Which GOAT win was the best between these 2?

[puppybird]

Clearly Anderson, he looked unbeatable that day

 

[pankrat]

Being a moderate favorite doesn’t invalidate my point; he wasn’t favored to be the guy.

Still not getting my Kos reference. Read it again. And my following explanation when you misunderstood the first time.

Not getting the Swick stuff either. He was a solid win at ww. Not mw. If Okami and Fitch had beaten exactly the same guys Fitch would have the much stronger resume because he’s a weight class down. A more apt analogy would be to look at what would happen if Fitch had wins at lw.

Belfort was a moderate favourte - not "heavily" as you say. Making biased asumption discrediting Okami and acting like it's a valid argument. You can keep pretending but you've shown your colours long time ago.

Hendo. "Heavily" too, right?
Who else?

Do you know for certain Fitch would have been favoured over BJ or Shields? Just another biased assumption from our friend today?

Maybe you will reply that Shields was fighting at WW while arguing with Belfort, who was at LHW for most of Okami's stint.. Our honest partner is certainly capable of that and much more.

So Koscheck being friend of Fitch invalidates that it could be a tougher match up for him in the WW field? Kos would just give up from his goal of being champion and give it to Jon, or what? Even if that were true, look at what you need to retort in this discussion. It's riidiculous.

I will affirm that Maia would have dropped to WW earlier if he saw Fitch was the opponent for the tittle. He certainly was capable of competing in the "WW field". And dominate him.

> Swick got higher in UFC at MW than Burkman did at WW. So what are you doing pretending to stand by the "journeyman at best" tag? What you are doing is just pretending behind your biased assumption that any credit gotten at MW is inferior by default. As you have been doing the whole thread, in a cheap, dishonest way.

I mean...fyou displayed these levels of cynicism before:

1) Not arguing that finishing the fight is worse, just rejecting it on the basis that I find merit in its counter so it gets cancelled.

So keep entertaining the discussion its cool to me but you can stop pretending a honest unbiased stance here ok? we know whats what by this point.

 

[HavokHarmon]

Belfort was a moderate favourte - not "heavily" as you say. Making biased asumption discrediting Okami and acting like it's a valid argument. You can keep pretending but you've shown your colours long time ago.
Hendo. "Heavily" too, right?
Who else?

Do you know for certain Fitch would have been favoured over BJ or Shields? Just another biased assumption from our friend today?
Maybe you will reply that Shields was fighting at WW while arguing with Belfort, who was at LHW for most of Okami's stint.. Our honest partner is certainly capable of that and much more.

So Koscheck being friend of Fitch invalidates that it could be a tougher match up for him in the WW field? Kos would just give up from his goal of being champion and give it to Jon, or what? Even if that were true, look at what you need to retort in this discussion. It's riidiculous.

i will affirm that Maia would have dropped to WW earlier if he saw Fitch was the opponent for the tittle. He certainly was capable of competing in the "WW field".

> Swick got higher in UFC at MW than Burkman did at WW. So what are you doing pretending to stand by the "journeyman at best" tag? What you are doing is just pretending behind your biased assumption that any credit gotten at MW is inferior by default. As you have been doing the whole thread, in a cheap, dishonest way.


I mean...friend, you displayed these levels of cynicism before:



So keep entertaining the discussion its cool to me but you can stop pretending a honest unbiased stance here ok? we know whats what by this point.

Uh...I’d really suggest you reread what I wrote about Kos because your summary is way off base. I’ll just end up typing the same thing again, I don’t know how I can make it any more clear.

And no, it seems you don’t know what’s what. I would seriously invite you to try and make my argument in a way that I would agree with. That would demonstrate to me that you actually understand it. I’ve clarified many different points for you and you keep falsely summarizing them, I would really like to see you get to a point where you at least understand, even if you don’t agree.

That’s kind of the problem here actually; I feel confident that I can make your argument in a way that you would agree with. This demonstrates that I understand your argument. I just don’t agree with it. Can you say the same thing? If you can’t then I think it behooves you to try to reach a point where you do actually understand what I’m saying.

