posted 65000 times in 1.5 years know more than people who do this for a living or truly understand the sport.

Nuance, its about nuance. Two wins are not the same as any other two wins. In fact these are the two most unsual wins by won fighter against another that I can think of.

To those who agree with me, i'm glad there is some common-sense and understanding of MMA left on the boards. To those who don't, it is you who are delusional.

EDIT: woahh - came back almost 20 hours later and this is still going....
 
Last edited:
Keep repeating yourself ; still wont make your statement true.
 
I'm one of the biggest Silva fans on here, but I think it's obvious Weidman is the better fighter - at this moment - based upon both the knockout and the Destruction. :)
 
Number one rule of MMA fight club:

If you lose to someone twice, they're better than you.
 
Keep repeating yourself ; still wont make your statement true.

You have to credit them for trying though. The fact that Weidman won nearly every single second of both fights doesn't tell us anything, I guess. :)
 
Weidman is better, we have video, you have a wall of text.
 
Yeah we get it. You're delusional.
 
I guess we can never know who is the better fighter after any match up. Too many what ifs.

I guess the only criteria we can use is who beat who when they actually fought... twice
 
I have been watching MMA since the late 90s. I have watched everyone of Anderson's fights (including in Pride/Cage Rage) and every one of Weidman's fights.

I write this in disgust at the many uninformed comments on here stating that Weidman is clearly better than Anderson. I read another thread where someone wrote similar to what I am writing and was roundly flamed,told by someone to "curl up and die". For real. Its like the majority of people on here have been following MMA for one or two years and are 15 years old with no understanding of MMA, Anderson Silva and his fights and what it takes to establish that one fighter is better than another

Both Weidman's wins ARE legitimate. But both were in highly unusual circumstances and do not clearly indicate that he is the better fighter and I will set out why below. NOTE, I am NOT saying they clearly indicate Anderson is the better fighter either. Simply, it was never PROVED EITHER WAY. What was proved is that Weidman is the most dangerous opponent Anderson ever fought. But THAT IS IT. This is why:

1) Anyone who watches/understands Anderson will know that he has lost first rounds on multiple occasions and come back to win dominantly. Against Hendo. Against Chael (2nd fight). One dominant round against Anderson does not = a win OR MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS A BETTER FIGHTER.

First Anderson/Weidman Fight

2) Round 1: In my opinion Weidman won it 10 - 9. However by the end, Anderson was on his feet and starting to take over.

3) Round 2: By round 2 Anderson was taking control in typical Anderson fashion. Stuffing Chris's takedowns and making it a striking match, keeping it in his world. The same pattern as above re bad Anderson first rounds seemed to be repeating itself However, Anderson clowned around too much and got caught. But it was a fight he seemed to be taking control of up until he lost control. And I and all the friends I was watching with fully expected another Anderson demolition was about to occur.

4) I came out of this fight thinking Anderson was the better fighter who if he had just focused and counter-struck instead of playing games would likely have won. Albeit we will never know.

Second Anderson/Weidman Fight

5) Round 1: dominant impressive round by Weidman. I would score it a 10 - 8 1/2 if there were half points. It wasn't a 10-8 though. Hurt Anderson more then anyone else. But again, as we have seen before, winning one round dominantly against Anderson does not make one a better fighter nor mean they will win the fight.

6) Round 2: Anderson was starting to get his striking going, albeit he hadn't hurt Chris yet and then Chris checked and Anderson broke his leg. Again, legitimate TKO win for Chris due to injury. However, it does not indicate that Chris is the better fighter. The fight ended prematurely due to injury.

In conclusion Chris won twice, the first time when Anderson looked like the better fighter but clowned around. Now Chris may ultimately have proved that wrong, but Anderson robbed him of the opportunity. And second time, Chris was certainly winning the fight, but Anderson's broken leg robbed him of the opportunity to prove he was the better fighter. And no one knows if in the absence of that broken leg, Chris would beaten Anderson anyway, or it would have been another Anderson come-from-behind KO. No one know.

Its incredibly frustrating because I wanted Anderson to win. But even more, I wanted to know who the better fighter was on the merits.

And on one knows based on two highly unusual fights.

So uneducated frustrate trolls flame away, but the above is correct. Or maybe, surprise me, give it some logical thought and go and re-watch (or watch for the first time) Anderson's fights, including the first fight with Chris. Once again, I am NOT saying that we know Anderson is the better fighter.

I agree totally. Until Anderson Silva beats Patrick Cote legit, I will never know if Patrick Cote is not the true uncrowned UFC MW champ!

I think Patrick Cote was just getting in his groove and had Silva right where he wanted him. As we have seen before, Cote has finished fights he wasn't winning so this win isn't really a win.

I love these games. They are so fun!
 
Two finishes against Anderson and 4 rounds won, tell me who is better
 
knocking out silva in teh first fight and breaking his leg last saturday is not enough to prove that weidman is tthe best fighter??????
 
Yes, we do. Weidman knocked Silva.

And can it with the unusual circumstances. There was nothing unusual with 1st fight except the result.
 
Give it up man its over. Chris whipped your boy twice, finished him both times. Anderson is the GOAT but he got old and got beat by a younger,hungrier and better fighter. Lets accept that the ending to fight 2 was shit, but............ its over man.Just stop.
 
I agree totally. Until Anderson Silva beats Patrick Cote legit, I will never know if Patrick Cote is not the true uncrowned UFC MW champ!

Good point. So, according to TS' and many other sadsoggybottom's logic, Anderson isn't better than Cote because we'll never know?
 
And you're still a noob.

tl;dr

TS has no leg to stand on, oh snap!! :D

Funny-gif-baby-I-See-What-You-Did-There.gif


*edit:
Also, if the check hadn't broke his leg, it still would have hurt it a LOT and significantly damaged that striking ability you said was on the come back.

Unless your what if scenario is, "what if the fight didn't happen the way it did at all"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top