LW GOAT top 5

[Wise1]

Which is exactly why he isn't WW GOAT. He's a pioneer, not a GOAT.

I definitely don’t consider Georges the GOAT but as far as WW goes you have to give it to him. Who else? Tyron was on track but hit a major roadblock in Kamaru who also shows potential but still has a ways to go...

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Yes and no to it being a troll thread. I knew it'd get a reaction but it IS what I believe.

Conor is ahead of Khabib because Conor does better than Khabib does against other 155ers.

Most people just do rankings on accomplishments, such as titles and records. I do rankings based on what we know about fighters' skills through their accomplishments, including wins and losses. It's why Gaethje is ranked highly. He's a great fighter.

The problem with making a top 5 greatest of all time list that only includes current fighters is that it's based on a recency bias. I mean what if everyone on this list goes on a huge losing streak? It's not likely, but it is possible. That's why I hate it when people say that a current fighter is the GOAT. I mean what happens if the "GOAT" gets KOed stiff in one round? Does that mean that the guy who KOed him is the new GOAT? Do you see how ridiculous this recency bias stuff is?

 

[Stagliano]

it will make more than 3 pages he succeeded

Sherdoggers will never learns.

 

[old school 2]

2007/2008 BJ Penn beats everyone, except Ferguson.

Yeah, I think Ferg lost to some guy named Jamie Tomey that year by tap out but would definitely beat BJ.....

 

[Loking]

1) Andy wang
2) June browning
3) Gabe Rudiger
4) Joe “daddy” Stevenson
5) Sean Sherk
50-100) Conor Mcregor

 

[weed]

based on what they do to other 'fighters'?

might as well just say, "..because MMAth".

 

[johncola]

youre forgetting BJ Penn

Nah, he's mentioned in the post you quoted.

 

[johncola]

I definitely don’t consider Georges the GOAT but as far as WW goes you have to give it to him. Who else? Tyron was on track but hit a major roadblock in Kamaru who also shows potential but still has a ways to go...

Best version of Tyron beats the best version of Georges IMO, so he's higher P4P. But I do think it's close. It isn't the same as with BJ at LW, who maybe isn't even top 10.

 

[johncola]

The problem with making a top 5 greatest of all time list that only includes current fighters is that it's based on a recency bias. I mean what if everyone on this list goes on a huge losing streak? It's not likely, but it is possible. That's why I hate it when people say that a current fighter is the GOAT. I mean what happens if the "GOAT" gets KOed stiff in one round? Does that mean that the guy who KOed him is the new GOAT? Do you see how ridiculous this recency bias stuff is?

It favors recency in that more recently the sport is better than it used to be. But that isn't the same as with people's usual use of the term "recency bias". People normally are referring to fighters' recent streaks being favored over the fights that came immediately before them, i.e. "you're only as good as your last fight". Or people use it to talk about judging, in that actions from late in the round are favored over actions from earlier in the round, like with Conor/Nate II round 2.

If someone on my list were to go on a huge losing streak, it'd be for a reason. Either they lost because they weren't as good as I thought they were, and thus I was wrong. And it's possible I am. OR they lost because they declined as a fighter. Same thing with the guy who KO's the GOAT: why/how did he get the KO? How do I measure his skills, having acquired this new information? I have no problem with being wrong, but you thinking these examples being ridiculous to you show that you do.

 

[johncola]

based on what they do to other 'fighters'?

might as well just say, "..because MMAth".

Not at all. MMAMath is a failure to consider the idea that styles make fights. I've done the opposite, in that even though Khabib beat Conor, he's still ranked below him.

 

[BoD 2.0]

Yeah, I think Ferg lost to some guy named Jamie Tomey that year by tap out but would definitely beat BJ.....

You didn’t do too well in school did you?

 

[Man_in_Black]

For the "just bleeders" :
Diego, Gil, Stephenson, Nate, Lauzon.
With an honoourable mention to BJ for causing the bleeding in a couple of them..

