If Conor wins has to be in the top 5 GOAT

[TheOneAboveAll3]

Stop making threads.

Haha, nice joke man. I LOL'ed. But seriously what you think?

 

[TheOneAboveAll3]

Historic dominance? That's a bit much lol.

So you think if he hadnt stayed at 145 wouldnt have beaten the likes of Max, Volk and Ortega? Dude he would have dominated that division and I am not even a Conor fan. I just have over 20 years of MMA experience, something which you will never come close to...

 

[3nigma]

Great run at FW and mediocre outside of it despite winning the LW title.

Not top 5.

 

[TempleoftheDog]

You can't name 29-30 people better than McGregor all-time. Your list will end up looking terrible or flimsy at least.

By my criteria any champion that ever defended a belt successfully should rightly be above him. But I do give him a little credit for getting two belts. But anybody that defended twice is easily above Conor.

Sorry if you don’t like that, but you don’t have to. Don’t make ridiculous claims. Or you should expect people that disagree to say so. Conor is 30-50. If he had defended both belts just one time each. I would have no problem if someone wanted to say he was around top ten. But, he didn’t.

 

[No Skill Gap]

He only has two ranked wins at 145 and one was on two weeks notice. He's a double champ who fought no one to get a shot and didn't defend a title once. There's countless guys who could have made that claim if the UFC accommodated them like they did Conor.

Yes, he floored Aldo and a won in spectacular fashion and that's all that matters, but Dana spent months allowing Conor to troll him in public until Aldo was shook mentally, embracing Conor after he attacked just about everything about Jose in another language. Yes, he obliterated Eddie. Great wins.

Those two wins, along with only three ranked wins overall does not push Conor into the top twenty. If you'd like to say I'm a hater, sure. That's fine. I don't like him but I can discuss his history and wins fairly. He's not ahead of other guys you're probably not as much of a fan of, and recency bias is a thing. Whether you agree or not, I don't care. We can agree to disagree.

You can hyper-analyze anyone like that though.

Khabib won a vacant title of Al Iaquinta. He only defended his belt 3 times ever, once was McGregor coming off a 2 year layoff and a boxing match with Mayweather, one was against a guy with trash TDD/wrestling, and the other was against a guy who was 3-2 in the UFC or something.

He also fought a regional guy Horcher, and tons of mediocre/journeyman/cans during his run. I'm not trying to shit on Khabib but anyone can do this exercise. We can go back and look at Silva's competition and say almost all of them sucked balls or were over the hill, he never fought wrestlers besides Chael and basically lost until he didn't buzzer beater.

Again, I'm not arguing that McGregor is top 5 or top 10 ever. And I think Silva and Khabib are both clearly top 10 ever at minimum. Let me ask you this, how many double champs in UFC or top org equivalent history aren't going to be considered for top 15-20 ever? Have no case at all?

We leave out women as lists usually do, and we got Couture (stone age / non-simultaneous) + Cejudo + Cormier + McGregor

Sorry but I'm not ranking fucking Wand over McGregor because he happened to fight in Pride. McGregor's legacy is pretty fucking top tier even despite the zero defenses. To put him out of the top 20 entirely is so fucking sus. It's going to be a bunch of Pride boner guys who don't deserve to be there over him, guaranteed.

 

[JKS]

I don't think a win over Dustin is worth that much. Dustin is a top fighter and been a contender, but he's never really been a huge win yet.

 

[ConditFan]

Lol

 

[Substance Abuse]

You can hyper-analyze anyone like that though.

Khabib won a vacant title of Al Iaquinta. He only defended his belt 3 times ever, once was McGregor coming off a 2 year layoff and a boxing match with Mayweather, one was against a guy with trash TDD/wrestling, and the other was against a guy who was 3-2 in the UFC or something.

