UFC's greatest fighter?

[Judge Lance Ito]

The official MMATH greatest fighter:

 

[Breaking]

It's Georges. Retired with the title on a 12-fight winning streak. Class act. Never got caught on steroids, cocaine, HGH etc etc.

The roids thing is a totally fair critique, and really fucked up my Anderson fandom. But the fanboy in me still tells me that it had a lot to do with the recovery of his leg...

But why is the coke even relevant?

 

[eiyuu]

No Steve Jennum?

Poll fail

 

[EGarrett]

The roids thing is a totally fair critique, and really fucked up my Anderson fandom. But the fanboy in me still tells me that it had a lot to do with the recovery of his leg...

But why is the coke even relevant?

I always consider "greatness" to be a measure of prominence in the sport. (whereas "best" or "most dominant" is purely results). Fighters who destroy their own reputations and break their winning streaks through hard drug use take a hit in greatness IMO.

I should say it also matters that GSP wasn't eye-poking, illegal-elbowing and kneecapping people.

 

[SirKratos]

Both McGregor and Werdum would beat Mighty Mouse silly.

Then why is Conor, Aldo, Penn, GSP, Hughes, Rousey is on the poll with Werdum ? If it was a 'who would beat who' contest?

Werdum would have a 60 fight finish streak if he were facing 125 lb little people like MM was.

Sure sure, as long as you ignore the fact that Werdum would have to weigh 125 Ib himself to do that.

Rules and regulations are a thing...

Strength of competition matters and Werdum faced much tougher guys than Mighty Mouse ever did.

Maybe true, but the only reason you believe that is because Werdum's opponents were more popular and obviously much bigger.

Not because they are actually better.

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

Both McGregor and Werdum would beat Mighty Mouse silly. Werdum would have a 60 fight finish streak if he were facing 125 lb little people like MM was. Strength of competition matters and Werdum faced much tougher guys than Mighty Mouse ever did.

Conor doesn't have a good track record against flyweights.

 

[Kahran]

Werdum isn't a shocking inclusion so I don't know why you've included his name along with McGregor there, who shouldn't be on the list at all.

 

[HI SCOTT NEWMAN]

I have to give the nod to Jon as well. I frown upon some of his actions outside the cage, but his performance inside is undeniable. His resume is just insane when you stop to think about it. He's faced some of the absolute best and never faced an actual loss. I think what really separates him is his creativity. He may not be the soundest technical striker, but he's extremely inventive and unorthodox. It makes him a nightmare to prepare for.

It's always been rumored that he has been somewhat lackadaisical in his approach to training. If true, to be as good as he is and to have gained as much skill as he has over his career is even more remarkable. He's very composed in the cage and shows a high level of fight IQ. Completely at ease regardless of where the fight goes and capable of finishing it anywhere. It's difficult to imagine a more talented fighter coming about right now. If he beats DC again, it really states something about how amazing he really is. DC looked unstoppable against any other fighter he's faced.

Yup I totally agree with you Sgt. He is such a creative striker, it really does separate him for the others. If you think about LHW division in UFC.. who else is creative like Jones in the striking?. None come to mind me for. He is undefeated and faced the best fighters for sure.

In my mind Jones can beat anyone in the UFC roster.. in any weight class. if you go through the entire male roster in UFC, I think he can beat them all, there is only 2 guys that stick out to me and they are both at HW.. and that is Stipe and JDS. Those are they only 2 that I think could be a problem for Jones. they both have big KO power but they are both very fast for HW, they both have very fast hands and crisp too, both are very hard to takedown too. Apart from those 2.. I think Jones can beat anyone

 

[LouisBolanos]

Then why is Conor, Aldo, Penn, GSP, Hughes, Rousey is on the poll with Werdum ? If it was a 'who would beat who' contest?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who put them on the list. You could maybe make an argument that an elite MW would have a good chance at HW, but anybody below MW should be automatically excluded for the same reason MM should be excluded. GSP would get trashed at HW, he shouldn't be anywhere near that list.

