title defenses don't mean as much as you think

[RonDante]

You have to go by what era they fought in. Jones, GSP, Silva all fought the best of their era, and that's all you ask of them. That's like saying Mohamed Ali's record isn't as legit as Tyson Fury, and that's ridiculous. Title defenses mean you fought the best guys every fight, and that means a lot in my book, no matter what era they fought in.

So a title defense in 2000 against mark Coleman is worth the same as a title defense now against someone like Tom aspinall? Do you honestly believe that?

 

[RonDante]

the reason why you consider aldo to be winless against the 145 'greats' is because you dont see some of his wins as for what they were.

the wins of aldo against chad mendez and uriah faber made sure that they wouldnt become all time greats. he reigned supreme over them. those wins are quite equal to lets say a volk win over holloway. it sounds weird......but aldo was the king for such a long time that he prevented others from becoming a '145 great' while in fact both mendez and faber absolutely were in terms of skilled/acomplished fighters definately 145 greats. just because they didnt held a title doesnt mean those wins were less worth. aldo was that good

Max Holloway is an all time great, his only losses at featherweight since he was 20 against conor have been against volk. He’s demolished so many others, and had an extremely competitive fight against poirier where poirier even said he was nearly out of it. Comparing him to mendes or faber is actually disrespect

 

[HHJ]

ends the conversation

No it doesnt.

Its just simpler if it was !

 

[Taric]

No it doesnt.

Its just simpler if it was !

Please show me the example of one fighter with 1-3 titles as #1 being higher in the GOAT rankings than another fighter with 8-10 titles as #1 within the same division.

Please show me this example, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass.

And if you say Conor over Aldo I'm just going to laugh at you and move on with my life.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

“It’s okay that I beat worse fighters than this other champion becuase I was shit too” is basically what you’re saying

Not even close... Lol

Im saying its all relative...but to compare era to era it has to be considered in context

 

[HHJ]

Please show me the example of one fighter with 1-3 titles as #1 being higher in the GOAT rankings than another fighter with 8-10 titles as #1 within the same division.

Please show me this example, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass.

And if you say Conor over Aldo I'm just going to laugh at you and move on with my life.

GOAT rankings are useless anyway

All im saying is not every challenger is held in a high regard,not every champion were allowed a shot at a belt as early as others,etc.

Tony Ferguson can go 12 -0 and even if he managed to finally win the belt after that, he probably wouldnt have enough left to defend it so many times.

No Conor isnt over Aldo

Conor got a fast push to the title and still didnt defend it. Aldo was already a champ before UFC had him represent them and he still held on to it for a while, so he is amazing...Anderson Silva's first half of his title reign is a bit meh comparted to the second half.

 

[Taric]

GOAT rankings are useless anyway

All im saying is not every challenger is held in a high regard,not every champion were allowed a shot at a belt as early as others,etc.

Tony Ferguson can go 12 -0 and even if he managed to finally win the belt after that, he probably wouldnt have enough left to defend it so many times.

No Conor isnt over Aldo

Conor got a fast push to the title and still didnt defend it. Aldo was already a champ before UFC had him represent them and he still held on to it for a while, so he is amazing...Anderson Silva's first half of his title reign is a bit meh comparted to the second half.

You can't give an example because there is no example in the 30 years of MMAs existence, which shows what I'm saying is accurate, you just don't want to come to terms with it.

The greatest fighters this sport has seen are the ones with the most wins as the #1 fighter in the world. The two things absolutely correlate.

 

[RonDante]

Not even close... Lol

Im saying its all relative...but to compare era to era it has to be considered in context

Why does it have to be? Why can’t I look at a tougher era with better fighters and say “this means more”? Who is arbitrating how we’re allowed to look at these things? Becuase acting like it’s all relative has never made any sense to me. Better fighters are better wins

 

[HHJ]

Why does it have to be? Why can’t I look at a tougher era with better fighters and say “this means more”? Who is arbitrating how we’re allowed to look at these things? Becuase acting like it’s all relative has never made any sense to me. Better fighters are better wins

Yup

 

[HHJ]

You can't give an example because there is no example in the 30 years of MMAs existence, which shows what I'm saying is accurate, you just don't want to come to terms with it.

Khabib's 3 wins > Mighty Mouses whatever

 

[HHJ]

Sorry if I rank Justin Gaethje above Uncle Creepy but I do.

 

[Taric]

Khabib's 3 wins > Mighty Mouses whatever

lol

We are so done.