He also fought a regional guy Horcher, and tons of mediocre/journeyman/cans during his run. I'm not trying to shit on Khabib but anyone can do this exercise. We can go back and look at Silva's competition and say almost all of them sucked balls or were over the hill, he never fought wrestlers besides Chael and basically lost until he didn't buzzer beater.

Again, I'm not arguing that McGregor is top 5 or top 10 ever. And I think Silva and Khabib are both clearly top 10 ever at minimum. Let me ask you this, how many double champs in UFC or top org equivalent history aren't going to be considered for top 15-20 ever? Have no case at all?

We leave out women as lists usually do, and we got Couture (stone age / non-simultaneous) + Cejudo + Cormier + McGregor

Sorry but I'm not ranking fucking Wand over McGregor because he happened to fight in Pride. McGregor's legacy is pretty fucking top tier even despite the zero defenses. To put him out of the top 20 entirely is so fucking sus. It's going to be a bunch of Pride boner guys who don't deserve to be there over him, guaranteed.

Ranked wins matter. Defenses matter. You want to magnify the Max win when Max wasn't ranked and had a little more than half the fights Conor did. He was a kid at 21. Conor was 25. Yet, we're going to elevate Conor's wins over Siver, Brandao and Brimage? Again, we can agree to disagree.

You also left out Penn while bringing up Randy. Just a side note, lol.

 

[No Skill Gap]

By my criteria any champion that ever defended a belt successfully should rightly be above him. But I do give him a little credit for getting two belts. But anybody that defended twice is easily above Conor.

Sorry if you don’t like that, but you don’t have to. Don’t make ridiculous claims. Or you should expect people that disagree to say so. Conor is 30-50. If he had defended both belts just one time each. I would have no problem if someone wanted to say he was around top ten. But, he didn’t.

I didn't make any ridiculous claims. You're the one the claiming he's 30-50 and not even listing 29 guys which is the bare minimum. Okay, so your criteria is defending the belt, to me that is retarded and arbitrary.

Yes it's valuable to have title defenses but are we suddenly going to count Michael Bisping over McGregor all-time because he handpicked a defense over a geriatric Hendo?

Is Jan already higher all-time than McGregor for 1 defense? I mean it was a great win over Izzy, but a guy a weight class down and it's not like Jan's career has been stellar outside of the recent run. He's 11-5 in the UFC and has 1 defense, he's better by default?

and I realize you said twice, but sorry it's fucking tough for me to rank Frank Shamrock or Tito or Liddell above him honestly. Rich Franklin's better all-time? Chris Weidman is better?

Brock Lesnar has two title defenses lmao

 

[No Skill Gap]

Ranked wins matter. Defenses matter. You want to magnify the Max win when Max wasn't ranked and had a little more than half the fights Conor did. He was a kid at 21. Conor was 25. Yet, we're going to elevate Conor's wins over Siver, Brandao and Brimage? Again, we can agree to disagree.

You also left out Penn while bringing up Randy. Just a side note, lol.

Okay, agree to disagree. I forgot Penn, who I rank above McGregor consistently.

I just think by your criteria then arguing for Khabib top 5 must be ridiculous if arguing for McGregor top 20 is absurd.

Khabib only fought 13 times in the UFC and he fought: Tibau (lost arguably), Shalorus, Tavares, Trujillo, Healy, Horcher, Iaquinta - for 7/13, the literal majority of his fights. All unranked besides Iaquinta, who was ranked but come on.

You realize Porier was like top 5-6 ranked when McGregor dusted him at FW right? That's another ranked win glossed over. SIver was ranked 10th. But fine, I'll agree to disagree. I have Khabib top 5-6 all-time for the record.

 

[Substance Abuse]

Okay, agree to disagree. I forgot Penn, who I rank above McGregor consistently.

I just think by your criteria then arguing for Khabib top 5 must be ridiculous if arguing for McGregor top 20 is absurd.