Sure sure, as long as you ignore the fact that Werdum would have to weigh 125 Ib himself to do that.

Rules and regulations are a thing...

Huh? Rules and regulations prevent women from competing with men in most sports. That doesn't change the fact that elite male athletes destroy elite female athletes in the same sport. Rules and regulations don't change reality.

Maybe true, but the only reason you believe that is because Werdum's opponents were more popular and obviously much bigger.

Not because they are actually better.

Well then we have very different definitions of what being a better fighter is. Mine is simple: if A beats B in a fight more often than not, then A is a better fighter than B. Werdum's opponents, popular or not, would beat the living daylights out of MM's opponents, therefore Werdum faces better competition than MM. Open weight was how UFC started off in the first place. Both size and skill matter in a fight. If you're born 5'3" tough shit, you'll never be a top fighter, just like you'll never be a top basketball player, it doesn't matter how many little guys you can beat.

The Williams sisters could beat all the top 100 ranked female tennis players 10 times over, win 50 female grand slams between them, and in the end they're still not as good as the No.20th ranked male who never won a single grand slam. Why? Well because if they played, the male would win.

Conor doesn't have a good track record against flyweights.

McGOAT doesn't belong on that list anyway, not until he moves up to MW and beats a top 5 guy there, that should be the bare minimum. You could argue that only LHW and HW should be included.

 

[SirKratos]

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who put them on the list. You could maybe make an argument that an elite MW would have a good chance at HW, but anybody below MW should be automatically excluded for the same reason MM should be excluded. My list woul



Huh? Rules and regulations prevent women from competing with men in most sports. That doesn't change the fact that elite male athletes destroy elite female athletes in the same sport. Rules and regulations don't change reality.



Well then we have very different definitions of what being a better fighter is. Mine is simple: if A beats B in a fight more often than not, then A is a better fighter than B. Werdum's opponents, popular or not, would beat the living daylights out of MM's opponents, therefore Werdum faces better competition than MM. Open weight was how UFC started off in the first place. Both size and skill matter in a fight. If you're born 5'3" tough shit, you'll never be a top fighter, just like you'll never be a top basketball player, it doesn't matter how many little guys you can beat.

Bruh, with that logic Ruan Potts is a better fighter than MM. Does that make any sense to you?

 

[loisestrad]

I'm voting Cyborg just to piss myself off.

 

[Breaking]

Werdum isn't a shocking inclusion so I don't know why you've included his name along with McGregor there, who shouldn't be on the list at all.

Werdum has a great MMA legacy, but his UFC resume pales in comparison to MM's.

Not to mention that McGregor's and Werdum's relationship to their titles is identical: won an interim title, unified it, failed to defend it.

 

[LouisBolanos]

Bruh, with that logic Ruan Potts is a better fighter than MM. Does that make any sense to you?

If Ruan Potts can beat MM 9 times out of 10, then that statement makes perfect sense, that's no different than saying Yao Ming is a better b-ball player than some insanely athletic 5'3" little dude who destroys Yao in skill, speed and P4P vertical leap etc. etc. Size is big part of the equation when it comes to fighting and other forms of athletic competitions.

A guy could easily be less skilled at running/jumping/throwing than another guy, but still be a faster/better runner/jumper/thrower because he's way taller, way bigger, way stronger etc. It's not rocket science or anything.

 

[SirKratos]

If Ruan Potts can beat MM 9 times out of 10, then that statement makes perfect sense, that's no different than saying Yao Ming is a better b-ball player than some insanely athletic 5'3" little dude who destroys Yao in skill, speed and P4P vertical leap etc. etc. Size is big part of the equation when it comes to fighting and other forms of athletic competitions.

A guy could easily be less skilled at running/jumping/throwing than another guy, but still be a faster/better runner/jumper/thrower because he's way taller, way bigger, way stronger etc. It's not rocket science or anything.

Fair enough. But I still believe ignoring P4P discussions is simply being lazy enough to refuse comparing the skills of two contestants just because the size difference makes it a lot harder to compare it.

