Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by 3sumrock, Mar 7, 2018.
That's a strawman and you know it.
They all used so it evens out LOL
Stipe doesn't challenge people below his weight class. Because that would be bullying.
How is it a strawman? The GOAT has to be considered not just in the modern UFC era but in the original UFC, Pride, Strikeforce etc. as well.
Stipe is a new jack on a good streak but he hasn't been around that long in the scheme of things.
DC doesn't have any better claim to HW GOAT than Stipe, considering the mostly middling caliber of opposition he faced there (Mir and Barnett notwithstanding) Stipe would probably beat their asses handily too but that's not saying much.
Good info. I'm definitely coming around to the LHW's not giving Fedor a "GOAT point." Maybe "honorable mention"... but you are correct that as you look at their careers, they weren't lighting up the HW division, so that makes it very hard to give Fedor a GOAT point for those fights.
I'm aware that Monson lost later on to Oley, but I consider that as much a testiment to his validity at the time he fought Fedor as I do to count it against him. I'll have to review 2011 Monson a bit deeper. As you suggested, I will watch tape of him back then. I'm also curious to see where he was ranked at the time... beyond the top 10 I'm sure, but where you know. Do you happen to know that? I did a little searching but didn't find anything.
Fedor didn't get a GOAT point in my original list for Monson... but someone just as passionate as yourself was on the other side of your the argument you're presenting here & they convinced me. Your argument is compelling as well. Again, it does mean "something"... but we do need to double check just how valid of an opponent he was in the grand scheme of things.
I can say that Stipe's opponents have been in deeper water than Monson, so that sayz a lot regarding a comparison between Stipe & Fedor.
Just watched Fedor vs. Monson (ie... RDA vs. Nate... lol) Damn them leg kicks. Fedor had his number on them & the more he got the more his strikes started landing. Refused to tie up or grapple which took Monson out of his game. Great strategy.
Monson vs. Oley - Close fight, but the takedowns & ability to hold Oley... along with Oley's lack of ability to get up or mount an offense from the bottom won Monson the night. Didn't light the world on fire... but again, he did it to Oley, so that's something.
will review more later & let this sync in. Monson gassed a bit but not much. Looked decent against Oley all in all.
Not at all and actually contrary
Everyone was not on the same doses and levels of peds. Some weren't even taken it or on low doses due to health concerns and you can see the physiques, that doesn't take a rocket scientist
Pride was also corrupted by the yakuza. Not even close to a even playing field
In the US, Fedor hasnt even looked half as strong as his old Pride self. You should be lucky people even consider Fedor the HW Goat over Stipe
Huh? You judge the opponents going into the fight, not based on what they did after. WTF is that shit
How about looking at fighter's ranks at the time. there have been posts in the past about that.
Please calm down. No need for "WTF" & all that sarcasm... we're just talking about MMA. If you want to discuss it then simply present your point of view. No need for all this other stuff.
I don't like the idea that someone gets full credit when they were washed up from that fight on. Someone should perform before AND AFTER imo. There's so many examples of beyond their prime fighters finally losing their edge. There's also the modern day epidemic of people losing their mojo after July 2015 when USADA started. So it's not as simple as you're making it out to be where someone should get full credit for beating someone who did well in the past.
I don't believe that someone who was the first (or thereafter) in their inevitable decline should be given full credit for beating what is a shadow of their former glory.
On the flip side of that, I also feel that if someone that maybe wasn't fighting top level competition, but from that point on started being a world beater... that should weight heavily in the area of GOAT points. An example of this would be Borg. Right now I give Mouse no GOAT points for Borg's past.... but if Borg can turn into a world beater from here out, then I gotta regress & give that GOAT point to Mouse.
IF he beats Cormier he will be the GOAT. Imo Cormier is better than anyone Fedor faced.
I can agree with all of that. I think a win against another top HW competitor (a proven one, not another Ngannou), plus DC, cements it. Loved the comparison between Askren and Woodley. Spot on.
That's not how this works. You can't give a fighter less credit for fighting a ranked opponent simply because you deem them to be worse than their rank years later.
The easiest way to judge it is to check how many top 10 and top 5 opponents each has faced. Fedor was at a disadvantage as they were spread between two organizations and he could only rematch so many times.
Regardless, Stipe needs a few more defenses to even be worth considering.
If you list stats like that you can make any of it sound good
Stipe’s UFC wins: 12
Stipe’s consecutive UFC title defenses: 3
Strongly disagree. Coleman has a ton of top 5 opponents on his resume... won a UFC tournament & was the UFC Champ... etc.... However, when Fedor fought him, he was beyond his prime & no longer in top shape. Nobody who beat "old man Coleman" should be given the same credit as someone who beat "prime Coleman."
The USADA line in the sand is another similar situation. People who obviously declined after USADA make it hard to give the same credit you give to people who beat them Pre-USADA. Johnny Hendrix & MJ are 2 that come to mind atm... but there are a lot more of them.
Along with your logic would be giving Meathead full credit for beating Fedor. That's not realistic. The Fedor Meathead beat is just a shadow of his former self.
It works both ways.
No, my logic is to use their rankings AT THE TIME OF THE FIGHT
Fedor wasn't ranked when meathead beat him so don't put words into my mouth
what was Monson ranked when he fought Fedor?
Not that I agree with OP but, if they didn’t test doesn’t that mean it was an even playing field and everyone could juice themselves to the gills?
I don't have that data anymore but all that matters is the rankings up to Rogers as he didnt beat anybody top 10 after that
- I'm simply calling out this retroactive analysis of fighters as unfair. So if the OP wants to make this argument they need to use complete data - which is rankings at the time. there were multiple rankings even back then so it's not simple.
Maybe someone will dig that old post up as it's far more analytical than this
Here's one incompelte source
If you're opponents are also on PEDs then there's no advantage....
The Arlovksi Fedor beat was a hell of a lot better than the worn out bum Stipe KOd
It appears easy to look at it that way but no athletic commission and testing means quite the opposite....
Because of how dangerous taking PEDs are, not every fighter was on them and many taking different levels of doses based on their pay and tolerance.
So you can have a guy on HGH and stacks of roids facing another guy just taking a testosterone booster...I mean, the mixtures are endless
You can blame the guy not on steroids for not taking them when he should and can be but the point of this is that, the playing field is most definitely not fair, unless perhaps both are on PEDs.
In the UFC (post-usada) both fighters don't have the option so the fights are closer to who's really better. Overall no playing field is truly even but testing most def would level the field over no testing at all
Separate names with a comma.