Do finishes really matter for p4p or goat debate?

finishes always better than decision. it shows dominance and conclusive outcome. anyone else who said it differ than you must be the biggest nuthugger or delusional.

I also wanna add another thing in. You don't see unanimous decision of the night bonus or lay and pray of the night bonus do you? Point proven, no need to argue.
 
Why are you comparing 1 fluke ko to 2 easy wins? What if they both fought mur 3x and cain won three 50-45s while JDS KOed him in the first 3x?

Nobody tries to win by decision unless they want to make less money.

I think you misunderstood who was comparing what there, mang.
 
So an interesting thing I thought about was the fact that Jon Jones has not finished his last 4 LHW opponents (disregarding Chael and Vitor). Obviously it's because those last 4 are very big, strong amazingly skilled guys, all fighting in both their prime and their best fight camp ever to prepare for their respective title shots. I think this will continue. Yet, Jones is obviously a finisher, at least still in my eyes. I could never forget the way he destroyed people up to 2011, where he finished Machida in devastating fashion. And he did not have to finish Cormier in order to cement his p4p status - he only had to win! He is simply the best.

So why was Anderson Silva the best? What exactly makes him better than GSP? Because he's bigger and would probably win at MW? That's not what p4p is about. Because he finishes his opponents? Or was he simply the best fighter in more people's eyes than not.

In my eyes, I would have never thought of discrediting GSP in any way if it weren't for other's criticisms. Maybe that was just media? An interesting thing to remember is that the majority of men in general are around the 155/170 pound range. There are greater chances of having more freak athletes who can hang with the best. Even though, in theory, it should be easier to dominate at higher weight classes since there is smaller % chance of Jones/Gustafson type guys popping around, you still have to fight more conservatively since the power of the fighters are more dangerous. This means that different weight classes have different ways of fighting, and could support the argument that it is impossible and pointless to determine p4p. But that is a different subject. I thought GSP was p4p best because he is the best in his division in both technique and strength; something that isn't always the case in champions. Jon Jones could continue to fight the way he fights, not finish tough, big dudes, and possibly have boring rounds/fights, yet I doubt he will ever be demoted for not finishing guys.

My point or conclusion? So many variables, and this is why MMA is the best sport!! It's still open for debate as to whether finishes are important in ranking fighters. I'd like to hear your thoughts!

Yes, finishing definitely does matter. Of course it does. Any argument to the contrary is based on fighter preferences rather than objectivity.

Martial arts are about technique. The perfect execution of a technique is the opponent rendered unable to retaliate. People learn BJJ primarily to execute submissions. People learn Muay Thai primarily to execute KO/TKO combos/shots. Nobody learns a martial art in order to outpoint someone else, that's just a technicality of the MMA ruleset.

A finish is a showing of indisputable superiority within a contest. The opponent could not last the pace with the victor. This is of course more meaningful than being awarded a victory by the ringside suits.

This is not to say that a fighter bereft of finishing ability cannot be a great fighter. Georges St Pierre didn't have much finishing venom, and he is obviously one of the three greatest fighters in history.

But still, it obviously counts for something. Something important.
 
Yes, finishing definitely does matter. Of course it does. Any argument to the contrary is based on fighter preferences rather than objectivity.

Martial arts are about technique. The perfect execution of a technique is the opponent rendered unable to retaliate. People learn BJJ primarily to execute submissions. People learn Muay Thai primarily to execute KO/TKO combos/shots. Nobody learns a martial art in order to outpoint someone else, that's just a technicality of the MMA ruleset.

A finish is a showing of indisputable superiority within a contest. The opponent could not last the pace with the victor. This is of course more meaningful than being awarded a victory by the ringside suits.

This is not to say that a fighter bereft of finishing ability cannot be a great fighter. Georges St Pierre didn't have much finishing venom, and he is obviously one of the three greatest fighters in history.

But still, it obviously counts for something. Something important.

PS: Never disregard that finishing is an extreme skill. It is a lot tougher to execute a finish than it is to take a decision. Anyone who disagrees with this is kidding himself. Therefore, the importance of finishing is obvious.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say finishes are determinative.

However, I would say a distinct lack of finishes is probably detrimental where GOAT considerations are concerned.
 
Back
Top