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

[RoyCisneros]

personally i feel like the 2nd fight with weidman was cut short and proved absolutely nohing. first fight I felt like Anderson lost fair and square. I don't buy the fact that people say he was goofing around. I thought he was fighting his game.

 

[MMA-Aficionado]

Yeah, and you probably think a guy hitting a homerun off a guy throwing underhand, is as impressive as hitting out it when he throws you his best stuff. Context matters. Some wins are better than others.

Exactly. Its like all context/nuance has gone right out the window. Amazing.

 

[kingkane22]

TS i agree with you, wouldn't go as far to say that Weidman didn't prove he may be the better fighter. According to most sherdoggers Silva was doomed no matter wtf he did. In my opinion Silva easily has the tools to beat him but he really screwed it up for himself the first fight when the tide was turning and he was able to land leg kicks at will on weidman. But i'm just a delusional silva nuthugger who knows nothing about mma.

 

[chinarice]

I am glad that there are a lot of intelligent people in this thread showing the TS how stupid he is.

Makes me have a little more faith in these boards that so few people agree with stupid logic like this.

Thank you Sherdog. Faith in forums have been mildly restored. haha

 

[moreorless87]

Wrong, the tactics that got Silva KOed in the first fight are tactics he'd been using for years, the tactics that got him dropped in the 2nd fight where those he used before the "clowning" started.

The problem is that so many people(just like many fighters) bought into the myth of "matrix Silva", the idea that as long as the fight was standing Anderson was always going to land something amazing in the end and win. Its the same thing we get with Machida, people are convinced that the big finish is always coming from him so give him rounds where he's actually done very little.

The reality is that Anderson has generally either depended on walking though a lot of punishment or waiting for an opponent to get sloppy to land his big shots.

Once you've bought into the myth of course and posted about it for years on these forums theres no way people are going to back down and admit they were wrong,. What makes it even worse for these posters is that most of them have gotten caught up in "Fedor vs Anderson" or "UFC vs Pride" and have also been arguing against fighters declining. They've basically argued themselves into a corner and the result is these endless crazy threads that are so out of touch with reality.

 

[MMA-Aficionado]

Completely agree. And like you stated the reason why I and a lot of other sherdog veterans and pro fighters themselves no longer post here, is because its full of kids these days.

You can no longer have a sensible discussion. So pointless to waste time trying to have one Just know that there are many sensible people who agree, we just dont post.

Cheers buddy. Appreciate the thoughts. I post here much less than I used to for that exact reason. And I guess its becoming increasingly pointless. I am just debating with a lot of frustrated kids more interested in jumping on a bandwagon and trying to gang up on someone to get rid of their own frustrations.

There used to be a time where one could have a decent discussion on here. Guess it was a long time ago.

 

[Alittude]

Anderson haters are the most delusional fans in the world. The OP made 100% rational logical sense and no one can reply with a decent response apart from a flame. There is no point reasoning with these haters, they have been waiting for years for Anderson to lose and now that he has twice they will act like the 2 fights were normal 5-round wars that left a clear winner when really it was obvious 2 of the weirdest endings ever. Haters gonna hate, they're not even real weidman fans only anderson haters, horrible fans for the sport but alas it's full of them.

 

[kingkane22]

personally i feel like the 2nd fight with weidman was cut short and proved absolutely nohing. first fight I felt like Anderson lost fair and square. I don't buy the fact that people say he was goofing around. I thought he was fighting his game.

He was fighting his game with the hands down but come on acting like your rocked by wobbling your legs(which set up the ko) does not give silva an advantage at all. He may just have a few screws loose b.c. i've never seen anyone troll the way he does in fights. You are right though that is his fault and chris won fair and square.

 

[Captainhowdy19]

Guess we can all agree that it's just not white belt members here that are idiots

 

[jimbob27]

I didnt say he was winning the round. Chris may have KO'd him in the next ten seconds or taken him down. My point again is we never got to see...

Yeah we didn't get to see because Weidman countered Anderson's offence so well it ended the fight. I don't know why you're having such trouble understanding that.

 

[YeahNo]

This whole thread is funny. As it turns out, Silva wasn't good enough to get to a point in the fight where he was able to "get in a groove". Weidman finished him first, in both fights. By definition, Chris was the better fighter in both fights. Hence the Ws.

 

[ghpeel]

Jesus Christ people, I'm the biggest Anderson nuthugger I know of, but DAMN, its time to admit that Weidman has Anderson's number. I know it, all the folks ridiculing TS know it, even Anderson knew it. He didn't act like his usual self at the weigh ins or the walkout, which btw, can we talk about?? It looked like he was seriously questioning whether or not he really wanted to be there. Very bizarre.

Look, forget the 1st fight for a minute, Anderson got outclassed in every aspect of the game in the second fight. What's Anderson's most feared weapons? His speed, his clench work, his knees, and his accuracy. Chris looked quicker on his feet than Andy, he almost finished Andy via GnP after beating him up in the clinch (and taking some knees without flinching), and he was making Anderson miss him in the stand up in a way I've never seen anyone do to Andy in the UFC. 2-8 strkes landed?? WTF! This from the guy who nearly had 100% accuracy in several fights.

