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.
