Most underrated champs in UFC history

[snaportap21]

Here is a top 5 list that came up when I googled biggest robberies in MMA
5. Nam Phan vs Leonard Garcia
Striking favoured Pham 174-100
Phan outstruck him in each round
4. Edgar vs Maynard II(I disagree that this was a robbery)
Striking 95-71 for Frankie.
Frankie outstruck him in each round after the first.

2. Lyoto vs Shogun 1
Shogun outstruck him 80-35 in sig strikes, 82-39 total. Shogun outstruck him in every single round.
1. Diego vs Ross Pearson
Pearson outstruck him 51-33 and outlanded him each round.

In each of these the "Robbed" fighter outlanded their opponent in the entirety and in the majority of rounds.

GSP vs Hendricks is listed as #3
GSP out landed Hendricks 101-85 in significant strikes. But Johnny was robbed.
GSP out landed Hendricks 142-125 total strikes. But Johnny was robbed.
GSP out landed Hendricks 31-15 in the 3rd. But Johnny was robbed.
GSP out landed Hendricks 9-4 in the 5th with 2 TDs to none. But Johnny was robbed.

GSP outlanded Hendricks in Sig strikes in the first 19-18.
Hendricks out landed GSP in total strikes 27-26
Both fighters had 1 TD each.
GSP had the only submission attempt.
Literally a razor close round that could have gone either way. But Johnny was robbed.

Note how this "Robbery" is statistically opposite of the other 4 in the top 5? It simply is not a robbery. The night of the fight Johnny got "The Halo Effect" in many fans eyes. This is one case of MMA judges actually being competent and the statistics bear that out.

If you have an argument besides "But its on a list", perhaps with some facts to back it up I am listening. From where I saw it rounds 2 & 4 were Johnny's and 3 & 5 were GSPs. I scored the first for GSP. If you scored the first for Johnny I can see that. If you want to argue how it wasn't remotely close in the first I am all ears. You can think Johnny won but it was not a robbery.

Again, why is it universally listed in the top mma robberies? The most reputable mmasites and mma youtube channels list this as a robbery. Why is this so? Damage is the highest criteria in scoring. Hendricks did more damage in rd 1.

 

[HHJ]

Underrated
HW- Tim Sylvia
LHW- Shogun
MW- Rich Franklin(If Anderson wasn't around he would have become the biggest star in the UFC imo)
WW- Lawler(he fought all the guys GSP didnt want to fight during his streak)
LW- Frankie Edgar

idc abt small guys

Id never think Shogun was underrated. Some would say the opposite.
Franklin would have probably lost to other fighters that Anderson has beaten.
Edgar has def been on the bad end of some questionable decisions,especially the 2nd Benson Henderson fight.
I dont really see many people overlooking any of these guys,other than maybe Sylvia,who I think would have done better against the hw's he hadnt gotten an oppurtunity to fight,than some may think

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Again, why is it universally listed in the top mma robberies? The most reputable mmasites and mma youtube channels list this as a robbery. Why is this so? Damage is the highest criteria in scoring. Hendricks did more damage in rd 1.

I listed 5 of the "Top Robberies" from one list that showed up when I googled top robberies in mma. All of those claimed Robberies had the losing fighter winning statistically to back up the "Opinion" of a robbery. GSP vs Hendricks shows GSP statistically well ahead of Hendricks overall. Had the most dominant single round. Clearly opposite statistically to all others on the list.

Instead of using someone else's opinion try this.
What is your definition of a "Robbery"? What is your criteria. Robbery is throw around all the time when someone's favourite fighter loses a close fight. Bias is a real thing.

For me a "Robbery" is when it is clear as day and not debatable when scoring a fight. A 48-47 can be a robbery if the three rounds fighter X should have won are statistically lopsided. Nobody can really argue GSP won the 3rd & 5th. Same goes for Hendricks in the 2nd & 4th. I gave the first to GSP but I could see someone giving it to Hendricks. I cannot see someone credibly arguing that it 100% was clear as day that the first round of that fight was Hendricks with no doubt whatsoever. The stats back it up.

