Agree or Disagree? Jacare > Weidman for all time great @185 as of right now.

[Pancake Sprawl]

It's an absurd excuse. He always taunted like that. He turned it up to 11 in that fight because he was getting beat up.

i still cannot believe people think Anderson's clowning was him not taking Weidman seriously and not him trying to walk Weidman into making a mistake or over committing on a strike.

 

[TR1]

i still cannot believe people think Anderson's clowning was him not taking Weidman seriously and not him trying to walk Weidman into making a mistake or over committing on a strike.

His clowning overall in that fight was def trying to bait Weidman into something dumb.
He did it against the fence too, and Weidman was smart enough to not start swinging like an idiot (though IMO, if he committed to the TD he would have done so again).

It wasn't working and he turned it up to 9000. The position he got himself in when Wediman KOed him was just absurdly bad.

 

[GoshiShun17]

i still cannot believe people think Anderson's clowning was him not taking Weidman seriously and not him trying to walk Weidman into making a mistake or over committing on a strike.

Yes of course. But he also lost focus, and over committed himself to the taunting. While Chris remained calm and focused and committed to KO him.

Also I still say it's a bit disingenuous for people to say Silva ALWAYS fought that way.

 

[PinkFlammingo]

They both had impressive unbeaten streaks at that time. If i remember right Jacare got fucked a few times but like everyone is saying couldn't win a damn title eliminator.

I'd say Jacare is better overall fighter of the two. But c'mon.

We all know who's the 185 goat

 

[pankrat]

I disagree, especially with Maia. I think Maia could still beat a lot of top ten guys at MW. He only lost to top guys up there that were bad style match ups for him, and he arguably shouldn't have one of those "losses"

I dont think Maia could still beat a lot of top ten MWs, as I dont expect many current WWs to be able to do so.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

@Franklin U. @NoBiasJustMMA @moreorless87 How do you weigh in on the subject.

Weidman is ahead of Jacare all time IMO, he has 7 top 10 wins(Maia, Munoz, Anderson x2, Belfort, Machida, Gastelum) to Jacare's 5(Kennedy, Mousasi, Belfort, Brunson, Weidman) has the highest ranked wins between the two and has title defenses. Weidman fell off a lot after the extended beating from Rockhold though and hasn't been the same since.

 

[pankrat]

Weidman is ahead of Jacare all time IMO, he has 7 top 10 wins(Maia, Munoz, Anderson x2, Belfort, Machida, Gastelum) to Jacare's 5(Kennedy, Mousasi, Belfort, Brunson, Weidman) has the highest ranked wins between the two and has title defenses. Weidman fell off a lot after the extended beating from Rockhold though and hasn't been the same since.

I would expect something better from you.

First of all, you left Okami, who was ranked #3, out of Jacare's top 10 wins. Carmont was ranked as well iirc. So they would already be even under that simple analysis. Not to mention wins over Lawler, Miller and first fight with Brunson are quality wins.

Anyways, just looking at the W/L column is so silly, its something any newbie could do just checking rankings even no having idea about the sport. For example, under your logic, having a great fight with Romero to a split decision that could have very well gone his way count just as much as getting KTFO by him, because both performances stand in the L column.

The fact that they actally fought each other and ended with a Jacare walk off KO should have special weight on the matter, its not just one more ranked win to add to the list

 

[Taric]

I would expect something better from you.

First of all, you left Okami, who was ranked #3, out of Jacare's top 10 wins. Carmont was ranked as well iirc. So they would already be even under that simple analysis. Not to mention wins over Lawler, Miller and first fight with Brunson are quality wins.

Anyways, just looking at the W/L column is so silly, its something any newbie could do just checking rankings even no having idea about the sport. For example, under your logic, having a great fight with Romero to a split decision that could have very well gone his way count just as much as getting KTFO by him, because both performances stand in the L column.

The fact that they actally fought each other and ended with a Jacare walk off KO should have special weight on the matter, its not just one more ranked win to add to the list

Looking at the W/L column and tallying up ranked victories comparing their level of competition like @NoBiasJustMMA just did are two separate things.

The former is just going to Wikipedia and seeing that Weidman is 14-5 and Jacare is 26-8 (1) which, ironically, is essentially the main point of the OP and yourself. Jacare has been fighting longer so he has more total victories under his belt, and he defeated Weidman. It takes no effort to know that. Wikipedia, bam, done.

The latter requires you to know the level of competition of all their opponents during that specific time frame, which takes actual research and knowledge. Under this heading Weidman has fought more ranked opponents, as well as beaten more ranked opponents, which means he's fought and beaten better competition. Which is logical when you were a four time champion.

Once again, this is a more in-depth look at the level of competition between the two fighters:

Weidman - 7 ranked wins - 4 championship titles
#1 fighters defeated (1):
Silva
Top 5 fighters defeated (4):
Belfort
Machida
Silva
Munoz
Top 10 fighters defeated (2):
Gastelum
Maia

vs

Jacare - 6 ranked wins - 0 championship titles
#1 fighters defeated (0):
.
Top 5 fighters defeated (3):
Weidman
Belfort
Okami
Top 10 fighters defeated (3):
Brunson
Mousasi
Carmont

Weidman has the better resume. He just does. You can argue the point if you want to, but there's an objective thought process to this methodology. It takes your own opinion out of the process completely, as well as being forced to adhere to historical evidence.

