All Time GOAT poll

[r-harper-1]

Of course! And it's because of these losses, that i can't quite put Aldo at the #1 GOAT spot.

But who did Aldo lose to?
Conor, Max, Volkanovski, Yan, Moraes (robbery?), Luciano Azevedo

In which of those fights was Aldo at least close to his prime?
Conor, Max

So let's have a close look at these guys.
Conor - for all the shit he gets - is one of the best counterstrikers the sport has ever seen, has decent defensive wrestling and decent BJJ, plus he's got quite a bit of size on Aldo.

Max is a phenomenal striker himself and is known to have both insane cardio as well as incredible durability - on top of being a great anti-wrestler with very good BJJ. Size-wise, Max is the same size/slightly bigger than a prime, 145er Jose Aldo.

Now which guys has Jon Jones at the end of his prime faced, that are at least as big, if not quite a bit bigger than him (while having an athletic body and not being kinda chubby, or even fat) that come close in terms of skill to a prime Conor McGregor (who - again - also had a good bit of size on Aldo) or a prime Max Holloway?
Because i think the answer to that question is a pretty clear "no one".

Spoiler

I think we're in agreement that Aldo was not in his prime anymore when he faced Yan, but even if he was, Yan is much more skilled than anyone Jon Jones has faced who matched him in terms of size.

Aldo is one of my favourites.....he’s the man......I have him 5th all time

 

[BoomStronk]

I hate responding with so little to your actually thoughtful arguments, but here i refer to my first point and i'll add, that judging fighters by their skill (technical and tactical) is the only thing that counts - to me at least.
Athletic skills in relation to size play a role too, of course.
(Now before you say it's a double standard that here i "excuse" them not being as strong as the big guys while criticizing the big guys for having worse technique than the smaller guys: size doesn't decrease motor skill and coordination, but size obviously impacts power and speed).

I would disagree. I think it's quite obvious that higher body mass comes necessarily along with decreased coordination. It's reflected in statements like "he moves like a lightweight." What do you think does account for the clear difference in overall coordination and athleticism of smaller fighters? Here's an article I found after 5 minutes of googling that would seem to support this contention, though I must admit I'm way too tired to give it a proper read:
https://elifesciences.org/articles/07892

Wait... i don't get your maths!
A UFC 145er is ~160-165 pounds in the cage while having a six pack... i'd say if those guys were unfit, they'd be pretty much "the average american".
An ideal body for 205 however, is being ~225 pounds while actually being lean and that's far from average.

I think you get my maths, 198 lbs (average american male) is 33 lbs from 165 and 27 lbs from 225. 33 vs 27 is "roughly" in the middle. The average american is certainly fatter than the average fighter, but the average fighter certainly has more muscle mass. Overall, I accept your point though. 145 is probably closer to the middle of the body-size bell curve than is 205.

I also think it only makes sense to compare differences in talent pool, when the actual skills between divisions are pretty much equal to the point where it's almost/completely impossible to tell, who's actually more skilled, but this isn't the case if we compare 205 and let's say 145 or so.

wait a minute - who said "skilled"? To me, it comes down to this: if you are born in a 165 lb body you are going to have a much higher speed and technicality ceiling than if you are born in a 225 lb body. All things being equal, therefore, to say you are a "better" fighter than a 225 lb fighter is to say that you perform better against your weightclass peers than he does his. in 165 lb bodies, everyone - your opponents and you, are going to be faster and more technical than 225 lbers. at 225lbs, you - and your opponents - are going to be more durable and stronger. It's not that either of these two attribute pairs are more impressive than the other as it is that they are more or less tied to their respective weight classes. Otherwise, we would see faster and more technical LHWs dominate and we wouldn't be so blown away by the abilities of Ciryl Gane at HW precisely because his technical abilities and speed are a rarity at HW, or even LHW.

it's just physics. What else would explain the wealth of technical fighters at lower weight classes?