Khabib only fought 13 times in the UFC and he fought: Tibau (lost arguably), Shalorus, Tavares, Trujillo, Healy, Horcher, Iaquinta - for 7/13, the literal majority of his fights. All unranked besides Iaquinta, who was ranked but come on.

You realize Porier was like top 5-6 ranked when McGregor dusted him at FW right? That's another ranked win glossed over. SIver was ranked 10th. But fine, I'll agree to disagree. I have Khabib top 5-6 all-time for the record.

Dustin was ranked top 5-6 by who? Legitimate question. I believe he was fringe top 10. Siver was not ranked unless it was early UFC rankings which are basically useless. There's a good thread on here about this, but I can't find it and don't really have the time to at the moment.

 

[No Skill Gap]

Dustin was ranked top 5-6 by who? Legitimate question. I believe he was fringe top 10. Siver was not ranked unless it was early UFC rankings which are basically useless. There's a good thread on here about this, but I can't find it and don't really have the time to at the moment.

#5 but dogshit quality

Yes I agree sometimes the rankings are wonky or the UFC definitely just moves guys up to give an opponent a ranked win, perhaps the case with Siver. So I looked it up - He was 4-1 at LW his only loss to Cerrone (good at the time I think, title run Cerrone?). Then dropped to FW and beat Nunes, Phan, lost to Swanson, beat Manny Gamburyan but NC due to steroids or something lol, then beat Charles Rosa.

so a bit sussy ranking to me, but 10 is not crazy. He was 4-1 at LW then went 4-1 at FW only losing to Cerrone and Swanson, and one PED pop in there but he won the fight so...they usually don't move rankings for that stuff. I don't think Siver was a great win by any means, but I think this is a prime example of why "ranked wins" is also arbitrary. Iaqutina for Khabib is another "ranked win" but it might be worse than an unranked.

The unranked win over a green Holloway, yes green but in his 5th fight still and McGregor tore his fucking ACL mid fight, is probably more impressive not just in hindsight, than Siver...imo

 

[Substance Abuse]

Yes I agree sometimes the rankings are wonky or the UFC definitely just moves guys up to give an opponent a ranked win, perhaps the case with Siver. So I looked it up - He was 4-1 at LW his only loss to Cerrone (good at the time I think, title run Cerrone?). Then dropped to FW and beat Nunes, Pham, lost to Swanson, beat Manny Gamburyan but NC due to steroids or something lol, then beat Charles Rosa.

so a bit sussy ranking to me, but 10 is not crazy. He was 4-1 at LW then went 4-1 at FW only losing to Cerrone and Swanson, and one PED pop in there but he won the fight so...they usually don't move rankings for that stuff. I don't think Siver was a great win by any means, but I think this is a prime example of why "ranked wins" is also arbitrary. Iaqutina for Khabib is another "ranked win" but it might be worse than an unranked.

The unranked win over a green Holloway, yes green but in his 5th fight still and McGregor tore his fucking ACL mid fight, is probably more impressive not just in hindsight, than Siver...imo

Yeah, those UFC rankings are fucking trash. The early ones that is. I also favor overall MMA rankings including other organizations back around that time since I think they were more accurate.

I don't think Siver should be considered a ranked win. I'll give you the Poirier one, but again, 10th seems fine.

That Max win doesn't do much for me. Max was green. Impressive to win with a torn ACL no doubt, but Max was so young he had no TDD and was basically a guy without an identity whatsoever.

While we don't agree, I do appreciate your perspective and your thoughts are far from half assed. Kudos for that.

 

[OmegaRugal]

Conor might be around top 50 all time.
I think Fightmatrix's top 35 is pretty good.
All-Time Absolute – Fight Matrix

Chris Weidman is number 21???? Seems broken.

 

[Substance Abuse]

Chris Weidman is number 21???? Seems broken.

Based off of their system, Anderson is one of the best wins of all time because of his defenses streak and overall historical score, which truthfully is not a bad system to have. I don't agree with all those rankings, but when you add up the two Andy wins it does push him up the list.

