Favorite War Room poster

[dissolved]

So in your opinion, everything that happened after 2010 does not really count?

Mir did things that affected his status since 2010.

I think if Cain goes on another run he'll work his way up the ranks quickly. That top 6 is going to be hard to crack just because of the number of high-profile fights those fighters had.

 

[JDragon]

Just wondering because e.g. Werdum holds a win over everyone he fought on that list that you ranked above him.

 

[Ruprecht]

Mir 2nd after Fedor? You've got to be joking... or just going for longevity over performance.
It's been a long career, but his most impressive performance was breaking Sylvia's arm for the belt and the last four years have only detracted from his overall legacy.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Whoa, that list is....unique

1. Fedor
2. Nog
3. Werdum
4. Cain
5. JDS

This is what makes the most sense to me with Mir somewhere around 10 or 11.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He likes to lie about it and say it's not true as well. Weird guy.

You're seriously crazy. I have never mentioned TJ Waldburger in any context ever. I certainly have never compared Mir to him. I'll bet my account on it. Your Carwin story is also false, as is your crazy assertion about how often I post about Mir. Your obsession with the dude is majorly creepy, too.

lulz,

Calls a poster stupid then doubles down on stupid by blaming Nader, a man who held no elected position, for a war, the impetus for which occurred nearly a year after his bid for the presidency, while defending Hillary Clinton, a person who actually voted for the war.

So do you think the Iraq War would have happened if not for Nader's vanity campaign? And would it happened if Clinton had voted against it?

I'll answer this way.

Fedor is number one, then there are five or so who could be argued from two to six (Big Nog, Frank Mir, Mirko Cro Cop, Josh Barnett and Randy Couture). After that there are another three or four and then another three or four.

I'll go with:

1. Fedor
2. Mir

Yeah, so this is the kind of guy who thinks I underrate Mir. I freely admit that I rate him---quite a bit lower than this guy does.

Whoa, that list is....unique

1. Fedor
2. Nog
3. Werdum
4. Cain
5. JDS

This is what makes the most sense to me with Mir somewhere around 10 or 11.

I'd put Werdum second and Cain third (*ducks*), but otherwise, I agree. I don't think Mir quite cracks the top 15, but it's not a totally crazy position. Don't really see how he gets to 10 or 11, though.

Mir would win easily, would be the favourite (not sure about a line).

Regardless, I've been around the block with Jack so many times regarding Mir and a slew of other mma topics I can't stomach it anymore. Things like calling Mir heartless right after he gets his face smashed in for the better part of a round before knee-barring Lesnar - literally like he hadn't seen the fight.

I have never called Mir or any other fighter "heartless" or anything like that. You're lying just like Kone is with the Waldburger thing.

I really wonder how good he would've been if he didn't get into his motorcycle wreck. A HW with explosiveness, KO power and bone breaking subs. Damn. Losing out a couple years of your prime has to really fucking suck too.

Leading up the accident, Mir had a brutal loss at the hands of Ian Freeman, a sub over the corpse of Tank Abbott, he beat Wes Sims by getting stomped in the head, then really beat Sims, and then had the fluky win over Sylvia. Not exactly on a legend track there.

Ps. I've always liked and defend Mir. Dude will fight anybody and has always had a decent chance of beating anybody.

I have no problem with Mir in reality. Fun fighter to watch. It's just that if you think he's the second best fighter in the history of the sport and someone else who knows a lot more about MMA than you thinks he's a long-time fringe contender, you gotta find some explanation. Also, note how people don't want to deal with my actual comments--Mir has generally been at the fringes of contention, he's an exciting fighter, had a long career, etc. That's too reasonable so they fabricate ridiculous claims and attribute them to me so they can argue with those.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'll answer this way.

Fedor is number one, then there are five or so who could be argued from two to six (Big Nog, Frank Mir, Mirko Cro Cop, Josh Barnett and Randy Couture). After that there are another three or four and then another three or four.

I'll go with:

1. Fedor
2. Mir
3. Big Nog
4. Cro Cop
5. Josh Barnett
6. Randy Couture
7. Werdum
8. Mark Coleman
9. Vovchanchyn
10. Cain Velasquez

11. Andre Arlovski
12. Tim Sylvia
13. Alistair Overeem
14. Junior Dos Santos
15. Pedro Rizzo
16. Antonio Silva
17. Brock Lesnar
18. Shane Carwin
19. Mark Hunt
20. Gabriel Gonzaga

21. Ben Rothwell
22. Kevin Randleman
23. Roy Nelson
24. Don Frye
25. Dan Severn


Something like that. The last 15 or so are quite interchangeable.