 

[Iron Nick]

I would disagree. I think it's quite obvious that higher body mass comes necessarily along with decreased coordination. It's reflected in statements like "he moves like a lightweight." What do you think does account for the clear difference in overall coordination and athleticism of smaller fighters? Here's an article I found after 5 minutes of googling that would seem to support this contention, though I must admit I'm way too tired to give it a proper read:
https://elifesciences.org/articles/07892

Statements like these come from the fact that lightweights are in fact very technical (compared to the big 205ers and heavyweights), though this saying also often refers to the speed.
That said, the saying doesn't tell us anything about the reasons why a 155er is on average significantly more technically sound than a 205er or heavyweight.

As for the study: either I'm a bit dumb now, or there is no correlation to out discussion about the correlation between size and motor skill, lol.

To my knowledge, the only reason, why bigger people are on average less technical, is because they are far less incentivized to care as much about their technique (as small people) to begin with; when Francis Ngannou trains with other people, he gets away with a lot of mistakes, simply because he's a mountain of a man, whereas Demetrious Johnson had no other choice but to work meticulously on his technique if he wanted to be able to not get his ass kicked all the time in training.

I also think that guys like Fedor, Gane, Tyson, (many other big boxers) as well as olympian heavyweight wrestlers and basketball players are good proof of big (and even huge) guys being able to move just as smooth/technically clean as small guys.

Last but not least: i'm not a fan of this "a-level athlete talk", but most guys in the NBA and NFL would be 205ers or heavyweights and many of them, especially the basketball players, have tremendous amounts of motor skill/coordination/talent in the former regards, so alongside the already small talent pool, it is kinda true that the majority of the crazy talented guys that size won't ever get into fighting (until fighters pay is better, at least.)

I think you get my maths, 198 lbs (average american male) is 33 lbs from 165 and 27 lbs from 225. 33 vs 27 is "roughly" in the middle. The average american is certainly fatter than the average fighter, but the average fighter certainly has more muscle mass. Overall, I accept your point though. 145 is probably closer to the middle of the body-size bell curve than is 205.

Oh, okay, fair enough to an extent.
I think the average american would probably fight at 155 - after getting in shape though, of course, lol.

wait a minute - who said "skilled"? To me, it comes down to this: if you are born in a 165 lb body you are going to have a much higher speed and technicality ceiling than if you are born in a 225 lb body. All things being equal, therefore, to say you are a "better" fighter than a 205 lb fighter is to say that you perform better against your weightclass peers than he does his. in 165 lb bodies, everyone - your opponents and you, are going to be faster and more technical than 225 lbers. at 225lbs, you - and your opponents - are going to be more durable and stronger. It's not that either of these two attribute pairs are more impressive than the other as it is that they are more or less tied to their respective weight classes. Otherwise, we would see faster and more technical LHWs dominate and we wouldn't be so blown away by the abilities of Ciryl Gane at HW precisely because his technical abilities and speed are a rarity at HW, or even LHW.

it's just physics. What else would explain the wealth of technical fighters at lower weight classes?

I think this just hinges on our disagreement about the relation (or lack thereof) between size and technique.
In terms of speed, i do of course agree, that a 205er won't ever be as fast as John Dodson - but that's why i'm talking about technique! (alongside fight-IQ, tactics, etc. of course).

Like i referred to in another post of mine ITT:
Watch this striking exchange between Jon Jones and DC (the latter of which i rate very highly!) and pay attention to the lack of footwork, feints and striking defense.
A lot of what people perceive to be "brillian distance management" of Jon Jones has to do with the fact that a lot of his opponents, be it Rampage or Daniel Cormier, literally just plod forward in a straight line, making it very easy for Jones to consistently land straight-lined striking attacks.
Plus: look at what happened, when Jon Jones (in his prime!) faced a guy his size with good boxing and decent defensive wrestling in Gustafsson: Jones was in the fight of his life and though he won, he probably took more damage than he inflicted.
Look at what happened when Jon Jones faced Dominick Reyes (keep in mind that Jones, should we believe Anthony Smith, did at least until their fight, still fail drug tests): he lost in the eyes of most people.