 

[boingyman]

1. Old man in Irish bar
2. Khabib
3. Kevin Lee
4. James Vick
5. Groovy Lando Vannata

1. Fat Hawaiian in parking lot
2. Old man in Irish bar
3. Wires
4. 2010 Cody McKenzie (12-0, all wins were finishes, 11 wins in a row via Guillotine Choke)
5. Andy Wang

 

[Summoning]

1- Gomi
2-Penn
3- Khabib
4- Ferguson
5- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[old school 2]

You didn’t do too well in school did you?

Apparently better than you.

 

[Cylence]

There's a lot I disagree with here, but I can't fathom how you rank Dustin over Penn.

He could barely beat a shot Jim fucking Miller, who couldn't even get a title shot in BJ's era.

 

[Wise1]

Best version of Tyron beats the best version of Georges IMO, so he's higher P4P. But I do think it's close...

Too bad Georges refused to answer this question, like so many other questions.

... It isn't the same as with BJ at LW, who maybe isn't even top 10.

How dare you speak ill of BabyJay? Bend the knee my friend. You’re disrespecting the original BMF, the original ChampChamp, the original GOAT.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

It favors recency in that more recently the sport is better than it used to be. But that isn't the same as with people's usual use of the term "recency bias". People normally are referring to fighters' recent streaks being favored over the fights that came immediately before them, i.e. "you're only as good as your last fight". Or people use it to talk about judging, in that actions from late in the round are favored over actions from earlier in the round, like with Conor/Nate II round 2.

If someone on my list were to go on a huge losing streak, it'd be for a reason. Either they lost because they weren't as good as I thought they were, and thus I was wrong. And it's possible I am. OR they lost because they declined as a fighter. Same thing with the guy who KO's the GOAT: why/how did he get the KO? How do I measure his skills, having acquired this new information? I have no problem with being wrong, but you thinking these examples being ridiculous to you show that you do.

I think that when we are talking about who the greatest fighters of all time are we should not only look at their accomplishments and their kills as a fighter, but their longevity. For example I consider GSP to be the GOAT because he was Welterweight champ for so long, then he became the Middleweight champ after a 4 year layoff. Plus he never got busted for PEDs, unlike Jones or Silva. In fact GSP was one of the fighters who pushed for stronger drug testing (USADA) the most.
I'm sorry but I just don't think that someone who never touched a belt, or defended a belt less than 3 times (or 0 times in Conor's case) can be considered one of the all time greats. I think you need to win a belt, and defend the belt at least 3 times to be considered an all time great. So Khabib is the closest to being one of the all time greats out of everyone on your list, but even he isn't quite there yet IMO.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

It favors recency in that more recently the sport is better than it used to be. But that isn't the same as with people's usual use of the term "recency bias". People normally are referring to fighters' recent streaks being favored over the fights that came immediately before them, i.e. "you're only as good as your last fight". Or people use it to talk about judging, in that actions from late in the round are favored over actions from earlier in the round, like with Conor/Nate II round 2.

If someone on my list were to go on a huge losing streak, it'd be for a reason. Either they lost because they weren't as good as I thought they were, and thus I was wrong. And it's possible I am. OR they lost because they declined as a fighter. Same thing with the guy who KO's the GOAT: why/how did he get the KO? How do I measure his skills, having acquired this new information? I have no problem with being wrong, but you thinking these examples being ridiculous to you show that you do.

Also if we were going off your logic, Andy Ruiz would be one of the greatest Heavyweight boxers of all time. And Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson wouldn't even be in the top 5.

 

[johncola]

There's a lot I disagree with here, but I can't fathom how you rank Dustin over Penn.

He could barely beat a shot Jim fucking Miller, who couldn't even get a title shot in BJ's era.

That's a good argument. But I view the Miller fight as an anomaly in the recent career of Poirier. He looked uncharacteristically bad there. I took that bad performance into consideration, along with the MJ KO and questionable chin, when considering his career as a whole to judge his ability.