 

[pankrat]

Uh...I’d really suggest you reread what I wrote about Kos because your summary is way off base. I’ll just end up typing the same thing again, I don’t know how I can make it any more clear.

cool mate. It doesnt change nothing whatsoever of the exposed above:

1. Regarding the caliber of Okami and Fitch being certainly comparable by every measure during GSP/Silva's reigns...while you keep pretenindg the stance of "you are out of your mind" for making a case for Yushin.

2. Regarding the honestly levels in several of your arguments, filles of biased assumption, and a battery of hyperboles "Belfort heavily favoured / Swick journeyman at best", etc aimed to discredit Yushin Okami or hype up Jon Fitch.
An impressive display of pretending delivered by our fellow Hammon in this thread hahaha holly shit

 

[HavokHarmon]

Uh...I’d really suggest you reread what I wrote about Kos because your summary is way off base. I’ll just end up typing the same thing again, I don’t know how I can make it any more clear.

cool mate. It doesnt change nothing whatsoever of the exposed above:

1. Regarding the caliber of Okami and Fitch being certainly comparable by every measure during GSP/Silva's reigns...while you keep pretenindg the stance of "you are out of your mind" for making a case for Yushin.

2. Regarding the honestly levels in several of your arguments, filles of biased assumption, and a battery of hyperboles "Belfort heavily favoured / Swick journeyman at best", etc aimed to discredit Yushin Okami or hype up Jon Fitch.
An impressive display of pretending delivered by our fellow Hammon in this thread hahaha holly shit

You brought it up and I’d really like to nail down the simple things before continuing to ride the merry go round on more complex issues. Whether you understand what I’m saying actually matters. So, what am I saying about Kos?

 

[Fioretti]

1) Misunderstood my reference, which seems frequent. Read it again as your follow up here doesn’t actually deal with what I’m saying.

2) The argument, as it has been stated in a dozen threads, is as as follows:
A dominant decision win over 5 rounds is more decisive than a finish if it is sufficiently dominant as it demonstrates a larger body of dominance, ie the fight goes longer and the losing fighter loses all of it in every area. It’s a better skill check.

Finishing is better because it’s always better to shut down any chance of the losing fighter even competing the fight is over.

These are the two arguments, and I believe they both have merit therefore I propose the middle ground that a dominant decision is roughly equivalent to a finish when the aforementioned decision is sufficiently dominant. I’m sorry for assuming you were familiar with this argument. I’ll try to do a better job of explaining in the future.

3) Still not understanding my verbiage. Making an argument to support your position isn’t indicative of bias. We’re both making an argument to support our positions. FINDING an argument to support your position is. That is to say, I’m relaying to you the argument that has led me to my position; I’m not making up an argument in support of a pre-existing position. You’re just choosing to add the word “up” to my statement, which seems deeply disingenuous.

4) He was by Sherdog.
https://m.sherdog.com/news/rankings/Sherdogcoms-PoundforPound-Top-10-28930/amp

5) I have been. And frankly being far too charitable in doing so.

1. You're rejecting reality, repeatedly. You're still heavily focused on opinions and feelings. Those are irrelevant.

2. The argument is that GSP's UD win over Fitch was more a impressive or significant performance than Silva's KO over Okami. In order for that to be true, Fitch would have to be a much higher caliber of fighter. More accomplished, harder to finish, and all the other things we've been assessing and evaluating in this thread for quite some time now. He wasn't. He was actually an inferior opponent in almost every measurable way. You can spew your opinion on how decisions are better than finishes, but that is simply not true. A finish is absolute. It's not debatable. It's not up to the opinion of others. Hence the word FINISH. Barring some controversy or freak incident, a finish is superior to a decision. It's the epitome of a "larger body of dominance". Dominating somebody to the highest degree by not allowing them to continue. It's the better skill check by far. Granted, finishing some nobody in 2 minutes or winning a 50-45 over an accomplished fighter makes a difference. That's the narrative of you delusional GSP fanatics. You're trying to say that Okami was a lower caliber fighter than Fitch. So much so, in fact, that winning a decision over him eclipses KO'ing Okami. The fact that Okami was a more experienced, accomplished, and highly ranked fighter in comparison to Fitch when they had their title shots shits all over this narrative. It's simply not true. They're not even as comparable as most of us initially thought. Okami was top 5 for 3 years, had 4x the ranked wins that Fitch did, was finished in only 20% of his losses, and he won two title eliminators. Fitch had 1 top 10 win, wasn't even ranked for a year, and was finished in 100% of his losses prior to his title shot. Okami was consistently and factually a better win, period, regardless of the method of victory. He was proven to be among the elite in his division. Fitch was "considered" to be among the elite and hadn't proven it. Factor in the finish vs UD and there's no argument. Zero. None. Fitch had a long, padded, and exaggerated win streak with 1 top 10 win. That's it, and it is not enough to eclipse all of the other FACTS in this analysis.

