Why do people act like you can just use one head to head matchup to decide who is better all time? It doesnt make any sense. Hallman beat down Hughes twice, nobody puts Hallman above Hughes.
The first fight wasn't close and he's not the best ever. I don't know why people like Joe Rogan say that he's the best ever, and act like it's some sort of certainty. Like Aldo just doesn't exist.
that’s just it. When he lost I wanted to here him bring a new angle to his game. Evolve. Learn. Grow. Instead he’s like “nah that was bullshit”. It’s like ok, even if it was, which it wasn’t, you need to find some value in your loss and grow from it. So now he’s not acknowledged any kind of growth. He’s coming in the same guy with the same skills, and more mileage. AGAINST THE EXACT SAME PERSON? Like what???? Nothing has improved here for you. At all.
Not that many people put Sylvia over Arlovski, no one puts Weidman over Silva, and no one puts Mir above Nogueira. Yeah, the narrative doesn't work.
Or maybe it's the fact that they fought not long ago and Volk won fairly decisively. Seems like most people just don't think Max can change up his style that quickly, if at all
Lol you don't know what a strawman is. Aldo reigned over the division much longer with many more defenses. It takes more than just a head to head victory to be the greatest of all time. Everyone has losses. Using your metric whoever won the most recently is automatically goat until they lose to someone else. If Volk wins the rematch is he suddenly the fw goat?