I think Jones is a very talented fighter and has one of the best fight-IQs in all of MMA, but i also believe that he - more than any other GOAT-candidate - benefitted from fighting a lot of men who're not legit/natural (size-wise!) 205ers like he is and that's not mentioning the failed drug tests, as well as the fact that there are several GOAT candidates who fought more skilled /technique, fight-IQ, etc.) opponents.

 

[Iron Nick]

Aldo is one of my favourites.....he’s the man......I have him 5th all time

He really is the man.
Even though you might not agree with me about Aldo having faced the stiffest competition of any GOAT, i still think we can at least agree that his strength of schedule is absurd.
Volkanovski
Holloway x2
Edgar x2
Mendes x2
Conor
Petr Yan
Faber
Korean Zombie
Mike Brown
Marlon Moraes
Kenny Florian

 

[mmadeewana]

GSP. Never popped for PEDs. Avenged both of his losses and cleaned out his division.

 

[Julius Wang Shi]

Fedor.

 

[pankrat]

Semi long read but let me know if you agree

1. Jon Jones
Case For: His resume is pretty much unmatched (maybe GSP is close). He dominated what at the time was the UFC's glamor division. Rampage, Shogun, Machida, Rashad, Bader, Vitor, Chael etc. Then beat the next era of guys mostly cleanly (close fight with Gus in the first) . Pretty much only guy he did not beat that he could have fought was Rumble. Then beat ANOTHER era of guys in Smith, Santos and Reyes albeit perhaps should have lost the Reyes fight.
Resume unmatched. In his prime, pretty much as dominant as it gets.

Case Against: Steroids. Pretty much it. And since he is so high profile he might have access to high level roids no one else does.

Why the case against doesn't matter: I don't want to poo poo the sport. But it's pretty naive to think most of these guy at the top level aren't on something. But I guess who knows. Jon certainty has been dumb enough to keep getting caught. But it's more than likely with everyone is on something and so it's a pretty even playing field.

2. GSP
Case for: Probably the second greatest resume of all time. Dominated three generations of welterweights. Beat some of the greatest fighters ever, and had a stranglehold on his division for many years. Did pick up the MW title later in his career vs an also shopworn Bisping. Take that for however you want. In addition, most of his fights even against top guys were not particularly close.

Case against. Loss to Matt Serra

Why the case against doesn't matter: It's obviously a silly loss, but I would tend to agree with the notion that GSP's prime did not occur until probably...2009ish? I mean at the time of the loss to Serra he had 14 fights. Anderson had multiple losses 14 fights in and would have another to Chonan soon after, Khabib had been fighting cans etc. And with the brutal rematch that took place, not sure it should matter as much

3. Anderson
Case for: Probably the most spectacular fighter ever. Probably MMA's version of Roy Jones although I suppose to a lesser degree. Had a stranglehold on the middleweight division for a long time dominating excellent fighters like Vitor, Nate, Rich, Maia. And beating top notch guys like Chael, Okami and Forest. Pound for pound probably the greatest watch ever in MMA

Case against: Steroid issues, resume issues, silly losses pre and post prime.

Why the case against doesn't matter: It can be argued that he only took steroids post the leg break. Not sure I agree with it but he didn't pop beforehand so could be true. The resume issues are tough to overcome in this sort of debate because he obviously doesn't have the resume of Jones or GSP. BUT can be argued he won in a more spectacular fashion than either. And losses pre and post prime are rather unimportant imo. Now when did his prime actually end? That's more of a question (was it before the first weidman fight>)

4. Fedor
Case for: The Greatest Heavyweight ever. Dominated in a promotion that featured the best heavyweights in the world at the time. Beat one of the 5 best heavyweights ever (Nog) multiple times, and beat top 15ish (maybe top 10) guys in Crop Cop, Sylvia, Arlovski etc and fringe guys like Coleman, Herring etc. Usually in quick blowouts. Well versed on the feet and on the ground.