I tell you what: I tried to briefly compose a top 5 when I asked you, until I realized how hard it was. I'm impressed you actually did this. I got stuck after Fedor.

So what does this list represent? Is this a combination of legacy, success, and skill? Best fighters at their peak? I think you got Mir too high and Hunt too low. Coleman seems a bit high to me, but not outrageous.
I also think if you can include the Monster, you should be able to sneak Bas in, since he fought at HW.

Impressive list though, but would like to hear what this represents to you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I tell you what: I tried to briefly compose a top 5 when I asked you, until I realized how hard it was. I'm impressed you actually did this. I got stuck after Fedor.

You're impressed with that? Just looks like he's naming fighters he can remember. Mir is the second-best HW ever and JDS, who absolutely wiped the floor with him and generally has a lot more big wins and fewer losses, is No. 14? There's no possible criteria that get you to that result.

 

[dontsnitch]

You're impressed with that? Just looks like he's naming fighters he can remember. Mir is the second-best HW ever and JDS, who absolutely wiped the floor with him and generally has a lot more big wins and fewer losses, is No. 14? There's no possible criteria that get you to that result.

Which is why I'd like to hear what this means. It's impressive in that he made a list of 25, with what I consider to be a couple of guys out of place, but it can be easily be redeemed. Put Mir lower, but Hunt higher, but the criteria for this has always alluded me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which is why I'd like to hear what this means. It's impressive in that he made a list of 25, with what I consider to be a couple of guys out of place, but it can be easily be redeemed. Put Mir lower, but Hunt higher, but the criteria for this has always alluded me.

The entire list is out of place.

 

[dontsnitch]

The entire list is out of place.

I think it's easily redeemable. Such is the nature of lists.

Can you name your top 2?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think it's easily redeemable. Such is the nature of lists.

Can you name your top 2?

My top 10 would be:

1. Fedor
2. Werdum
3. Cain
4. Nog
5. JDS
6. Barnett
7. CroCop
8. DC
9. Overeem
10. Arlovski

Based on a combination of peak and longevity, with a little more emphasis on peak. I don't see any criteria that gets Mir over any of those guys. That doesn't mean he sucks or that I'm comparing him to some guy whose name I barely know or whatever. He's had a good career, but so have other people.

 

[dontsnitch]

My top 10 would be:

1. Fedor
2. Werdum
3. Cain
4. Nog
5. JDS
6. Barnett
7. CroCop
8. DC
9. Overeem
10. Arlovski

Based on a combination of peak and longevity, with a little more emphasis on peak. I don't see any criteria that gets Mir over any of those guys.

I like DC in there, that's clever.

If you put Barnett after DC, I think the list is solid. Not sure I like Arlovski at 10, but it's not egregious.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like DC in there, that's clever.

If you put Barnett after DC, I think the list is solid. Not sure I like Arlovski at 10, but it's not egregious.

DC's a tough one because I think he was really, really good at HW, but he only had 13 fights at HW, and a lot of them were essentially meaningless in terms of determining his standing in the history of the division. Still, though, two wins over legit contenders (Barnett and Silva at the time), two wins over good, second-tier contenders (Mir and Nelson), couple other decent ones, won by huge margins in all his fights, no negatives. Barnett had his own run as being very close to the top of the division and a lot longer run.

Who would you put over AA?

 

[dontsnitch]

DC's a tough one because I think he was really, really good at HW, but he only had 13 fights at HW, and a lot of them were essentially meaningless in terms of determining his standing in the history of the division. Still, though, two wins over legit contenders (Barnett and Silva at the time), two wins over good, second-tier contenders (Mir and Nelson), couple other decent ones, won by huge margins in all his fights, no negatives. Barnett had his own run as being very close to the top of the division and a lot longer run.

Who would you put over AA?

Not sure, I just always thought he wasn't that great. His chin left him really quick, and he lost to Sylvia twice. I like Hunt. If Couture counts as HW, I like him there. Same with Bas.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not sure, I just always thought he wasn't that great. His chin left him really quick, and he lost to Sylvia twice. I like Hunt. If Couture counts as HW, I like him there. Same with Bas.

I think Bas is pretty overrated, to be honest. Good striker, but a small HW with terrible wrestling by modern standards. Didn't beat any great HWs (and I'm also skeptical of Pancrase in general). I think at his best he loses badly to everyone I put on the list, and some I didn't (including Mir!). I wouldn't argue much with Sylvia or Couture over AA, but I think he was better and had a better career than either. Hunt's record is just too shitty for me to put him there, though he has had a brutal schedule, and he has his share of good wins.