This whole back and forth is pointless anyway, the poll says "Greatest UFC fighter of all time", so even with your point of view, success is surely taken into account when considering someone "Greatest"

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

Obviously Conor and Ronda cuz PPv BuYZ!!1111

 

[Breaking]

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who put them on the list. You could maybe make an argument that an elite MW would have a good chance at HW, but anybody below MW should be automatically excluded for the same reason MM should be excluded. GSP would get trashed at HW, he shouldn't be anywhere near that list.



Huh? Rules and regulations prevent women from competing with men in most sports. That doesn't change the fact that elite male athletes destroy elite female athletes in the same sport. Rules and regulations don't change reality.



Well then we have very different definitions of what being a better fighter is. Mine is simple: if A beats B in a fight more often than not, then A is a better fighter than B. Werdum's opponents, popular or not, would beat the living daylights out of MM's opponents, therefore Werdum faces better competition than MM. Open weight was how UFC started off in the first place. Both size and skill matter in a fight. If you're born 5'3" tough shit, you'll never be a top fighter, just like you'll never be a top basketball player, it doesn't matter how many little guys you can beat.

The Williams sisters could beat all the top 100 ranked female tennis players 10 times over, win 50 female grand slams between them, and in the end they're still not as good as the No.20th ranked male who never won a single grand slam. Why? Well because if they played, the male would win.



McGOAT doesn't belong on that list anyway, not until he moves up to MW and beats a top 5 guy there, that should be the bare minimum. You could argue that only LHW and HW should be included.

All you are saying is that you are either unwilling or unable to think about what it means to be the best in more than one way.

You are simply answering the question "who would win in a fight?" But since the poll isn't asking about that, your point isn't even relevant.

If ANYONE was arguing about who would win in a one on one fight, no one would disagree with you. But no one else is even talking about it except you. We're answering a different question: "who is the UFC's greatest fighter?"

 

[Sgt Smith]

They put Conor McGregor and Fabricio Werdum on the poll but no Mighty Mouse...

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/5/2...des-conor-mcgregor-but-not-demetrious-johnson


Total Bullshit.

Here's a link to the poll. I'm voting for DJ as a write-in.

http://m.ufc.com/news/ufc-200-greatest-fighters-fan-poll-may-2016

Not having DJ on the list in the first place is a travesty. Even though Conor won the belt, he has no where near the body of work to judge from these other fighters do.

 

[LouisBolanos]

Fair enough. But I still believe ignoring P4P discussions is simply being lazy enough to refuse comparing the skills of two contestants just because the size difference makes it a lot harder to compare it.

This whole back and forth is pointless anyway, the poll says "Greatest UFC fighter of all time", so even with your point of view, success is surely taken into account when considering someone "Greatest"

P4P is pure fantasy because of the square-cube law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law#Biomechanics) that basically states if you were to isometrically scale MM to the size of Werdum, the bigger MM would retain significantly less speed/strength/durability than predicted due to the limit of human biomechanics. In other words, MM can do the stuff he does and move the way he does at the speed he can because he's small, a lot of it has nothing to do with skill or athleticism, they're just results of the biomechanics of scale. You can't really compare him with Werdum.

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

P4P is pure fantasy because of the square-cube law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law#Biomechanics) that basically states if you were to isometrically scale MM to the size of Werdum, the bigger MM would retain significantly less speed/strength/durability than predicted due to the limit of human biomechanics. In other words, MM can do the stuff he does and move the way he does at the speed he can because he's small, a lot of it has nothing to do with skill or athleticism, they're just results of the biomechanics of scale. You can't really compare him with Werdum.

Yea cuz clearly everyone else at 125 moves like Demetrious Johnson.

 

[zerofux]

McGregor is greater than Mighty Mouse. Conor's loss to Nate is the equivalent of MM jumping up in weight and losing to Holloway or Poirier. MM would never do that, because he's not a true warrior like Conor. McGregor laid waste to a division that was more impressive than MM's and did it in much more devastating fashion.