Case against: Post Pride suffered multiple bad losses. Possible resume issues. Never appeared in the UFC

Why the case against doesn't matter: Well at the time that he was in PRIDE he pretty clearly was the best Heavyweight in the world. And it can be argued that around 2007ish his prime was coming to an end. So by the time he came to America in Strikeforce he was past his peak. Maybe doesn't explain the Werdum loss but could explain the ones post that. Some resume issues when stacked up with these other guys but basically beat everyone in Prides. And never appearing in the UFC is no big deal if your resume is good enough (maybe his is. Up for debate).

5. Khabib

Case for: The most dominant Lightweight ever. Destroyed a number of really good fighters. An excellent title run once he got the belt beating Conor, Dustin and Justin in total blowouts. A few other quality wins in Dos Anjos, Barboza and Healy. And some decent guys like Tibau and Trujillo. Only close fight was against Tibau and once he really got going didn't lose too many rounds in his career.

Case against: It's basically impossible to argue Khabib along these other guys from a resume standpoint. Probably also missed out on a few guys he could have fought but did not (Cerrone, Ferguson, Pettis, Bendo, etc)

Why the case against doesn't matter: He was so dominant when he fought it's easy to say he probably beats the guys he did not get to fight. He was that dominant. So resume shouldn't matter as much here.

You should add as case for Anderson the fact of beating top5 contenders at different weight classes. Overcoming size advantage or succes at multiple weight classes has always added to greatness in combat sports. Oy you should include that as "case against" Jones if you prefer.

Silva beat Sakurai at 169lbs and Griffin at 205 just around the time they fought for UFC gold in those weightclasses. He had fought at WW the few months before becoming UFC MW champ defeating the bigger Franklin.

Aldo, the all-time greatest FW being a natural BW still contending for the 135lbs belt is something that certainly shiuld add to greatness consideration too

 

[pankrat]

Semi long read but let me know if you agree

1. Jon Jones
Case For: His resume is pretty much unmatched (maybe GSP is close). He dominated what at the time was the UFC's glamor division. Rampage, Shogun, Machida, Rashad, Bader, Vitor, Chael etc. Then beat the next era of guys mostly cleanly (close fight with Gus in the first) . Pretty much only guy he did not beat that he could have fought was Rumble. Then beat ANOTHER era of guys in Smith, Santos and Reyes albeit perhaps should have lost the Reyes fight.
Resume unmatched. In his prime, pretty much as dominant as it gets.

Case Against: Steroids. Pretty much it. And since he is so high profile he might have access to high level roids no one else does.

Why the case against doesn't matter: I don't want to poo poo the sport. But it's pretty naive to think most of these guy at the top level aren't on something. But I guess who knows. Jon certainty has been dumb enough to keep getting caught. But it's more than likely with everyone is on something and so it's a pretty even playing field.

2. GSP
Case for: Probably the second greatest resume of all time. Dominated three generations of welterweights. Beat some of the greatest fighters ever, and had a stranglehold on his division for many years. Did pick up the MW title later in his career vs an also shopworn Bisping. Take that for however you want. In addition, most of his fights even against top guys were not particularly close.

Case against. Loss to Matt Serra

Why the case against doesn't matter: It's obviously a silly loss, but I would tend to agree with the notion that GSP's prime did not occur until probably...2009ish? I mean at the time of the loss to Serra he had 14 fights. Anderson had multiple losses 14 fights in and would have another to Chonan soon after, Khabib had been fighting cans etc. And with the brutal rematch that took place, not sure it should matter as much

3. Anderson
Case for: Probably the most spectacular fighter ever. Probably MMA's version of Roy Jones although I suppose to a lesser degree. Had a stranglehold on the middleweight division for a long time dominating excellent fighters like Vitor, Nate, Rich, Maia. And beating top notch guys like Chael, Okami and Forest. Pound for pound probably the greatest watch ever in MMA

Case against: Steroid issues, resume issues, silly losses pre and post prime.