 

[dontsnitch]

I think Bas is pretty overrated, to be honest. Good striker, but a small HW with terrible wrestling by modern standards. Didn't beat any great HWs. I wouldn't argue much with Sylvia or Couture over AA, but I think he was better and had a better career than either. Hunt's record is just too shitty for me to put him there, though he has had a brutal schedule, and he has his share of good wins.

I can only really consider who I think was the best fighter, and not what their record was. Hunt's record doesn't look good, but I think he was better, at his prime, than AA.

I can settle for Couture in the 10 spot.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can only really consider who I think was the best fighter, and not what their record was. Hunt's record doesn't look good, but I think he was better, at his prime, than AA.

I can settle for Couture in the 10 spot.

The problem is that transitivity doesn't apply in MMA. There are definitely guys that Hunt would do better against than AA, but how many? You judge a guy's career by what he actually did rather than what you think he could do (not that I dismiss qualitative analysis, but if the quantitative evidence differs widely from someone's qualitative assessment, the assessment should be questioned).

To put it another way, Hunt's career hasn't been anywhere near as good as AA's (I don't think anyone would argue with that) so if you're saying that he was better, there's a lot to explain. FWIW, I think prime AA would be favored over prime Hunt, too.

Couture is closer. I think he gets destroyed by prime AA, and generally would have a worse record against the same schedule, but it's not a big difference. Like I said, I don't have him ahead, but I can see it.

 

[dontsnitch]

The problem is that transitivity doesn't apply in MMA. There are definitely guys that Hunt would do better against than AA, but how many? You judge a guy's career by what he actually did rather than what you think he could do (not that I dismiss qualitative analysis, but if the quantitative evidence differs widely from someone's qualitative assessment, the assessment should be questioned).

To put it another way, Hunt's career hasn't been anywhere near as good as AA's (I don't think anyone would argue with that) so if you're saying that he was better, there's a lot to explain. FWIW, I think prime AA would be favored over prime Hunt, too.

Couture is closer. I think he gets destroyed by prime AA, and generally would have a worse record against the same schedule, but it's not a big difference. Like I said, I don't have him ahead, but I can see it.

Prime Couture is interesting 'cause it's classic grappler vs striker. I think it could go either way, not unlike Belfort/Couture. I don't think Hunt gets destroyed, though. I think it's close to even.

I can't look at it any other way, as it's the way I'm used to looking at the line. It's why I've always sneered at these lists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Prime Couture is interesting 'cause it's classic grappler vs striker. I think it could go either way, not unlike Belfort/Couture. I don't think Hunt gets destroyed, though. I think it's close to even.

I can't look at it any other way, as it's the way I'm used to looking at the line. It's why I've always sneered at these lists.

So another way you can tell how highly regarded someone was in their own time and get a clue about where they rank is by looking at their odds history. It can be misleading at times (like how Werdum has very consistently been undervalued), but it's a useful tool for this kind of thing. So like Mir--the second-best HW ever according to one idiot--has been the underdog in his last eight fights, and even in his prime was barely favored over guys like Kongo, Carwin, and Nelson (and even money the second time against Brock). That's not what you expect to see from a really great fighter. Compare to JDS, who was a big favorite over Mir coming off Mir's best performance, a pretty big favorite over Carwin, big favorite over Nelson, Hunt, etc. Couture never had a period where the odds reflected the belief that he was a really elite HW (and the results weren't there, either). Arlovski did.

 

[dontsnitch]

So another way you can tell how highly regarded someone was in their own time and get a clue about where they rank is by looking at their odds history. It can be misleading at times (like how Werdum has very consistently been undervalued), but it's a useful tool for this kind of thing. So like Mir--the second-best HW ever according to one idiot--has been the underdog in his last eight fights, and even in his prime was barely favored over guys like Kongo, Carwin, and Nelson (and even money the second time against Brock). That's not what you expect to see from a really great fighter. Compare to JDS, who was a big favorite over Mir coming off Mir's best performance, a pretty big favorite over Carwin, big favorite over Nelson, Hunt, etc. Couture never had a period where the odds reflected the belief that he was a really elite HW (and the results weren't there, either). Arlovski did.

I can grant you that the line does reflect reality in some sense, but only the closing line.

I can't find the history on Couture before the Gonzaga fight, so I'm not sure where he stood. In theory, you're right.