 

[HHJ]

lol

We are so done.

I accept your defeat.

 

[Thatlookinhiseyes]

You had to double down on the stupidity eh? Subjective things never become fact.

That’s why they bring in professionals to court to get their opinion? And multiple professionals to show it as fact?

 

[Cobra 03]

So a title defense in 2000 against mark Coleman is worth the same as a title defense now against someone like Tom aspinall? Do you honestly believe that?

Yes, because most fighters in the Coleman era were of the same talent level. Mark Coleman was a scary dude in his heyday! I'm guessing you are a young person, you just don't understand yet. You can't compare fighters from different era's. Sport evolves, especially a relatively young sport like MMA. Royce Gracie is a perfect example. At UFC 1 and beyond, he was unbeatable. By the time he fought Matt Hughes at UFC 60, he couldn't compete anymore, because the sport had evolved and Gracie's skill set didn't progress with the times. Fighters skill sets keep getting better and better.

 

[RonDante]

Yes, because most fighters in the Coleman era were of the same talent level. Mark Coleman was a scary dude in his heyday! I'm guessing you are a young person, you just don't understand yet. You can't compare fighters from different era's. Sport evolves, especially a relatively young sport like MMA. Royce Gracie is a perfect example. At UFC 1 and beyond, he was unbeatable. By the time he fought Matt Hughes at UFC 60, he couldn't compete anymore, because the sport had evolved and Gracie's skill set didn't progress with the times. Fighters skill sets keep getting better and better.

So if the talent level back then was worse, then the average win back then is over a less talented fighter, therefore it means less

 

[RonDante]

Yes, because most fighters in the Coleman era were of the same talent level. Mark Coleman was a scary dude in his heyday! I'm guessing you are a young person, you just don't understand yet. You can't compare fighters from different era's. Sport evolves, especially a relatively young sport like MMA. Royce Gracie is a perfect example. At UFC 1 and beyond, he was unbeatable. By the time he fought Matt Hughes at UFC 60, he couldn't compete anymore, because the sport had evolved and Gracie's skill set didn't progress with the times. Fighters skill sets keep getting better and better.

Also, yes I can compare fighters between eras. MMA was much smaller with less talent going into it and the skillsets were worse. Intuitively, you would value those wins less than wins now when the sport is bigger, the talent is better and it’s harder to get to the top becuase everyone is more skilled

 

[HavokHarmon]

You new fans have to get some better arguments.

There are guys in every era who rack up long win streaks without getting a title shot or before getting one. Fitch famously won 14 consecutive fights with 8 of those being in the UFC before getting a title shot. He then racked up 5 straight wins without getting one at all. It happens. In every era.

There are guys in every era who slide into a title shot without long win streaks and/or without facing top competition. Alex had 1 top 10 win to his name when he got a shot at Izzy, that being Strickland. And Sean himself got his title shot off a 2 fight win streak with neither opponent being in the top 10. It happens. In every era.

These differences come down more to individual circumstances. Some guys are more marketable, some guys have extenuating circumstances that make a matchup with the current champ more appealing (Alex’s first shot for instance). Some guys manage to be in the right place at the right time, they rise to the top when a division is in limbo. Some of those guys capitalize off of that advantage, some don’t.

Some guys rattle off tons of wins in a row in a top-heavy division that’s clogged up. Some of those guys end up falling by the wayside after absorbing a loss before they can get a shot, and some of them do eventually get the shot.

All title defenses are not created equal, but the eras piece of this cuts both ways. Sure guys like Rampage and Silva got title shots off 1 win in the UFC, but that was an era where it was possible to fight high ranking competition outside of the UFC. That doesn’t happen nearly as much these days, but when it does we still see the same thing. Chandler getting shot off beating Hooker for instance. Or Alex getting a shot off 3 UFC wins.

Basically I think it’s pretty reductionist to draw your line of demarcation between eras. A more nuanced discussion of individual title reigns or paths would be more useful, and more accurate.

 

[Goutfather]

defenses matter because it is presumed that every challenger is the best the division had to offer at the time. sometimes, those challengers are relatively unknown, but they are always there.

 

[djacobox372]

So a title defense in 2000 against mark Coleman is worth the same as a title defense now against someone like Tom aspinall? Do you honestly believe that?

Yes.

Coleman was a Div 1 wrestling champ and an Olympic athlete. Aspinall is just a promising MMA guy that lost to the only accomplished wrestler he fought. Prime Coleman would have smashed him with ease.