Why the case against doesn't matter: It can be argued that he only took steroids post the leg break. Not sure I agree with it but he didn't pop beforehand so could be true. The resume issues are tough to overcome in this sort of debate because he obviously doesn't have the resume of Jones or GSP. BUT can be argued he won in a more spectacular fashion than either. And losses pre and post prime are rather unimportant imo. Now when did his prime actually end? That's more of a question (was it before the first weidman fight>)

4. Fedor
Case for: The Greatest Heavyweight ever. Dominated in a promotion that featured the best heavyweights in the world at the time. Beat one of the 5 best heavyweights ever (Nog) multiple times, and beat top 15ish (maybe top 10) guys in Crop Cop, Sylvia, Arlovski etc and fringe guys like Coleman, Herring etc. Usually in quick blowouts. Well versed on the feet and on the ground.

Case against: Post Pride suffered multiple bad losses. Possible resume issues. Never appeared in the UFC

Why the case against doesn't matter: Well at the time that he was in PRIDE he pretty clearly was the best Heavyweight in the world. And it can be argued that around 2007ish his prime was coming to an end. So by the time he came to America in Strikeforce he was past his peak. Maybe doesn't explain the Werdum loss but could explain the ones post that. Some resume issues when stacked up with these other guys but basically beat everyone in Prides. And never appearing in the UFC is no big deal if your resume is good enough (maybe his is. Up for debate).

5. Khabib

Case for: The most dominant Lightweight ever. Destroyed a number of really good fighters. An excellent title run once he got the belt beating Conor, Dustin and Justin in total blowouts. A few other quality wins in Dos Anjos, Barboza and Healy. And some decent guys like Tibau and Trujillo. Only close fight was against Tibau and once he really got going didn't lose too many rounds in his career.

Case against: It's basically impossible to argue Khabib along these other guys from a resume standpoint. Probably also missed out on a few guys he could have fought but did not (Cerrone, Ferguson, Pettis, Bendo, etc)

Why the case against doesn't matter: He was so dominant when he fought it's easy to say he probably beats the guys he did not get to fight. He was that dominant. So resume shouldn't matter as much here.

About Anderson, it's not that he was just the most "spectacular" fighter...it was something way more tangible than that: he was the best finisher, standing or grounded with both subs and GnP. Nobody matches his finishing records.

 

[knock_you_out]

GSP

 

[KOPPE]

He was the first person in our lifetime to enter the matrix, a one off who got a bit silly towards the end of his career but the man is a god of the sport and will never be forgotten.
The greatest. No doubt about it. In his prime no one in his weight could've beaten him. His stance, style, movement so smooth, classy and accurate. hes Bruce Lee if Bruce Lee wasn't a fraud.
Idc what you guys think but he is definitely the greatest fighter of all time.

 

[Ibm]

Yes he is

 

[JustOnce]

He was the first person in our lifetime to enter the matrix, a one off who got a bit silly towards the end of his career but the man is a god of the sport and will never be forgotten.
The greatest. No doubt about it. In his prime no one in his weight could've beaten him. His stance, style, movement so smooth, classy and accurate. hes Bruce Lee if Bruce Lee wasn't a fraud.
Idc what you guys think but he is definitely the greatest fighter of all time.

No.

Cheater tho.

 

[AldoStillGoat]

I believe so

He’s really close with Fedor and Aldo though so if you said any of those 3 are GOAT’s I’d agree with you

 

[2004 account]

No, Fedor is.

 

[burningspear]

He had an aura of invincibility like no other.

 

[13Seconds]

Yes. Has nothing to do with last night though. His championship run was so mezmerising.

An overlooked win for Silva was when he outgrappled Marquardt and GnP'd the shit out of him.

 

[JustOnce]

He had an aura of invincibility like no other.

Lol

 

[Corrado Soprano]

Yes. A man is only a real fighter if they can prove themselves in Boxing and he has.

 

[pankrat]

Beat more UFC tittle challengers than anybody, in three different weightclasses, with the best finishing ratio, and more variety of finishing tecniques.
If Silva doesnt have a case for best martial artist of all-time, nobody has

 

[AmericanMMA]

It’s tough when you’ve been caught taking PEDs. If he was clean, there would be no question.