If Charles can beat Islam and Gaethe (no easy task) he has done more than Khabib ever did

[Sweater of AV]

Lol at all these people talking strength of schedule like losses don't matter. 8 losses versus 0.

Eight losses versus zero.

No, Oliveira is NOT close to surpassing khabib. I'm not even a khabib fan, but come the fuck on. Part of what distinguishes guys when it comes to goat contention is win rate. There's a reason almost every fighter in goat contention has few losses, or at the very least few losses in their prime. How the fuck is Oliveira going to surpass a guy that's undefeated by getting a couple more wins, when he's had 8 losses in his prime.

No, just no.

The OP is clearly talking about LW. He doesn't have eight losses at LW.

Since moving back up, Charles has lost once. Now I agree it's going to be extremely difficult to win the next two fights but if he does then he has the same number of title defenses and has faced as good or better competition.

Also, people come into their own at different points of their career. I don't think Charles needs to win 10 more fights with no losses to surpass Khabib. Maybe it's three or four more at most but at the very least there will be an interesting discussion if he wins the next two.

 

[NoSmilez]

Charles beats Justin and Islam. He is the new GOAT of LW. He also tied BJ for most LW defenses. He really has a chance for greatness. I am not sure he will take it though if a Mcgregor fight shows up.

 

[Ladron4sherdog]

Anderson had some losses too, if you don't have a dad or a coach from the start who perfectly builds you up it's gonna be next to impossible to have zero losses.

I hate when people say this because it encourages the mentality people have in Boxing where they don't take any risks.

What kind of logic is this? The fact is that Khabib did have a dad who trained him from a young age and that's precisely why he's as good as he is and has no defeats.

 

[Mike]

The OP is clearly talking about LW. He doesn't have eight losses at LW.

Since moving back up, Charles has lost once. Now I agree it's going to be extremely difficult to win the next two fights but if he does then he has the same number of title defenses and has faced as good or better competition.

Also, people come into their own at different points of their career. I don't think Charles needs to win 10 more fights with no losses to surpass Khabib. Maybe it's three or four more at most but at the very least there will be an interesting discussion if he wins the next two.

Ok.... he still has multiple losses at lw though. He'll need to go on a hell of a streak to surpass someone that never lost, period. Losses matter. You don't just count who has the most/best wins and ignore losses. Dominance is part of the equation.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Ok.... he still has multiple losses at lw though. He'll need to go on a hell of a streak to surpass someone that never lost, period. Losses matter. You don't just count who has the most/best wins and ignore losses. Dominance is part of the equation.

I agree dominance is a part of it, but if he wins his next two then his streak is at 12. Khabib's UFC career was 13 wins. The level of competition is close and they would have the same number of title defenses.

It's a reasonable discussion to have. How to account for old losses is an interesting discussion. At some point though, we have to let go of losses if that fighter has completely changed since they happened and has gone on a great run. Anderson is a good example of that.

 

[jk7707]

And that’s a fact Jack.

He has some tough opponents ahead of him.

But two fights to being the greatest LW champion of all time.

I agree. That's a murderer's row of opponents. Much tougher than Khabib's run. I don't see it happening though. He's almost been finished in his last 2 fights. He's not going to be able to keep Glover-ing his way to victory forever.

 

[Mike]

I agree dominance is a part of it, but if he wins his next two then his streak is at 12. Khabib's UFC career was 13 wins. The level of competition is close and they would have the same number of title defenses.

It's a reasonable discussion to have. How to account for old losses is an interesting discussion. At some point though, we have to let go of losses if that fighter has completely changed since they happened and has gone on a great run. Anderson is a good example of that.

Maybe in your opinion. I, along with many others, don't just discount losses because the fighter improved. Improvement is great but those losses are still there, and they still count as part of the fighters overall legacy. That's one of the reasons apart from the steroid use that some don't rate Anderson as high in goat talks. He lost multiple times to journeymen, and no amount of wins makes those losses vanish.

