Curious as to whether a heavier emphasis is put on prime or longevity when rating a fighter. Obviously things get factored in such as: dominance, downfall, title defenses, opposition, etc. But let's say the 2 fighters finished with the same record and title defenses, but Fighter A was murking people during his peak stretch where as Fighter B lost and regained the title a few times. I guess an example that comes to mind is someone like Randy Couture who never put together huge winning streaks and won/lost the title many times. Opposed to someone like maybe Chuck Liddell who was dominant then was reduced to almost a laughing stock by careers end. Not necessarily comparing those two head to head, but from a career standpoint which do you value more?