3. Making an argument to support your position is bias. Collecting data, presenting facts, and refuting claims with factual data is being non-biased. Forming an opinion or position is based on bias, it's not based on factual findings, evaluation, analysis, or assessment. Your opinions, feelings, and position on the subject are completely and 100% irrelevant if you're being objective and looking for an answer to the proposed question, rather than trying to be right. You should focus more on what is right, instead of trying to be right yourself. The things you are saying and suggesting are not factual. Your approach reeks of bias. It's quite obvious.

4. You're showing a p4p ranking 2 years after he fought GSP. This is irrelevant. This is also a flash-in-the-pan ranking that he never attained prior, lost very quickly, and never attained again. He got on the list by beating Thiago Alves after Alves lost his title shot to GSP. Alves is the only title contender Fitch ever beat in the UFC, and would proceed to go 6-8 over the next 9 years to finish out his career. Again, it's fucking irrelevant to where Fitch was at when he fought GSP for the title. He had only been ranked top 10 for about 10 months prior to facing GSP, and had never sniffed a p4p ranking at that time.

5. You have not, and this statement you made here is a testament to that.

6. What are you trying to prove? What's your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish or help accomplish? Is it that you believe Fitch was a higher caliber opponent than Okami was at the time of their title fights? Show me how. I've asked you a few times to present factual data that supports your claim. You have presented nothing. You're fixated on small little tidbits of bullshit here and there, trying to be right about something, and refusing to admit that you're incorrect or misinformed. Be real, homie.

 

[pankrat]

And no, it seems you don’t know what’s what. I would seriously invite you to try and make my argument in a way that I would agree with. That would demonstrate to me that you actually understand it. I’ve clarified many different points for you and you keep falsely summarizing them, I would really like to see you get to a point where you at least understand, even if you don’t agree.

That’s kind of the problem here actually; I feel confident that I can make your argument in a way that you would agree with. This demonstrates that I understand your argument. I just don’t agree with it. Can you say the same thing? If you can’t then I think it behooves you to try to reach a point where you do actually understand what I’m saying.

Dude I perfectly understand your "argument".
It uses the premise of discrediting Okam, his accomplishments and his opponents to a large extent, while at the same time hyping up Fitch, his accomplishments and his opponents.

You've said no man would barely have a chance vs Fitch in the WW field when we've seen undersized Sanchez and unranked Joslin giving him all he could handle.
While at the same time writing off Okami, again using assumptions that in this case have been even factually proven wrong. And you dont even respond of it like a man.

I also understand when someone consistently uses biased assumption accomanied with hyperboles (heavily favoured / journeyman at best) to suit his narrative and always towards the same side.
So stop pretending, friend. It's not that I dont understand, its that you take the stance of "you are out of your mind for arguin this" while filling your own argument with biased, or even straight false assumptions.

 

[HavokHarmon]

