Historically the guy who holds the belt is the best fighter...nowadays I'm not so sure

Historically, more often than not the guy who held the belt was typically considered the best fighter in the division. With all these changes I'm not 100% convinced anymore. It's a really odd time where it feels like anyone can win the title and that the rankings don't mean much and the title holders could be beat by 3-5 guys

FlyW- MM clearly #1
BW - Dom, I'd say #1
FW - Conor/Aldo - I can't say for sure
LW - Alvarez - Nope, not clear #1
WW - Woodley - Nope
MW - Bisping - Nope
LHW - DC (tricky, I'd say yes but only b/c Bones gonna do what Bones do)
HW - Stipe - Nope

 

style make fight.

 

There are no lucky punches, but there are lucky outcomes. MMA fans are too stupid to realize this. People genuinely believe Bisping is better than Rockhold

LoL

 

People try to find a reason for all those upsets.I just think we happened upon a time where 4-5 champs ended up getting flash ko'd.Soon the natural order will be restored...

 

how can you say that they are not th best???

rockhold was the best and he just got KTFO by bisping, how does that not make Bisping better than him??

lawler was the best and he just got embarrassed by Woodley, how does that not make Woodley better than him??

EXPLAIN THAT!!!

 

The term "best" is subjective anyway. And there will always be revisionists that will go back and make excuses as to why someone who was considered the "best" at the time, shouldn't have been considered the "best".

 

GSP got KTFO by Serra. Nobody in their right mind thought that Serra was better than GSP.
I believe Woodley is better than Lawler though...stylewise. As far as Bisping. Let me as you this. If he fought Luke again who do you think would be the favorite. If you had to bet your house on Luke or Michael who would you be it on?

 

Serra, Woodley, Bisping might of been the best that night they won the belt, but they will never be considered better than the fighters they beat.(GSP, Lawler, and Rockhold).

 

I don't know if historically that is true....I think it's only true historically with long reigning champs.

Tito was champ but was he ever better than Chuck?

Dave Mene was champ....was he better than anyone?

Rich Franklin was champ, was he better than Anderson?

Sherk was champ, was he ever better than BJ?

Benson was champ, was he ever better than Pettis?

Barao was champ (sort of) was he ever better than Dillashaw?

Machida was champ, was he ever better than Shogun?

 

That's not how it works.

 

Right.

Anderson got lucky when Chael had a brain fart after dominating for 4.5 rounds. Then in the rematch, Chael had another brain fart and threw a failed spinning elbow.

Then Weidman got lucky when Anderson was not fighting seriously, only to get lucky again when Anderson's shin snapped in half.

After all that, Rockhold gets lucky and Weidman throws a failed spinning back kick, leading him to end up in a horrible position.

Finally, to top it all off, Bisping gets lucky when Rockhold didn't take him seriously and got KTFO.

Obviously, Chael is the GOAT and everyone else just got lucky.

 

historically like forest griffen, rampage, liddell, shogun, machida, rashad, pettis, sherk, penn, barao, dillashaw, faber, franklin, tito, serra, edgar, couture,coleman, smith,randleman, barnett, sylvia, ricco, mir, alovski, lesnar, nog, jds, cain, werdum, belfort, tanner, rockhold, newton, hendricks, rda, holm, tate, nunes...

So if anything i can really only think of a few people who were considered the best while being champ.

Fedor, anderson, gsp, mightymouse, aldo, cruz, maybe hughes? maybe penn for a bit?
Most guys are questionable cause they never fought certain people while they were champs.

 

There's so many fighters in each division nowadays, that the chances the champ is the best are extremely low

Infect the current best, is probably someone we are all over looking.

Especially at WW and LW where there's 100 fighters.

 

Lmao at nope for stipe. Educate yoself

 

belts are now meaningless. fighters receive unwarranted title-shots all the time nowadays. the best fighter in each division is now based on the opinions of the fans. anyone vying for a title-shot isn't really getting it. tyron woodley asking to fight diaz is so stupid. neither nick nor nate care about the belt. neither of them would fight woodley, if the alternative, at least for nick, would be to fight gsp or someone else who has a bigger name than tyron woodley. it's funny how woodley now thinks he can call the shots and fight whoever he wants.

 

HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MMA is about being th best the day of the fight
Such as life, championship fights are not always fair

 

It's a fight. It's not a battle of who's "best" by whatever standard you use to measure that. They fight, and somebody wins. It does not matter who anybody believes is "best" at that point, they lost the fight.

Is Bisping better than Rockhold? I have no idea how to measure that. But I do know that Bisping knocked Rockhold out in a fight, which is what his job is.

 

you forgot 1