 

[lsa]

TS "Not a Conor fan ", but if he "wins he is top 5 GOAT".

Shut up TS.

 

[Deathbycalfkick]

Is this real life?

In no particular order, here's all the people ahead of Conrat on the "GOAT" list, and I use the term loosely since it's such a ridiculously subjective topic.

Anderson
GSP
JBJ
Fedor
Khabib
BJ
DC
Max
Edgar
Cain
Werdum
Stipe
JDS
Mir
Brock
Randy
Vitor
Crocop
Rampage
Rashad
Forest
Machida
Shogun
Big Nog
Arlovski
Timmeh
Coleman
Don Frye
Severn
Royce
Matt Hughes
Carlos Newton
Pat Militech
Cejudo
Mighty Mouse
Ronda
GDR
Holly
Nunes
Rose
Zhang
Reem
Valentina
Bisping
Hendo
Bader
Chael
Faber
Dom Cruz
Usman
Izzy
Frank Shamrock
Randalman
Bas
Guy Metzger
Tito
Chuck
Moose
Josh Barnett
Wand
Hendricks
Lawler
Franklin
Maurice Smith
Oleg
Ken Shamrock
Gomi
Aoki
Sakuraba


I could go on, basically rearrange those names however you want and add some more and THEN Conor can be on the list. Anyone who ever defended their belt once win or lose automatically is above Conor.

 

[do a moniker]

So you think if he hadnt stayed at 145 wouldnt have beaten the likes of Max, Volk and Ortega? Dude he would have dominated that division and I am not even a Conor fan. I just have over 20 years of MMA experience, something which you will never come close to...

Right. Funny thing though...that IV hydration was his toughest opponent at 145!
But seriously. A totally irrelevant argument that he "would have dominated" those 3 guys. A) He wouldn't have B) He couldn't make the weight. He didnt choose to go up for fun. He legit couldn't make the weight without the aid of IV hydration and who knows what other concoctions to cut weight

 

[do a moniker]

Okay, agree to disagree. I forgot Penn, who I rank above McGregor consistently.

I just think by your criteria then arguing for Khabib top 5 must be ridiculous if arguing for McGregor top 20 is absurd.

Khabib only fought 13 times in the UFC and he fought: Tibau (lost arguably), Shalorus, Tavares, Trujillo, Healy, Horcher, Iaquinta - for 7/13, the literal majority of his fights. All unranked besides Iaquinta, who was ranked but come on.

You realize Porier was like top 5-6 ranked when McGregor dusted him at FW right? That's another ranked win glossed over. SIver was ranked 10th. But fine, I'll agree to disagree. I have Khabib top 5-6 all-time for the record.

Im a huge Khabib fan, and consider him a contender for the GOAT. But I know its not based on record at all. It is more about dominance and the fact that so many people wanted no part of him when he was on the rise because they all saw the future. So, I of all people, can agree with most of your arguments that keeping Conor low because of records is a bit silly. Howwwwwever. Conor's biggest crime was continuing to compete when he refused to put the time in and evolve his game. He should have just retired for real like he claimed to so many times. Then, you'd probably have the same argument to top 5-10 GOAT him as Khabib. But he as truly tarnished that "specialness" by getting owned by Khabib and then TKO by Poirier. If he had been 41 at the time, you could write it off. But he was too young to drop off that fast in his prime to get called a top 10-er.

What I will say though, is that he definitely holds the title for the most meteoric (and deserved) rise to glory of all UFC fighters ever

 

[HavokHarmon]

Not a Conor fan but I do appreciate a great fighter when I see one. No one has done what Conor has done and made it look as good. He has one of the most devastating weapons in MMA history, that left hand. Once that left hand lands not many people are able to stop it.

Having a great power hand doesn’t make you a top 5 GOAT because more than 5 guys have that. Choose different criteria.