1. You're rejecting reality, repeatedly. You're still heavily focused on opinions and feelings. Those are irrelevant.

2. The argument is that GSP's UD win over Fitch was more a impressive or significant performance than Silva's KO over Okami. In order for that to be true, Fitch would have to be a much higher caliber of fighter. More accomplished, harder to finish, and all the other things we've been assessing and evaluating in this thread for quite some time now. He wasn't. He was actually an inferior opponent in almost every measurable way. You can spew your opinion on how decisions are better than finishes, but that is simply not true. A finish is absolute. It's not debatable. It's not up to the opinion of others. Hence the word FINISH. Barring some controversy or freak incident, a finish is superior to a decision. It's the epitome of a "larger body of dominance". Dominating somebody to the highest degree by not allowing them to continue. It's the better skill check by far. Granted, finishing some nobody in 2 minutes or winning a 50-45 over an accomplished fighter makes a difference. That's the narrative of you delusional GSP fanatics. You're trying to say that Okami was a lower caliber fighter than Fitch. So much so, in fact, that winning a decision over him eclipses KO'ing Okami. The fact that Okami was a more experienced, accomplished, and highly ranked fighter in comparison to Fitch when they had their title shots shits all over this narrative. It's simply not true. They're not even as comparable as most of us initially thought. Okami was top 5 for 3 years, had 4x the ranked wins that Fitch did, was finished in only 20% of his losses, and he won two title eliminators. Fitch had 1 top 10 win, wasn't even ranked for a year, and was finished in 100% of his losses prior to his title shot. Okami was consistently and factually a better win, period, regardless of the method of victory. He was proven to be among the elite in his division. Fitch was "considered" to be among the elite and hadn't proven it. Factor in the finish vs UD and there's no argument. Zero. None. Fitch had a long, padded, and exaggerated win streak with 1 top 10 win. That's it, and it is not enough to eclipse all of the other FACTS in this analysis.

3. Making an argument to support your position is bias. Collecting data, presenting facts, and refuting claims with factual data is being non-biased. Forming an opinion or position is based on bias, it's not based on factual findings, evaluation, analysis, or assessment. Your opinions, feelings, and position on the subject are completely and 100% irrelevant if you're being objective and looking for an answer to the proposed question, rather than trying to be right. You should focus more on what is right, instead of trying to be right yourself. The things you are saying and suggesting are not factual. Your approach reeks of bias. It's quite obvious.

4. You're showing a p4p ranking 2 years after he fought GSP. This is irrelevant. This is also a flash-in-the-pan ranking that he never attained prior, lost very quickly, and never attained again. He got on the list by beating Thiago Alves after Alves lost his title shot to GSP. Alves is the only title contender Fitch ever beat in the UFC, and would proceed to go 6-8 over the next 9 years to finish out his career. Again, it's fucking irrelevant to where Fitch was at when he fought GSP for the title. He had only been ranked top 10 for about 10 months prior to facing GSP, and had never sniffed a p4p ranking at that time.

5. You have not, and this statement you made here is a testament to that.

6. What are you trying to prove? What's your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish or help accomplish? Is it that you believe Fitch was a higher caliber opponent than Okami was at the time of their title fights? Show me how. I've asked you a few times to present factual data that supports your claim. You have presented nothing. You're fixated on small little tidbits of bullshit here and there, trying to be right about something, and refusing to admit that you're incorrect or misinformed. Be real, homie.

1) Not at all focused on feelings, although all of this is at least somewhat opinion based so on that point we’re all guilty lol. Seriously though, you’re actually responding to a different point and I sincerely would like you to reread what I wrote as your response makes no Danae as a rebuttal to it.

2) You actually defeat your own argument right at the start by conceding that there are times when a decisive decision is superior to a finish. Given that, the idea that a finish is universally better comes off flat. The rest of this is just you making the argument that I already made as to why a finish is superior. I understand it well enough to make it myself so it needn’t be repeated.

3) You’re way out of your depth on this one. I honestly can’t tell that if you just don’t know what bough to understand where you’re wrong about this or if you’re being willfully ignorant, but for the sake of decency I’m going to assume the former and break it down for you because some of what you’re saying is accurate:
The functional reductio ad absurdum of claiming that making an argument is in and of itself an indication of bias is that I can (and have, here) made arguments in support of opposing propositions. This is a problem because I can’t simultaneously have bias both for and against the same proposition.

4) You: wasn’t p4p ranked
Me: Shows rankings
You: Doesn’t count

Seems legit

The rest of this just seems like mud slinging so I’m not sure it’s really worth my time. I’m sorry you feel that way.

 

[Fioretti]

1) Not at all focused on feelings, although all of this is at least somewhat opinion based so on that point we’re all guilty lol. Seriously though, you’re actually responding to a different point and I sincerely would like you to reread what I wrote as your response makes no Danae as a rebuttal to it.

