Where does Michael “The Count” Bisping rank amongst all time MW’s?

MCS said:
His success at the top lasted for a handful of fights. Having title defenses alone doesn't compare to the longevity of his peers. Or Brock's in that mix with his 2 defenses.
Click to expand...
Brock had a 4 fight UFC win streak. Weidman had a 9 fight UFC win streak, 6 of them against ranked opponents. To put that in perspective Sonnen doesn't have 9 UFC wins total. Bisping doesn't have 6 ranked wins in his entire career.

It's a lot different. Weidman is incredibly accomplished.
 
Last edited:
Got a career ending ko against Belfort around 2012. Still managed to win a tittle. He's easily a top 5-10 MW's of all time.
 
I witnessed wanderlei beat his ass in Sydney, a good 5 years removed from his prime. Not worthy imo, but a good character nonetheless.
 
Koro_11 said:
Because Luke had already wiped his ass with Bisping in the first fight, and fought like an overconfident douche in the rematch. There’s a reason that fight is mentioned alongside Serra vs GSP as one of the most unlikely upsets in UFC history.

So yeah, it’s not like Luke slipped on a banana peel and knocked himself out, Bisping still had to throw the punch, but it was definitely a fluke in a sense that If they fought 20 times it’s pretty safe to say that Luke wins 19 of them.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense <28>
 
Maori said:
Perennial gatekeeper who managed to reach the pinnacle.Im guessing fans will have guys ranked ahead of him even though they never became a UFC champion cough*mousassi*cough.

Does he crack the Top 5 sherbros?
Click to expand...
Top 10 for sure
 
Other that KOing Luke, his career is barely above average. Controversial decisions over Anderson and Hendo, never defended against a ranked opponent.
 
Thepaintbucket said:
Yes you are bias. No sane person would believe Dan Henderson's undeserved title shot at MW is better than Whittaker fighting Yoel .




See this is your problem. I don't know if you are half brain dead but you are attempting to pass an opinion as a fact. Who exactly made you the boss in deciding this *fact* of yours? LOL. Exactly! Nobody. It's an opinion.

So now that we got this little brain fart of yours out of the way.

Do you seriously believe (Notice I said believe, because again it's an opinion you silly goose) a champion who defends his belt against the top 13 fighter is a better win over the number ranked 1 guy fighting the number 2 guy? Can you seriously tell me this with a straight face. Be honest
Click to expand...
Fact 1: Bisbing officially defended his belt. It wouldn't matter if it was against a person even you could beat, it is still an official defense. FACT 2: Whittaker did not officially defend the belt, though he did have a meaningless fight. Several years from now when people look into the history of MW champions they will find that Bisbing defended and Whittaker didn't. It is impossible to be bias when only offering FACTS!
When providing FACTS then met with resistance to the FACTS it suggests the person resisting lacks the very thing they accuse the person offering FACTS of. Should you wish to offer a rebuttal please do so using recorded history, some may refer to that history as FACTUAL
 
Do better said:
Fact 1: Bisbing officially defended his belt. It wouldn't matter if it was against a person even you could beat, it is still an official defense. FACT 2: Whittaker did not officially defend the belt, though he did have a meaningless fight. Several years from now when people look into the history of MW champions they will find that Bisbing defended and Whittaker didn't. It is impossible to be bias when only offering FACTS!
When providing FACTS then met with resistance to the FACTS it suggests the person resisting lacks the very thing they accuse the person offering FACTS of. Should you wish to offer a rebuttal please do so using recorded history, some may refer to that history as FACTUAL
Click to expand...
uh...years from now people will obviously see that Whittaker beat Romero when Romero missed weight. You're basically saying that years from now there will be people who will lazily look at things without context - and ignoring that there are always going to be more informed people that do look at things in proper context.
 
Bisping would get beat up by a lot of guys. You could give him extra points cause he has longevity at MW while some better fighters split their time at LHW and things like that.

Overall though, Michael Bisping was barely a top ten fighter for a lot of his career. He's not top ten all time unless you over value longevity a lot. He barely beat any great fighters in their prime - just Rockhold really. After Rockhold the biggest names he beat were Cung Le and Akiyama probably...not very impressive.

He does have debatable decision wins against Henderson and Silva - when they were way past it. Come to think of it, Cung Le wasn't really in his prime either...


I'm a fan of him but talent/ability wise he is not even top 20 at MW. Someone like Vitor Belfort who didn't really have a huge career at MW would murder Bisping, even though Bisping is more accomplished via longevity. GSP beating him is the GOAT cherry pick.
 
Do better said:
Fact 1: Bisbing officially defended his belt. It wouldn't matter if it was against a person even you could beat, it is still an official defense. FACT 2: Whittaker did not officially defend the belt, though he did have a meaningless fight. Several years from now when people look into the history of MW champions they will find that Bisbing defended and Whittaker didn't. It is impossible to be bias when only offering FACTS!
When providing FACTS then met with resistance to the FACTS it suggests the person resisting lacks the very thing they accuse the person offering FACTS of. Should you wish to offer a rebuttal please do so using recorded history, some may refer to that history as FACTUAL
Click to expand...


That's nice.

You ever heard of the term strength of schedule or the quality of opponents you face? Probably not.

If the OP asked who was a better champion between Whittaker and Bisping then you would correct by default because obviously Bisping has 1 defense where as Whittaker has 0. However this isn't the case. The OP clearly asked where does X fighter stand against the other top middle weights in UFC history. AKA your overall career. This isn't an open shut case because he has 1 defense you dumb dumb.

Are you going to answer my question or will you continue to blindly state your opinion as a fact?

Is 1 win against a top 13 guy a better quality win over the number 1 and 2 fighters fighting each other? It's a simple question
 
Last edited:
Thepaintbucket said:
That's nice.

You ever heard of the term strength of schedule or the quality of opponents you face? Probably not.

If the OP asked who was a better champion between Whittaker and Bisping then you would correct by default because obviously Bisping has 1 defense where as Whittaker has 0. However this isn't the case. The OP clearly asked where does X fighter stand against the other top middle weights in UFC history. AKA your overall career. This isn't a open shut case because he has 1 defense you dumb dumb.

Are you going to answer my question or will you continue to blindly state your opinion as a fact?

Is a win against a top 13 guy a better quality win over the number 1 and 2 fighter fighting each other? It's a simple question.
Click to expand...
Perfect. Thank you for confirming your inability to process factual information
 
Do better said:
Perfect. Thank you for confirming your inability to process factual information
Click to expand...

Perfect. 3 posts later and you still refuse to answer a simple subjective response.

Let's have Jon Jones fight CmPunk next because a title defense is a title defense no matter what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,006
Messages
55,460,494
Members
174,788
Latest member
Santos FC 1912

Share this page

Back
Top