If Weidman > Silva then Rampage > Liddell.

TS is new to mman. Rampage didnt beat an aging chuck. he also beat him twice

I've been watching MMA for years. Rampage doesn't receive the same accolades for beating an all time great like Weidman did.
 
Not a great analogy. I do agree that Weidman is not better than Silva but Rampage has a strong case for being a greater fighter than Liddell independent of the fact he beat him twice.
 
It's not that simple, but obviously Silva losing to Weidman at 38 years old doesn't mean that Weidman is better than prime Silva.
 
There's many in a thread saying just that. At least give Weidman many more title defenses. Many think beating a GOAT makes them the GOAT unless it's a fighter they like.

I scanned the thread again and did not find one post saying Weidman has a better career. Can you quote me one post in this or any thread that states Weidman currently has a better career than Anderson?
 
KR811 has been saying all along that Weidman is an overrated can and probably couldn't beat Patrick Cote.

The games have begun.
 
TS, I can say with all honesty that you are quickly becoming one of the shittiest posters on this forum.

Bravo.
 
TS attempting MMA MATH

UmpOi.gif
 
Anderson Silva had an iron chin back in the day. It's CLEARLY diminished at this point. Weidman dropped Anderson in the clinch with a punch in the second, and obviously caught him with his hands down in the first and KO'd him.

I doubt those things happen to Anderson in his prime. Machida took his punches just fine. I think people just say he's better than any version of him just to make his wins seem more legitimate.

Rampage really was better than any version of Chuck. He fought him in his supposed prime and then again later in his career.

Finally a good post.
 
MMA fans say that Weidman is better than any version of Silva and beats him at any part of his career and has a better career than Silva with merely 2 defenses (one a fluke and one great fight).

Rampage Jackson somewhat did to Chuck Liddell what MMA fans say Weidman would do to any version of Silva.

Rampage beat Liddell in two of Liddell's primes. Rampage brutally started the Liddell era (in Pride) and brutally ended the Liddell era (in UFC), yet Shertards argue that Liddell was a better fighter and had a better career than Rampage.

So how is Silva's legacy and career is inferior to Weidman's then why isn't Liddell's legacy and career inferior to Rampage's?

Weidman beat Silva two times in a row. In a hundred years from now, no one cares how Weidman won, they will just see that he beat him twice in a row.

This is a very poorly thought out post. You should take a break.
 
MMA fans say that Weidman is better than any version of Silva and beats him at any part of his career and has a better career than Silva with merely 2 defenses (one a fluke and one great fight).

Rampage Jackson somewhat did to Chuck Liddell what MMA fans say Weidman would do to any version of Silva.

Rampage beat Liddell in two of Liddell's primes. Rampage brutally started the Liddell era (in Pride) and brutally ended the Liddell era (in UFC), yet Shertards argue that Liddell was a better fighter and had a better career than Rampage.

So how is Silva's legacy and career is inferior to Weidman's then why isn't Liddell's legacy and career inferior to Rampage's?

You seem to be confusing skill level and style for legacy. Liddell and Anderson have better legacies than Rampage and Weidman however Rampage should almost always beat Liddell and Weidman should almost always beat Anderson.
 
Anderson Silva had an iron chin back in the day. It's CLEARLY diminished at this point. Weidman dropped Anderson in the clinch with a punch in the second, and obviously caught him with his hands down in the first and KO'd him.

I doubt those things happen to Anderson in his prime. Machida took his punches just fine. I think people just say he's better than any version of him just to make his wins seem more legitimate.

Rampage really was better than any version of Chuck. He fought him in his supposed prime and then again later in his career.

Younger Anderson just loses differently, he would get finished on the ground instead of standing. Anderson's TDD and ability to get back up got way better post Sonnen 1.

I agree with this but Liddell might have the better legacy but he had more favorable match ups than Rampage.
 
Weidman is just getting started but right now his career is nothing compared to Silvas. He also defeated Silva in the end of his career. I'm a huge fan of Weidman tho and i would not be surprised if he stays undefeated for a very long time. Rampage on the other hand beat the shit out of a prime Chuck in their first fight in Pride and fought nothing but killers in Pride while Chuck was smashing cans in the UFC. People love to give Rampage shit but when he was Slampage he was one of the most badass fighters in all of MMA.

Silva > Weidman
Rampage > Chuck
 
You seem to be confusing skill level and style for legacy. Liddell and Anderson have better legacies than Rampage and Weidman however Rampage should almost always beat Liddell and Weidman should almost always beat Anderson.

agree
 
Younger Anderson just loses differently, he would get finished on the ground instead of standing. Anderson's TDD and ability to get back up got way better post Sonnen 1.

Yet his ability to fight from his back would still be there. Weidman inability to push the pace for more than a round would still be there.

A younger Anderson still takes everything Chris can offer on the ground and weathers the storm. That still leaves a younger, faster, more focused Anderson on his feet against a tiring Weidman.
 
Back
Top