Five Criteria for GOATness: Record, Dominance, Skill, Cheating, Competence in Judging

[Paolo Delutis]

Even if it stopped,it cant be decided. The guys fought in different eras,under different conditions,against different opponents. Even in divisional rankings this is the case.

Could be true but atleast we'd have all the records to try and decipher it ...the sport is too young to be crowning overall GOATS

 

[HHJ]

Could be true but atleast we'd have all the records to try and decipher it ...the sport is too young to be crowning overall GOATS

Yeah,its embarassing how people keep wanting to apply this to every current fighter that comes along,and erase the past.

 

[TheTickG]

Since evaluating things like P4P rankings and GOATness is fairly arbitrary, here are five criteria to evaluate fighters in relation to one another.

Record - This has a few factors. The most obvious one is looking at the number of wins and losses, the quality of competition relative to a given epoch and division depth, and also absolute terms (who overall beat the best quality competition, regardless of quantity). We can evaluate competition in terms of how many ranked wins one had, champions or former champions, P4P ranked fighters, what was the combined record of opponents, and whether the opponents were in their prime or not, among other things.

Also we look at who the fighter has lost to, and whether the losses were avenged or not, and the conditions under which these losses took place, e.g. Fedor's loss to TK was a fluke cut, just as Jones' DQ loss; GSP's loss to Serra was more significant, though he avenged it decisively;, Cain's loss to Werdum was definitively impactful... This category also includes titles won and title defenses: how many titles won, how many title match wins, how many weight classes? How many title defenses did they have? This factor is complicated by the introduction of primes and point in career: should Penn's record after his reign and prime count as significantly? Should pre-prime records be compounded only? Since it is hard to determine with any fair sense just when a prime ends and begins, this makes things difficult and always controversial (e.g. was Fedor past his prime when he lost to Werdum?).

Dominance: How did the fights themselves go? How consistently did the fighter come out on top in a decisive manner? How far ahead of everyone else was he/she, record aside? Khabib is a good example of a fighter that has very few title defenses relative to other fighters, so he does not excel on paper in terms of title reign although he was undefeated. But he was so overwhelmingly dominant in the fights themselves that he is taken to be one of the GOATS. Someone like Jones, who on paper has the best record also has a few controversial decisions (Gus, Santos, Reyes), which make people less certain of things.

Skill: The actual skillset of the fighter. Who was more and better rounded? Who excelled more in actual MMA skills. DJ and GSP are examples of superlative fighters that were extremely well rounded, on top of being dominant and having great records. Someone like Silva or Khabib, while not as well rounded, had superlative skills in a few areas that compensated for weaknesses in others. Someone like Cain was extremely skilled in most places, but didn't have the record to match it up.

A fourth, crucial but controversial one:

PEDs/cheating: Did the fighter have proven PED use in their career? If one cannot assume other fighters were in fact cheating without substantive proof, how does this affect? Some people will say cheating once discredits one's entire record or eligibility for being considered. I am in that camp. Others will claim it only disqualifies consideration on those wins that a person was flagged for. Yet another, more lenient one, will claim that since it is likely everyone or most were cheating, PED flagging is irrelevant.

Yet a fifth, related to record, is more finnicky still:

Incompetence/Competence in Judging: If a fighter has a loss on their record, or multiple losses, as a result of incompetence in judging, corruption, or sheer loopholing, should they be penalized? Should the one unduly rewarded be rewarded? Should terrible decisions be amended? Should we take Diego's loss against Pearson against him? How much does Yan's loss to Aljo via DQ detract from his record?

Not sure how I feel about the judging one. But, cheating needs to be considered more heavily in these discussions.

 

[pankrat]

How do you suggest we should rate "quality of competition", specially when comparing guys who ara beating #1 contender after #1 contender

 

[BoomStronk]

Pretty sure the concept of “Dominance” when evaluating GOAT status was created by Khabib fans so they could move the goal post in the absence of title defenses.

Now, sure, this term was thrown around to describe Matt Hughes at the height of his power. Who could forget Rogan constantly declaring Hughes as “the most dominant WW of all time”. The context here matters, because prior to the rise of GSP, Joe wasn’t wrong. Hughes was far and above the best WW ever, but he had the title defenses to back that up.

trooth.

