• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Is todays Gane resume better than Aspinal's one?

Pavlovich and Blaydes are better wins than anyone Gane has beaten.
 
Its just a handful of Jon fans making a lot of noise.
Jon's fans are the most fragile desperate posters in sherdog history. The way they're clinging to Gane to validate Jones ducking, Gane doesn't even have to win and they will throw a fucking parade if he lasts 1sec longer vs tom then Jones, there will be a celebration thread here they play grab ass in <Neil01>
 
So, injury its not a loss? Anderson loss to Weidman is not legit? Or OMalley loss to Vera?
If you are nitpicking in a GOAT argument is determining who gets what fight purse you might say that but then you wouldn't be in this thread. If you are putting forth an argument that on the surface is about which of two fighters is the better fighter but you lie about what you're doing as soon as someone implicitly calls you on the idiocy of your argument, then you're Gregoire1.

The is no legitimate reason to consider Aspinall's loss to Blaydes in any comparison between Aspinall and Gane that anyone would actually make, and you know it. Your contemplation of the goalposts in an entirely different stadium is an admission of as much.

Go lick a toxic Smurf.
 
If you are nitpicking in a GOAT argument is determining who gets what fight purse you might say that but then you wouldn't be in this thread. If you are putting forth an argument that on the surface is about which of two fighters is the better fighter but you lie about what you're doing as soon as someone implicitly calls you on the idiocy of your argument, then you're Gregoire1.

The is no legitimate reason to consider Aspinall's loss to Blaydes in any comparison between Aspinall and Gane that anyone would actually make, and you know it. Your contemplation of the goalposts in an entirely different stadium is an admission of as much.

Go lick a toxic Smurf.
It's funny cause Poirier's second win against McGregor is widely considered legitimate, but Aspinall's loss to Blaydes "doesnt count"
 
His resume is better one paper. The only thing Tom has is quick finishes which is nice
 
Objectively not true. Tom is 2/2 in title fights
I replied to someone saying Gane was 0-2 in title fights and Aspinall was the champion.

Both Gane and Aspinall have won an interim title fight (Tom won 2).
Neither has won an undisputed title fight.
 
If you legitimize it as a loss you're saying the opponent "won" by not actually actively doing anything to hurt their opponent.

It says absolutely nothing about who the actual better fighter was.

He was injuried in a fight (not before or after), so its fight cause him being injuried, so its legitimate loss. "Not actively doing anything to hurt their opponent" can be used in half of decisions victories lol.
 
It's funny cause Poirier's second win against McGregor is widely considered legitimate, but Aspinall's loss to Blaydes "doesnt count"

It "counts" the same, but narratives and context are real things. When Conor's injury happened, it was the next fight after he'd been smoked by Poirier for real. So when people think back, if you wanna skip past the freak injury fight in the story arc of Conor/Dustin...you still land on Dustin beating Conor's ass. With Aspinall/Blaydes, we had no prior context. At the time when the injury happened, the narrative was basically "Man that sucks. Younger prospect trying to break into the top echelon vs established top 5-7 guy and we didn't get to see how a fight would really go." Aspinall wasn't being talked about the way he is now, so the bigger repercussions didn't really get discussed. Then he comes back and gets another easy finish and then gets the rematch. And in the rematch he shows who's clearly the better fighter. So it's far easier to dismiss a freak injury as meaningless when we then get to see the rematch with a legit winner.
 
. "Not actively doing anything to hurt their opponent" can be used in half of decisions victories lol.

If you win a decision its because (excluding corrupt judging) you did more than the other guy, or were at least more effective with what you did than the other guy.

He was injuried in a fight (not before or after), so its fight cause him being injuried, so its legitimate loss.

Its a self inflicted injury. Again, not reflective of who the better fighter is because the opponent played no real intentional part in it.
 
I replied to someone saying Gane was 0-2 in title fights and Aspinall was the champion.

Both Gane and Aspinall have won an interim title fight (Tom won 2).
Neither has won an undisputed title fight.
It's distinction without a difference imo. They each have a title fight win and Tom has a title defense. Gane also has two title fight losses while Tom has yet to lose in a title fight. And for those who say Tom's Interim title fights don't count, consider which defense was more legit, Tom/Blaydes or Jon/Stipe? Not to mention neither Tom or Jon took their belts from the undisputed champ in the first place.
 
Back
Top