So define a "Robbery". What is the criteria upon which you feel a decision is a Robbery?
BTW the list of top Robberies didn't have DJ vs Cejudo 2 on it. That was the biggest Robbery in a title fight since Shogun vs Machida 1. Go look at the stats. Then look at the Unified Rules of MMA and particularly the changes made for that exact type of Lay n Pray.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Barao, he was truly unstoppable until TJ entered the cage with him, but people forget how dominant he was and how long he went undefeated. He deserves more recognition.

Really is the #2 BW of all time after Cruz.

 

[snaportap21]

I listed 5 of the "Top Robberies" from one list that showed up when I googled top robberies in mma. All of those claimed Robberies had the losing fighter winning statistically to back up the "Opinion" of a robbery. GSP vs Hendricks shows GSP statistically well ahead of Hendricks overall. Had the most dominant single round. Clearly opposite statistically to all others on the list.

Instead of using someone else's opinion try this.
What is your definition of a "Robbery"? What is your criteria. Robbery is throw around all the time when someone's favourite fighter loses a close fight. Bias is a real thing.

For me a "Robbery" is when it is clear as day and not debatable when scoring a fight. A 48-47 can be a robbery if the three rounds fighter X should have won are statistically lopsided. Nobody can really argue GSP won the 3rd & 5th. Same goes for Hendricks in the 2nd & 4th. I gave the first to GSP but I could see someone giving it to Hendricks. I cannot see someone credibly arguing that it 100% was clear as day that the first round of that fight was Hendricks with no doubt whatsoever. The stats back it up.

So define a "Robbery". What is the criteria upon which you feel a decision is a Robbery?
BTW the list of top Robberies didn't have DJ vs Cejudo 2 on it. That was the biggest Robbery in a title fight since Shogun vs Machida 1. Go look at the stats. Then look at the Unified Rules of MMA and particularly the changes made for that exact type of Lay n Pray.

Answer the question I’ve asked a myriad of times first. Then I will indulge you.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Answer the question I’ve asked a myriad of times first. Then I will indulge you.

Why is it on a list of Robberies? Because sometimes people are wrong. I have addressed that many times but I guess you didn't realize it since I didn't specifically say "this is my answer". A ton of people gave Hendricks the "Extra Credit" for being competitive with GSP and not being dominated. When a champion is dominant for so long people WANT to see someone finally beat them. It was a close fight. Close fights cannot be a robbery IMO.

 

[cws80us]

Lawler fought all the guys GSP didn't want to fight? He did fight Hendricks and Condit after GSP beat them.

Yeah that was a poor statement. One thing you can't accuse GSP of is ducking anyone at 170. He fought every top guy in the division when he was active, with probably Rory being the only exception because they were friends and teammates. I think Woodley may have still been in Strikeforce or had just come to the UFC when GSP retired.

 

[Alexander_GOATanovski]

Answer the question I’ve asked a myriad of times first. Then I will indulge you.

GSP fanboys are the most toxic and unintelligent tools in all of MMA fandom. That schmuck has been going on about the stats for multiple comments but had nothing to say when I brought up Cruz vs Garbrandt, a fight where the winner was outstruck in every single round but clearly won the fight. He's even compared ppl who correctly score the fight for Hendricks to flat earthers.

There's only one correct way to score the fight (Hendricks 1 2 4) and rounds 2 & 4 where more dominant than 3 & 5 despite what the statistics say. Round 1 was also a clear win for Hendricks just like how rounds 2 & 3 were clear wins for Garbrandt despite the winner landing fewer strikes. This particular fight brings the absolute worst out of these low IQ turds. Something that GSP fanboys are also oblivious to is that the only ppl who don't consider this a robbery are sychophants like themselves.

 

[Ibm]

Jose Aldo
Rashad evans HIGHLY
Tim Sylvia
Brock lesnar(yes being serious)
Junior Dos Santos HIGHLY

 

[13Seconds]

Yeah that was a poor statement. One thing you can't accuse GSP of is ducking anyone at 170. He fought every top guy in the division when he was active, with probably Rory being the only exception because they were friends and teammates. I think Woodley may have still been in Strikeforce or had just come to the UFC when GSP retired.