2) You actually defeat your own argument right at the start by conceding that there are times when a decisive decision is superior to a finish. Given that, the idea that a finish is universally better comes off flat. The rest of this is just you making the argument that I already made as to why a finish is superior. I understand it well enough to make it myself so it needn’t be repeated.

3) You’re way out of your depth on this one. I honestly can’t tell that if you just don’t know what bough to understand where you’re wrong about this or if you’re being willfully ignorant, but for the sake of decency I’m going to assume the former and break it down for you because some of what you’re saying is accurate:
The functional reductio ad absurdum of claiming that making an argument is in and of itself an indication of bias is that I can (and have, here) made arguments in support of opposing propositions. This is a problem because I can’t simultaneously have bias both for and against the same proposition.

4) You: wasn’t p4p ranked
Me: Shows rankings
You: Doesn’t count

Seems legit

The rest of this just seems like mud slinging so I’m not sure it’s really worth my time. I’m sorry you feel that way.

1. Your entire premise is based on feelings. Nothing factual. You keep saying how Fitch was considered, not what and where he actually was at the time in question.

2. I didn't defeat my own argument at all. Finishes are superior in every way. The exception would be comparing a finish against a nobody (IE: someone with a 4-15 record who has been finished 15 times) to a UD against an experienced, accomplished, and elite fighter. That is the exception, not the rule. The entire premise of you fanatics here is that Okami was some scrubby nobody who got knocked out and didn't mean as much as decisioning Fitch. This is false. In order for the UD to eclipse the KO, Fitch would have to be of significantly higher caliber. He wasn't. He was of slightly lower caliber.

3. If you were being objective and unbiased, only the outcome of the analysis can determine your position. That is not the case with you. You're not presenting facts, you're presenting only opinions and hyperbole. You're defending your position without analyzing or assessing factual data. That is being biased.

4. What I said: "4. Fitch was NOT ranked p4p at the time of his title shot" - then I linked you the p4p rankings at the time of his title shot. You posted rankings two years later. "Seems legit".

5. This is you, once again, refusing to acknowledge, address, or present any factual data. You're just desperate to be right about something, and are failing miserably. Try harder.

 

[Iroh]

Fact: Okami had more top ranked wins than Fitch, at the moment they fought for the tittle and also taking their whole UFC stints. Okami beat more former or eventual tittle contender from that era. They held similar standing during many years.

Narrative: "Okami wasn't near the dominant force Fitch was".
"wasn't near"....xD, sounds unbiased

Lol, seems like you already are having enough people to debate with, bud. Do you really need to dig up an older post from another poster to continue this vendetta you're apparently having with this subject?

Winning and being dominant is not the same thing, Fitch was blanketing people like it was nobody's business. It was a great stylistic match up for GSP, in the sense he posed a threat to him on paper. Yushin also had more losses in the UFC (against guys AS already beat). And MW was & is a weaker division than WW.

Don't expect me to join you in a long winded debate though. I really don't care enough, nor do I have the time for it.

And you think Anderson's win was more impressive. Good for you, bud. I have no problem with that.

 

[pankrat]

Lol, seems like you already are having enough people to debate with, bud. Do you really need to dig up an older post from another poster to continue this vendetta you're apparently having with this subject?

Winning and being dominant is not the same thing, Fitch was blanketing people like it was nobody's business. It was a great stylistic match up for GSP, in the sense he posed a threat to him on paper. Yushin also had more losses in the UFC (against guys AS already beat). And MW was & is a weaker division than WW.

Don't expect me to join you in a long winded debate though. I really don't care enough, nor do I have the time for it.

And you think Anderson's win was more impressive. Good for you, bud. I have no problem with that.

It's cool.
Sanchez and Joslin gave Fitch all he could handle. Okami was having that kind of close fights with top5ers Franklin and Shields. And he was dominating everybody else, including more top ranked fighters than Fitch.

I dont expect you to join me in a debate. I see you take for granted this narrative pushed by GSP fanboys of hyping up Fitch while discrediting Okami and you willl stick to it, so it's cool to me.