Fair enough.. it depends what point of view you take.. but still i think Conor is also a better fighter than BJ ever was. BJ Penn is/was a beast, but don't forget Conor ko'd a goat contender in like 15 seconds.. and even though that might've been sort of a fluke.. his rematch with Diaz was also epic and required a LOT of balls.. he could've lost a LOT there.
I don't even like Conor, thought he would lose against the first really strong opponent.. but he proved me wrong.
So yeah i get your point but i still stand by mine with all respect.
i agree. however, everyone in 2017 is better than everyone in 2002, just like everyone in 2002 was better than everyone in 1993.
boxing solved this issue long ago by not defining "greatest" by who was "better" heads-up, but by how well they dominated their eras. it took boxing 75 years to get there. MMA fans will eventually get there too. but for now, i'll say their accomplishments - at the time of them - were about equal, for the times they were in. it's my way of saying "fuck this never ending debate". not unlike "who's the best LHW between Chuck/Wandy and Jones? 6 guys had the belt, and they all had win/loss records against each other. so why bother.
you should listen to this discussion with Mark Kerr & Josh Barnett
https://soundcloud.com/mmaroasted talking about how they trained back then. Josh Barnett used to just go up to guys and offer a NHB bout, just to train. because he didn't have training options. now, 1997 to 2003 was very different, so BJ wasn't going through that. but still, it shows an evolution.
imagine being a weightlifting, wrestling, boxing general tough guy, and the biggest and toughest mofo in your circle, and some doughy 19 year old kid comes up and says "hey man, ya, i'm Josh. sooo, have you ever seen that UFC stuff? ya, so, wanna do that? yes, now. upstairs, where they have those wresting mats". it makes me giggle, just a little bit.
plus, you should listen to it anyway. it's fucking great