I thought Anderson was going to come out and destroy Weidman in this fight, I really did. But Anderson looked defeated before the fight even started. And as far as the end of the fight, Weidman intentionally checked the kick that way to injure his opponent!!! This was not some freak injury, Like Cote's knee. This was not even a side effect of an attack, like Shogun's elbow in the Coleman fight. This was a defensive/reactive strike, designed to cause damage to an opponents shin and to stop them from attacking your legs. This is on the same level as a cut-based stoppage, its a legit way of ending a fight.

Someone else said it, Weidman has won 2 rounds off Anderson, and finished him in 2 others. Anderson has never won a round off Chris, or seriously damaged him. You can question Silva's behavior in the first fight, but he was dead serious in the second, and the outcome was clear. Weidman has Anderson's number, plain and simple.

 

[Brick Plenary]

I agree with you.

I also think Anderson vs Forrest doesn't prove who the better fighter is, because Forrest doesn't usually fight that badly. If he'd kept his hands up and didn't go charging into punches things might have been different. We've all seen Forrest start slowly and pull out victories in the later rounds, but we can't determine who the better fighter was due to the highly unusual circumstances.

Funny how the handful of people in this thread calling others idiots completely ignore this golden post.

 

[SubZero84]

Look age plays a role in any fighters life. Trust. Weidman is better now, maybe not years ago.

 

[thechoice2]

Sorry I don't compare baseball to MMA because ya know, they aren't the same at all.

They fought twice and Weidman finished Anderson twice. If you can't acknowledge that beating a guy 2 times out of 2 times, doesn't make him better than him, you are just a delusional, biased fan that has no idea how to be impartial.

You guys are the types of people that would ruin this sport in an instant by being worse judges than the current judges.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

So you would consider Dennis Hallman to be better than Matt Hughes?

 

[MMA-Aficionado]

Why do people care so much about who others think is better? That post looks like it took altogether way too much time....

Because unlike most on here, I care about and follow MMA. And was disgusted with all the uninformed comments. It is a discussion board after all.

The point is not to write: "STFU" and "GTFO" and "end of thread", or to troll, and try and feel cool.

 

[BubbaH]

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.

Chris Weidman has a 2-0 record against Anderson Silva.

Anderson Silva has a 0-2 record against Chris Weidman.

In the grand scheme of things, your great big wall of text is just a bunch of butthurt, fanboy gibberish that won't ever change the aforementioned FACTS.

Facts are relevant. A bunch of "what ifs" aren't. Get over it already. Anderson lost both fights. You can type all the way to the moon and back and it won't change it. I know you'd like for it to. But it just won't. Trust me.

And I'm not delusional. I accept the facts for what they are. I don't depend on someone else's commentary, whether that's what they do for a living or not, to back up what I say. I just go with the facts.

Fight 1: Silva got KO'd after offering very little offense. The only effective offense he offered was a few leg kicks.

Fight 2: Silva lost by an injury TKO after having his only effective offensive maneuver neutralized.

Pretty much a conclusive set of events to me.

If you don't see it that way you must be delusional. See how that works? I can also declare you to be delusional just because you don't agree with me. Does it make me right? No. But you aren't right for declaring someone delusional either. It's a difference of opinion, and I can't help it if your opinion is wrong.

Your guy got beat. Bad. Twice. Deal with it. If he comes back and fights Weidman again, he will lose again. Possibly worse.

 

[JKS]

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.

I completely agree with you in this case. I don't understand this justification about having a 100% this guy is better and so on. Mma is not a definitive sport at all times. There are even more extreme cases like jds/Cain where jds clearly ko'd Cain...but got dominated 2 fights after. The first fight or any fight for that matter is not an indication someone is a better fighter all the time.

And I'm surprised that....well not surprised since most Weidman fans appear to be immature. That they are taking whatever win they can get. I remember when Anderson won by tko vs cote, all i said was its a win sort off but I'm not happy with that. same with the first chael fight I I said he was dam lucky to get that triangle.

That's what I say.....the wins are wins, legit wins and no flukes. But don't really show who the better fighter is. Even though Chris clearly shows us more, we have seen Anderson lose several rounds in similar ways and come back to win. So there really isn't a clear result in my eyes.

And Weidman fans can say that it's bull shit etc.....but look what all the pro fighters and media said. Look at the pros picks, pretty much most said that anderson lost cause he goofed off. So it'd not just the Anderson fans on here but the opinion of many people on mma.

It doesnt change the result or take Weidmans belt away.

 

[hoyle1911]

I know who the better fighter is:

It's Weidman. Don't tell nobody.

 

[chinarice]

So you would consider Dennis Hallman to be better than Matt Hughes?

So, you're saying that after Weidman finished Silva twice, you still aren't convinced that Weidman is better than Anderson?