I remember the Matt Hughes era. It was impressive. Country boy whipped some serious ass for many years

 

[Goutfather]

as others have pointed out, longevity should be weighted very heavily. talented people have flashes of greatness, but truly great people are great all the time. in a way, longevity kind of subsumes some of the other categories because someone who fights “at the top” for an extended period of time will tend to face a wider range of fighting styles, and will need a larger skill set to maintain that position. no offense to khabib, but there is no comparing a 3-defense reign to an 11-defense reign. something like “dominance” should be a tie breaker at best, between fighters with similar records.

the least important consideration is having a title. who gets the title is very much a function of the promotion’s preferences. as an example, alex pereira is about to fight for his second title, in a fight that is very winnable for him. this is what the ufc (and fans) wanted—im not complaining. but he was fast-tracked (twice) and skipped over many dangerous matchups in the process. i have no illusions that poatan will clean out the division and set a new record for defenses. if he gets a second title, and loses it after 1 defense, i don’t see why that would count for anything beyond the fights themselves.

 

[Ropeee]

as others have pointed out, longevity should be weighted very heavily. talented people have flashes of greatness, but truly great people are great all the time. in a way, longevity kind of subsumes some of the other categories because someone who fights “at the top” for an extended period of time will tend to face a wider range of fighting styles, and will need a larger skill set to maintain that position. no offense to khabib, but there is no comparing a 3-defense reign to an 11-defense reign. something like “dominance” should be a tie breaker at best, between fighters with similar records.

the least important consideration is having a title. who gets the title is very much a function of the promotion’s preferences. as an example, alex pereira is about to fight for his second title, in a fight that is very winnable for him. this is what the ufc (and fans) wanted—im not complaining. but he was fast-tracked (twice) and skipped over many dangerous matchups in the process. i have no illusions that poatan will clean out the division and set a new record for defenses. if he gets a second title, and loses it after 1 defense, i don’t see why that would count for anything beyond the fights themselves.

Alex wasn't fast tracked at LHW obviously he would fight top 5 guy when he was champion at MW 4 months before the fight and Jan is tough matchup for Alex and he won

 

[krelianx]

as others have pointed out, longevity should be weighted very heavily. talented people have flashes of greatness, but truly great people are great all the time. in a way, longevity kind of subsumes some of the other categories because someone who fights “at the top” for an extended period of time will tend to face a wider range of fighting styles, and will need a larger skill set to maintain that position. no offense to khabib, but there is no comparing a 3-defense reign to an 11-defense reign. something like “dominance” should be a tie breaker at best, between fighters with similar records.

the least important consideration is having a title. who gets the title is very much a function of the promotion’s preferences. as an example, alex pereira is about to fight for his second title, in a fight that is very winnable for him. this is what the ufc (and fans) wanted—im not complaining. but he was fast-tracked (twice) and skipped over many dangerous matchups in the process. i have no illusions that poatan will clean out the division and set a new record for defenses. if he gets a second title, and loses it after 1 defense, i don’t see why that would count for anything beyond the fights themselves.

I think the way I laid it out longevity would be included under record. It is not really a quantity of time that is relevant, but the number of wins, quality of competition, number of title defenses, etc. Quality of competition and quantity of wins can span over the course of many years and thus involve different 'generations' (GSP arguably beating the top across three generations).

 

[Goutfather]

Alex wasn't fast tracked at LHW obviously he would fight top 5 guy when he was champion at MW 4 months before the fight and Jan is tough matchup for Alex and he won

i don’t see how you can say he wasn’t fast tracked if he only fought one fight at lhw, even if it was against a tough fighter. fighters often need 5 or 6 wins before they are even given the opportunity for a title eliminator. and this exactly why i say the title should matter least in evaluating goat candidates. alex is indeed a former mw champ… a division he was also fast tracked to a title shot. is he good? of course. is he a goat? well, if he beats jiri, plenty of people are going to point to his two titles as evidence. imo, if he sets a record for defending a belt, that’s when the conversation begins.

 

[Rationality]

Judging how their fights were judged is somewhat laughable. Are you judging the fights by cosmetic damage, the round by round must system, sig strikes landed? Re-judging fights is as subjective as it gets.

 

[pankrat]

Judging how their fights were judged is somewhat laughable. Are you judging the fights by cosmetic damage, the round by round must system, sig strikes landed? Re-judging fights is as subjective as it gets.