It's absurd to me to say he'd surpass a guy with zero losses just because he's on a good streak, when he has almost double digit losses. He would have to not just surpass, but far surpass what khabib did to overcome all those losses.

 

[Mike]

The entire point is that lots of guys rack up some good wins over theor career, but very few do it with zero or minimal losses.

It's silly to act like consistency over an entire career doesn't have any value. You guys keep talking about how anyone could lose at any point in their career. Yes, that's the point. That's precisely why being undefeated over all or most of your career is so impressive.

When you're talking about who is the best ever, it makes literally no sense to say the guy that lost both early career and mid career is better than the guy that never lost. That's illogical.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Maybe in your opinion. I, along with many others, don't just discount losses because the fighter improved. Improvement is great but those losses are still there, and they still count as part of the fighters overall legacy. That's one of the reasons apart from the steroid use that some don't rate Anderson as high in goat talks. He lost multiple times to journeymen, and no amount of wins makes those losses vanish.

It's absurd to me to say he'd surpass a guy with zero losses just because he's on a good streak, when he has almost double digit losses. He would have to not just surpass, but far surpass what khabib did to overcome all those losses.

That's your opinion and that's fine. I disagree. Context is necessary. Losses do mean something but if a fighter clearly improves and goes on an impressive streak then I weigh those losses less. Why in the world would anyone heavily weigh some of Anderson's early losses? They're almost insignificant.

Almost every fighter took losses early in their career or during their prime years. GSP, Aldo, Anderson etc. Khabib also had a very controversial fight that could have easily been a loss. I care very little about Charles' losses in 2011, especially considering he wasn't fighting smaller names at the time. The Felder loss is the only one that has any significant bearing.

Again, I'm not saying Charles is there yet. Winning those two fights will be very difficult, but if he does then there's a discussion. That run would be pretty remarkable.

 

[Mike]

That's your opinion and that's fine. I disagree. Context is necessary. Losses do mean something but if a fighter clearly improves and goes on an impressive streak then I weigh those losses less. Why in the world would anyone heavily weigh some of Anderson's early losses? They're almost insignificant.

Almost every fighter took losses early in their career or during their prime years. GSP, Aldo, Anderson etc. Khabib also had a very controversial fight that could have easily been a loss. I care very little about Charles' losses in 2011, especially considering he wasn't fighting smaller names at the time. The Felder loss is the only one that has any significant bearing.

Again, I'm not saying Charles is there yet. Winning those two fights will be very difficult, but if he does then there's a discussion. That run would be pretty remarkable.

Because when you're talking about who's the best ever, you have to take every factor into consideration. If two guys have similar resumes and one guy has no losses, while another has many, then clearly the guy with no losses pulls ahead. Far ahead. That's pretty standard in combat sports, and sports in general.

It makes sense to say an early career loss isn't representative of that fighters full potential, sure. It doesn't make sense to say those losses somehow don't count, when comparing two fighters and deciding who had the better career. Getting two more title defenses would be great, sure. No way in hell would that somehow make Oliveira the lightweight goat over a guy with a similar resume and zero losses.

 

[Kthankss]

Khabib lost to Tibau. I think he is the better fighter for sure but thats one of the worst robberies in MMA history.

why is it no one ever makes a thread to talk about Tibau unless it’s to do with khabib? We all know for certain that Tibau was…. Well you know (avoiding yellow card).

 

[pamirec]

He can be the best now, but he’s got loads of work to do to become the best lw ever. Also, those losses diminish his resume one way or another.

 

[pamirec]

Because when you're talking about who's the best ever, you have to take every factor into consideration. If two guys have similar resumes and one guy has no losses, while another has many, then clearly the guy with no losses pulls ahead. Far ahead. That's pretty standard in combat sports, and sports in general.

It makes sense to say an early career loss isn't representative of that fighters full potential, sure. It doesn't make sense to say those losses somehow don't count, when comparing two fighters and deciding who had the better career. Getting two more title defenses would be great, sure. No way in hell would that somehow make Oliveira the lightweight goat over a guy with a similar resume and zero losses.

