- Joined
- Nov 21, 2017
- Messages
- 2,055
- Reaction score
- 2,660
It seems we just have different uses for the word "elite". I use it very sparingly, personally -- only to describe someone who has reached or is near the zenith of their discipline, one of the best of the best. I get where you're coming from now, though.I didn't heard about Tate before his internet fame, but since I am watching all glory events, I have seen Sahak before knowing about his fight with Tate. Sahak for me was the elite performer - Artem is my of favourite kickboxers AT and everyone, who could force him into extra time is elite performer. And if Tate could win rounds against Sahak, he is therefore elite performer.
Maybe the problem is the definition. For me every true UFC fighter is elite performer, every top challanger of KSW, RIZIN or Octagon.
Tate probably was the best kickboxers of England in some point, and for me it is pretty good accomplishment in terms of sport and good enough to call him elite. The best sprinter in my country is elite performer for me, even if he doesn't even qualify for Olympic.
In the context of humanity as a whole, yes Andrew Tate was an elite performer. I personally don't find that view useful, so for me I usually frame it within the context of that sport and its history. Some random guy fighting on KSW could likely beat up 99% of people in a street fight, but that doesn't tell me much. Looking at that same guy within the context of his sport will tell you much more about his actual skill relative to other practitioners. This sort of disagreement over the meanings of words like "elite" / judgements of skill is one of the many reasons the Elo rating system was developed, funny enough.