Your own opinion, without historical evidence to back it up, is just that. Opinion. You're spitting whatever you want into the ether and from your own point of view you can't be wrong because your opinion isn't based on any form of fact from the beginning.

 

[pankrat]

Looking at the W/L column and tallying up ranked victories comparing their level of competition like @NoBiasJustMMA just did are two separate things.

The former is just going to Wikipedia and seeing that Weidman is 14-5 and Jacare is 26-8 (1) which, ironically, is essentially the main point of the OP. Jacare has been fighting longer so he has more total victories under his belt.

The latter requires you to know the level of competition of all their opponents during that specific time frame, which takes actual research and knowledge. Under this heading Weidman has fought more ranked opponents, as well as beaten more ranked opponents, which means he's fought and beaten better competition. Which is logical when you were a four time champion..

I already explained why NoBias analysis was flawed and you didnt answered to none of that. I will rewrite it for you, even in bold, so the points dont go unnoticed again:

First of all, left Okami, who was ranked #3, out of Jacare's top 10 wins. Carmont was ranked as well iirc. So they would already be even under that simple analysis. Not to mention wins over Lawler, Miller and first fight with Brunson are quality wins, not sure if they were ranked, under what especific rankings.

And the main flaw of that analysis, which you didnt even wanted to touch:

Just looking at the W/L column, having a great fight with Romero to a split decision that could have very well gone his way count just as much (nothing at all) as getting KTFO by him, because both performances stand in the L column. Well, if you are perfectly ok with it, I respect but we just can't agree on this debate.

Once again, this is a more in-depth look at the level of competition between the two fighters:

Weidman has the better resume. He just does. You can argue the point if you want to, but there's an objective thought process to this methodology. It takes your own opinion out of the process completely, as well as being forced to adhere to historical evidence.

You pretend to present as an objective fact, the names that a bunch of editors (sherdog staff) considered to include in some particular rankings (I guess you are taking sherdog rankings as a reference) in some particular moment. Thats subjective by definition.

And again, here we go with the simple, newbie, analysis I was refering to. Maybe you can check the rankings and Munoz stands as a much more quality win than Tim Kennedy going by that source, but if you actually watched them both fight and you have knowledge and criteria....not hat much

Summarizing, its certainly arguable, but do not pretend to present "number of ranked wins (subjectively ranked by some particular site)" as objective facts.
To me, how those fight went, in the win, or even in a loss by a judge decision, longevity or how they did when they actually fought each other may have more weight than your and NoBiasMMA criteria, but its my opinion

 

[Taric]

I already explained why NoBias analysis was flawed and you didnt answered to none of that. I will rewrite it for you, even in bold, so the points dont go unnoticed again:

First of all, left Okami, who was ranked #3, out of Jacare's top 10 wins. Carmont was ranked as well iirc. So they would already be even under that simple analysis. Not to mention wins over Lawler, Miller and first fight with Brunson are quality wins, not sure if they were ranked, under what especific rankings.

I mean, I most certainly addressed everything you just spoke about:

Weidman - 7 ranked wins - 4 championship titles
#1 fighters defeated (1):
Silva
Top 5 fighters defeated (4):
Belfort
Machida
Silva
Munoz
Top 10 fighters defeated (2):
Gastelum
Maia

vs

Jacare - 6 ranked wins - 0 championship titles
#1 fighters defeated (0):
.
Top 5 fighters defeated (3):
Weidman
Belfort
Okami
Top 10 fighters defeated (3):
Brunson
Mousasi
Carmont

The website we are currently conversing on, which has always taken a strong position on global rankings.

January 4th, 2011 Sherdog MW rankings - Lawler was unranked
August 10th, 2010 Sherdog MW rankings - Kennedy was unranked

I'm just spitting facts.

Just looking at the W/L column, having a great fight with Romero to a split decision that could have very well gone his way count just as much (nothing at all) as getting KTFO by him, because both performances stand in the L column. Well, if you are perfectly ok with it, I respect but we just can't agree on this debate.

I'm not sure if you watch other sports, but if you do you would know that in each and every sport in the world a close loss and a complete blowout is the exact same thing. If you lost, you lost. If you won, you won. The method of that victory and loss doesn't matter. The world of reality is where sport lives. Nogueira getting his ass beat in the beginning of the Cro Cop fight, then coming back and defeating him, is just as quality of a win as him absolutely slaughtering Sergei Kharitonov from bell to bell. In fact it's a better win because Cro Cop was a higher ranked and, by definition, a more elite opponent.

You pretend to present as an objective fact, the names that a bunch of editors (sherdog staff) considered to include in some particular rankings (I guess you are taking sherdog rankings as a reference) in some particular moment. Thats subjective by definition.

