- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 52,287
- Reaction score
- 30,195
title defenses matter very little
and GSP lost several times and Jones never lost. why am i comparing rounds again?Another expert dodge lol. Jones and GSP have very comparable career paths. They're arguably equal in most regards. GSP has been more dominant.
I'm just going to come out and say half of Ferguson's 12 wins are against cans and over the hill fighters.Title defenses are not a good metric for determining GOAT.
Some fighters get title shots after 2-4 fighters whereas others have to win 10 in a row.
yeah who cares about constantly fighting only the best fighters in your division and never losing. that's so lame.title defenses matter very little

oh you think fighters that get title fights are the “best in the division” that’s preciousyeah who cares about constantly fighting only the best fighters in your division and never losing. that's so lame.
![]()
okay who do you think is generally better, the few fighters who get title shots or all the ones that don't get title shots?oh you think fighters that get title fights are the “best in the division” that’s precious
GSPs won belts in 2 weight classes and avenged his losses. Jon has had multiple favorable decisions and struggled much more across his career than GSP did.and GSP lost several times and Jones never lost. why am i comparing rounds again?
he clearly didn't struggle much more because he never lost. and GSP hasn't gotten favorable decisions?GSPs won belts in 2 weight classes and avenged his losses. Jon has had multiple favorable decisions and struggled much more across his career than GSP did.
Lol you must go solely by wiki. Winning does not mean you didn't struggle. Jon has had more close fights than GSP. And he hasn't lost the graces of very generous judges and good ol steroids backing him up.he clearly didn't struggle much more because he never lost. and GSP hasn't gotten favorable decisions?
i think we know who the best fighters are regardless of whether they have a belt or not. i have no sentimental attachment to the concept of someone “defending their title.” i just don’t think that part matters.okay who do you think is generally better, the few fighters who get title shots or all the ones that don't get title shots?
i think we know who the best fighters are regardless of whether they have a belt or not. i have no sentimental attachment to the concept of someone “defending their title.” i just don’t think that part matters.
all that matters is who you beat, the form they were in, and as a bonus, how you beat them.
you want to oversimplify judging a fighters greatness by attaching numbers to them so you can better understand it, and my thinking skills are the problem?Your thinking skills are lacking, here is the proof we don't know who the best fighter is: The never ending p4p argument, if we had the capacity to judge the best figher on subjective terms there would be a consensus by now.
urijah faber never won gold during one of the most dominant periods of his career. still one of the greatest BWs of all time. joseph benavidez is one of the best fighters to ever fight below 145. a giant portion of frankie edgar’s greatness comes from his achievements at 145 where he never won gold.Can you name those plenty GOATs that never won gold? I would love to know.
Also, can you prove to me your point is true, that we know how to judge fighters on subjective terms? To me not having a consensus on the p4p was a clear enough indication that we can't.