Some decisions are lopsided, some are controversial.
Im not about rejudging but it should be noted such difference.

 

[krelianx]

Judging how their fights were judged is somewhat laughable. Are you judging the fights by cosmetic damage, the round by round must system, sig strikes landed? Re-judging fights is as subjective as it gets.

Do you think that someone's legacy ought to be affected by blatant incompetence? Diego should be punished for losing to Pearson in what was an abysmal decision by every media and fan outlet?

 

[Ropeee]

i don’t see how you can say he wasn’t fast tracked if he only fought one fight at lhw, even if it was against a tough fighter. fighters often need 5 or 6 wins before they are even given the opportunity for a title eliminator. and this exactly why i say the title should matter least in evaluating goat candidates. alex is indeed a former mw champ… a division he was also fast tracked to a title shot. is he good? of course. is he a goat? well, if he beats jiri, plenty of people are going to point to his two titles as evidence. imo, if he sets a record for defending a belt, that’s when the conversation begins.

Dude he was MW champ ofc they would give him top 5 guy in new division thats like saying Jones didn’t deserve TS at HW and you want him to defend the belt 12 times lol

 

[pankrat]

Do you think that someone's legacy ought to be affected by blatant incompetence? Diego should be punished for losing to Pearson in what was an abysmal decision by every media and fan outlet?

Diego - Pearson decision is a rare example of judges incompetence.
I dont think any of the GOAT contenders were involved on such abysmal mussjudging.
There might be controversial decisions (as so many in Shields record who is still talked up as the best challenger for GSP based on those same Ws on paper) but not blatant robberies as Diego - Pearson

 

[krelianx]

Diego - Pearson decision is a rare example of judges incompetence.
I dont think any of the GOAT contenders were involved on such abysmal mussjudging.
There might be controversial decisions (as so many in Shields record who is still talked up as the best challenger for GSP based on those same Ws on paper) but not blatant robberies as Diego - Pearson

I think GSP is the GOAT, but if you look at media scores the Hendricks decision was pretty universally taken to be a bad one. And GSP was enormously loved and popular, while Hendricks had a lot of detractors.

But this is irrelevant, since the point is that the criteria is there should the case arise, and not only for pre-existing cases.

 

[BROWNPRIDE]

You should put on the criteria list that tapping to strikes is an automatic disqualification!

 

[pankrat]

Another important criteria that you didnt consider is "who held the #1 p4p spot for longer"

I know such status was subjective and up to debate, but so are many of the other criterias listed in OP such as "quality of competition", "skill" or "dominance".

 

[Fight Professor]

What about retiring on time vs too early vs too late?

 

[spinup]

What about retiring on time vs too early vs too late?

Retiring too late shouldn't be a factor. Some fighters keep doing it way past their prime because they love it, or because they need the money (blame the paycheck).
I wouldn't count Fedor's recent years as significant for his record. However, unlike his fanboys, I would def not say he was past his prime when lost 3 in a row in 2010/2011.

Retiring too early just affects the record criteria. Like Khabib: amazing skills, most dominant by far, but record a tad short compared to other GOATs.

 

[Soggust]

Some decisions are lopsided, some are controversial.
Im not about rejudging but it should be noted such difference.

Why though?

If I say "Hey Tom Brady has 7 Super Bowl rings, he's the GOAT", you don't see a bunch of NFL fans coming out of the woodwork to contextualize it like, "Well he really only has 3 rings because he was carried by the defense the first 3 years and he had got lucky to get a coin flip vs Mahomes and the Cowboys were a much stronger team than the Rams so he had easy competition on the way to the top". Maybe there are people that say that, but certainly their opinions aren't taken seriously because, at a certain point, you are what your record or your stats say you are.

[saying the rest broadly, not responding to you directly]

------

It's amazing how in MMA it's like "Hey Khabib is really good he went 29-0" is responded with "Well he fought cans outside of the UFC".

So then you say, "Well a 13-0 streak inside the UFC is pretty good. One of the best streaks in UFC history" and they respond, "Yeah but those guys weren't the elite of the elite".

So then you say, "Well he's got the record for Title Defenses at LW" and they respond "Yeah but what about finishing rate? Charles was more entertaining".

At the end of the day, people seem like they just create criteria to match their argument instead of being consistent across the board.