Close. Woodley was 2-1 in the UFC at this point and had just lost to Shields when GSP retired

 

[snaportap21]

Why is it on a list of Robberies? Because sometimes people are wrong. I have addressed that many times but I guess you didn't realize it since I didn't specifically say "this is my answer". A ton of people gave Hendricks the "Extra Credit" for being competitive with GSP and not being dominated. When a champion is dominant for so long people WANT to see someone finally beat them. It was a close fight. Close fights cannot be a robbery IMO.

So your answer to it being universally listed is "sometimes people are wrong"? Is that honestly a valid response? If so, my reply to you is sometimes you're just wrong.

 

[snaportap21]

GSP fanboys are the most toxic and unintelligent tools in all of MMA fandom. That schmuck has been going on about the stats for multiple comments but had nothing to say when I brought up Cruz vs Garbrandt, a fight where the winner was outstruck in every single round but clearly won the fight. He's even compared ppl who correctly score the fight for Hendricks to flat earthers.

There's only one correct way to score the fight (Hendricks 1 2 4) and rounds 2 & 4 where more dominant than 3 & 5 despite what the statistics say. Round 1 was also a clear win for Hendricks just like how rounds 2 & 3 were clear wins for Garbrandt despite the winner landing fewer strikes. This particular fight brings the absolute worst out of these low IQ turds. Something that GSP fanboys are also oblivious to is that the only ppl who don't consider this a robbery are sychophants like themselves.

Great point in regards to Cody vs Cruz. Thanks for the wakeup call. Going back and forth like I am with homeboy may end up being pointless.

 

[Unfinished]

Conor McGregor by far.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

So your answer to it being universally listed is "sometimes people are wrong"? Is that honestly a valid response? If so, my reply to you is sometimes you're just wrong.

Put the "Lists" made by others aside for a moment.
Score the fight round by round:
1. Can you agree that rounds 2-5 were scored correctly? 2 & 4 for Johnny & 3 & 5 for GSP?
if yes then how did you score round 1?
Was it an absolute blowout, no doubt about it round? Is it absolutely impossible to score it for GSP? Look at the stats? The argument was always look at the damage on GSP's face, Johnny must have won. But he didn't do any damage in the 1st round. If you scored it for Johnny I can understand but its really a close round that Many have admitted could have gone either way.

Pretty simple if you believe the round was close then how is it a robbery? If you don't think it was close explain why.

 

[snaportap21]

Put the "Lists" made by others aside for a moment.
Score the fight round by round:
1. Can you agree that rounds 2-5 were scored correctly? 2 & 4 for Johnny & 3 & 5 for GSP?
if yes then how did you score round 1?
Was it an absolute blowout, no doubt about it round? Is it absolutely impossible to score it for GSP? Look at the stats? The argument was always look at the damage on GSP's face, Johnny must have won. But he didn't do any damage in the 1st round. If you scored it for Johnny I can understand but its really a close round that Many have admitted could have gone either way.

Pretty simple if you believe the round was close then how is it a robbery? If you don't think it was close explain why.

bro, sometimes you're just wrong.

 

[Dorkman]

The Weidman that destroyed Machida would be a problem to any MW ever, imo that was his prime

Yep. Rounds 3-4 with Rockhold changed him forever. Before that he really was very very good and pretty durable. It was just a steady slide for the most part after the fact.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

bro, sometimes you're just wrong.

How? Was the first round close or no? Pretty simple question.

 

[ferrisjso]

Only people who have no clue how MMA is scored think Hendricks was robbed.

"bUt LoOk At GsPs FaCe He MuStA lOsT!"

Idiots.

This was the only robbery in MMA history where 100% of the media scored it for the loser. Dana had every reason to pretend it was a close fight and he admitted it too.

 

[snaportap21]

How? Was the first round close or no? Pretty simple question.

i asked for an answer and got a bs response of "sometimes people are just wrong" from you. i'm not answering any questions from till i get a valid reply. otherwise sometimes you're just wrong is my reply to you.

 

[pankrat]

Frank Shamrock, you never hear about him because of his feud with Dana I suppose, he's one of the best champs they've ever had

Yea Frank Shamrock too. I agree 100%

Former opponent Jeremy Horn disagrees, and I dont think its because of bad blood