I do completely agree with you that historical rankings are definitely, from their onset, a subjective measurable. The organization or media believe X fighter is ranked X because that's what they believe during that time frame. However I firmly believe that using a heavily ranking based methodology to determine greatness is a safer measurable to use, opposed to a fans opinion, because unlike the fans opinions media and organizations that are doing the rankings are doing them in that moment in time. Those rankings are being created, revealed, and used in March 21st 2004. October 2nd 2007. Etc. Those opinions can't be changed 10 years after the fact and say "Fighter X is actually no good because I say so". "Fighter Y was a super elite fighter because I say so". Instead you're receiving an opinion that is never wavering. It simply is what it is. The bias is lessened because time is no longer a factor in the opinion. Because as you are probably aware, recency bias is always going to be a thing. X fighter right now is always going to be seen as better than X fighter from 10 years ago because we're watching the fighter succeed right before our eyes right now. Remembering greatness from 10 years is difficult in sports. That's why it's better to track these things from legitimate sources. Even if those sources are subjective from their onset, at least you can trust those opinions won't change 2 years later. 5 years later. 20 years later. A fans opinion can, and will, change from one day to the next. That's just the nature of fandom.

 

[pankrat]

Weidman - 7 ranked wins - 4 championship titles
#1 fighters defeated (1):
Silva
Top 5 fighters defeated (4):
Belfort
Machida
Silva
Munoz
Top 10 fighters defeated (2):
Gastelum
Maia

vs

Jacare - 6 ranked wins - 0 championship titles
#1 fighters defeated (0):
.
Top 5 fighters defeated (3):
Weidman
Belfort
Okami
Top 10 fighters defeated (3):
Brunson
Mousasi
Carmont
.

Respect, but to put on that list as the defining argument in this matter is silly,

You base your whole opinion on a list ellaborated by a few journalists of this site in a particular timeframe.
I bet not even the same Sherdog journalists you base your entire position on would agree on that approach to the matter, let alone the fighters themselves.

Its such an absurd logic where beating Tim Kennedy and submitting Robbie Lawler is just like if it never happened, where survie and beat up Yoel Romero means 100% nothing, just as much as getting brutally KOed by him ¡!.
The same Sherdog journalists you base your whole opinion on scored this fight for Jacare:
http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/6691/Yoel-Romero-vs-Ronaldo-Souza
Just like an official judge, so plenty of fellow fighters, coaches and many knowledgeable viewers:

As I said, any newbie can put that same list out if he takes a moment and conclude exactly the same, even without ever put his eyes on a fight.

I'm not sure if you watch other sports, but if you do you would know that in each and every sport in the world a close loss and a complete blowout is the exact same thing. If you lost, you lost. If you won, you won. The method of that victory and loss doesn't matter.

This is not about scoring goals or baskets; no need of judge when numbers talk. Re-read what you wrote and think a bit.

I do completely agree with you that historical rankings are definitely, from their onset, a subjective measurable. The organization or media believe X fighter is ranked X because that's what they believe during that time frame. However I firmly believe that using a heavily ranking based methodology to determine greatness is a safer measurable to use, opposed to a fans opinion, because unlike the fans opinions media and organizations that are doing the rankings are doing them in that moment in time. Those rankings are being created, revealed, and used in March 21st 2004. October 2nd 2007. Etc. Those opinions can't be changed 10 years after the fact and say "Fighter X is actually no good because I say so". "Fighter Y was a super elite fighter because I say so". Instead you're receiving an opinion that is never wavering. It simply is what it is. The bias is lessened because time is no longer a factor in the opinion. Because as you are probably aware, recency bias is always going to be a thing. X fighter right now is always going to be seen as better than X fighter from 10 years ago because we're watching the fighter succeed right before our eyes right now. Remembering greatness from 10 years is difficult in sports. That's why it's better to track these things from legitimate sources. Even if those sources are subjective from their onset, at least you can trust those opinions won't change 2 years later. 5 years later. 20 years later. A fans opinion can, and will, change from one day to the next. That's just the nature of fandom.

Funny thing is those same Sherdog journalist you base your opinion on are basically fans, and I bet not even then would agree on you sacralizing those rankings as you do. Or you think if you say Tim Kennedy, Lawler or Romero fights dont have any weight on the matter, they would agree? Let alone Jacare, or Weidman.

We are talking about two guys who have competed pretty much in the same environment, same evolution of the sport, and even have actually fought each other and there is not opininion or judge on the outcome, its a clean KO.

Its not comparing the greatness of the early pioneers with the best 25 years later.

Respect and sorry for some misspell as English is not my first language, this forum is where I practize my writing skills the most lol

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

rankings are too subjective to be used in determining who's the best in my opinion. it works if there is a huge disparity in level of competition but there isn't so we need to look at each individual they beat and score them on how good they are overall AND how good they were when they were beaten.

it's like saying a win over Thiago Santos is the same as a win over Daniel Cormier because they were both ranked opponents on paper. but in reality there is a huge difference between the 2. Daniel Cormier is a much more accomplished fighter and thus a better win even though they were technically the same ranking when Jon Jones beat them both.

 

[GoshiShun17]

@pankrat great debate. I agree 100% with everything you said. @Taric has reasonable evidence but ultimate it looks like it comes down to opinion in this matter and how one chooses to interpret the facts we all laid out. Peace!!!