Well said.

 

[kenetics]

No, Khabib has no losses. Charles has a lot of them. The dominance counts. Charles would need to go on some run.

Khabib first 20 fights were against BUMS. Gtfo lol

 

[MCS]

Khabib first 20 fights were against BUMS. Gtfo lol

Khabib also faced top guys. I believe 6 ranked ones. Dominated all of them. So he'd be heavily favored against the next one by oddsmakers.

Charles wasn't before and isn't now. It's not only because he's been stopped 7 times, but because he gets nearly finished in recent wins. Khabib got briefly stunned against one of the 6 ranked guys he faced.

So Charles' level of competition isn't enough to surpass Khabib's dominance.

 

[kenetics]

Khabib also faced top guys. I believe 6 ranked ones. Dominated all of them. So he'd be heavily favored against the next one by oddsmakers.

Charles wasn't before and isn't now. It's not only because he's been stopped 7 times, but because he gets nearly finished in recent wins. Khabib got briefly stunned against one of the 6 ranked guys he faced.

So Charles' level of competition isn't enough to surpass Khabib's dominance.

6 ranked.. how many rank fighters did Charles beat? And if he finishes Justin he would have finished the same fighters Khabib did + fought more better fighters overall on his record..

And I'm not even a big fan of Charles. I have Bj ranked higher than both for career.

 

[kenetics]

The OP is clearly talking about LW. He doesn't have eight losses at LW.

Since moving back up, Charles has lost once. Now I agree it's going to be extremely difficult to win the next two fights but if he does then he has the same number of title defenses and has faced as good or better competition.

Also, people come into their own at different points of their career. I don't think Charles needs to win 10 more fights with no losses to surpass Khabib. Maybe it's three or four more at most but at the very least there will be an interesting discussion if he wins the next two.

10 more fights undefeated more to get a head of Khabib? Now you're straight drinking the Kool aid. Charles has fought wayyy more better competition than khabib first 20 bum fights he beat early on.. come on lol

 

[MCS]

6 ranked.. how many rank fighters did Charles beat? And if he finishes Justin he would have finished the same fighters Khabib did + fought more better fighters overall on his record..

And I'm not even a big fan of Charles. I have Bj ranked higher than both for career.

It matters, but not enough to surpass dominance. Khabib dominated 28/29 fights. Whole career dominance aside from 1 fight, which he won. Charles has 8 losses. And in wins he's close to losing.

So there's a big discrepancy here in dominance. Charles would need to break Khabib's record and then some, have a long win streak, because the losses vs zero losses count.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Because when you're talking about who's the best ever, you have to take every factor into consideration. If two guys have similar resumes and one guy has no losses, while another has many, then clearly the guy with no losses pulls ahead. Far ahead. That's pretty standard in combat sports, and sports in general.

It makes sense to say an early career loss isn't representative of that fighters full potential, sure. It doesn't make sense to say those losses somehow don't count, when comparing two fighters and deciding who had the better career. Getting two more title defenses would be great, sure. No way in hell would that somehow make Oliveira the lightweight goat over a guy with a similar resume and zero losses.

Again, context. Those two losses from over a decade ago were against some of the best fighters in the world at the time. Oliveira is a completely different fighter. If you want to get into details then you have to also take things like the Tibau fight into consideration. Additionally, Oliveira would have fought all of the best during his reign whereas Khabib didn't fight his main rival (Tony) and had to pull out of fights for various reasons including missing weight.

If Oliveira managed to beat Islam and Justin then there's pretty clearly a discussion. I know people have their favorites but that doesn't mean other fighters can be ignored.

 

[Sweater of AV]

10 more fights undefeated more to get a head of Khabib? Now you're straight drinking the Kool aid. Charles has fought wayyy more better than khabib first 20 bum fights he beat early on.. come on lol

I think you need to read that more carefully I'm saying he doesn't need to win 10 more fights.