Which GOAT win was the best between these 2?

[Fioretti]

Is Fitch one of the two best wins in GSP's career? I'd say he is around top5, just like Okami for Silva

Here we have two flawless performances vs credited tittle contenders, one ends by legit stoppage the other doesnt.
Fitch wasn't in another league compared to Okami to justify claiming that taking Fitch to the judges, as lopsided as it was, is a better win than by TKO.

Fitch was seen as a much more of a challenge for the champion but that's a different story.
It refflects the superiority of Silva's above his peers, especially at that point in time, coming off front kicking Belfort as opposed to GSP tapping to strikes to Matt Serra not that long ago.

Taking away such credit from Silva in order to downplay his performance and competition is dishonest and unfair

Okami's standing according to official Sherdog rankings:

2008 - https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/4/Sherdog-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-15631 - Okami #4

2009 - https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/4/Sherdog-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-17131 - Okami #2

2010 - https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/4/Sherdog-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-28893 - Okami #3

2011 - https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/4/Sherdog-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-33703 - Okami #3

2012 - https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/4/Sherdogs-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-40091 - Okami #3

2013 - https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/4/Sherdogs-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-52775 - Okami #4

--
Okami's ranked wins going into the Silva fight: 4
Fitch's ranked wins going into the GSP fight: 2

.
Odds for Fitch vs Okami match up;
https://www.bestfightodds.com/events/wsof-24-fitch-vs-okami-998

Fitch only had 1 ranked win. That 2 is deceiving, because his win over Alves was before he was ranked. Alves ended up being ranked by going on a tear after he lost to Fitch. He beat Alves again later on, which was the 3rd and final top 10 win of his career.

 

[pankrat]

Fitch only had 1 ranked win. That 2 is deceiving, because his win over Alves was before he was ranked. Alves ended up being ranked by going on a tear after he lost to Fitch. He beat Alves again later on, which was the 3rd and final top 10 win of his career.

Didnt know. Anyways, I dont discuss as much based on official data and numbers as you and other folks in this thread. I folllowed their trajectories and I do believe Alves and Sanches were legit ranked material wins for Fitch back then

 

[Fioretti]

I was only pointing out that the other info you posted was quite irrelevant. I also don't think Fitch was "many leagues" ahead. Fitch was slightly ahead but Silva's performance was better. Which is why I rated the wins pretty much equal.

You're also overlooking the quality of their wins btw. Now I don't actually know if Fitch's wins were of a higher quality. But it does matter in ranking their strength.

Another thing I think is quite relevant and that actually favours Silva is that Okami was a bad matchup for Silva, who played into his weaknesses. While Fitch was a good matchup for GSP because he just keeps it standing against wrestlers and outboxes them most of the time.

I know that posting anything after is essentially irrelevant, but I did it for the GSP kids. The point of doing so is to show that Fitch and Okami have been very fucking comparable throughout their entire careers. At 22 fights in - virtually identical.

Okami had 4 top 10 wins going into his fight with Silva, Fitch had 1. Okami earned two title shots on his path. The first by beating top 5 former champ Evan Tanner, but the fight got canceled due to injury. The second was against top 5 ranked former title contender Nate Marquardt. Fitch earned his shot with a decision over unranked UFC newcomer Chris Wilson. What does that tell you about quality of wins? It's all there, homie.

The premise here, pushed by the GSP cult, is that a 5 round decision over Fitch was better/more significant than Silva's 7 minute flawless victory KO over Okami because Fitch was just so much better than Okami. I just want to know how or why they think that is. Everything they've tried to say has been debunked.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Omitting NC's and giving half points for draws/ties is how it's done for team sports. MMA isn't a team sport. If a man goes 0-0-10 in MMA, he doesn't have a 50% win rate, he hasn't won a fucking fight.

Wrong. A fighter who only has draws with no wins and losses has a .500 win rate. If you want to make up your own set of rules for how to do it, I can kind of see where you are coming from. But calculating win percentage is done in a standardized way in sports.

I think what is tripping you up is that you are thinking of .500 as someone winning half of their fights. In the case of your hypothetical fighter with a 0-0-10 record, that would not be true. A better way to think of it is that a .500 fighter has as many wins as he has losses, and your hypothetical fighter does indeed have an equal number of wins and losses.

 

[Barteh]

I know that posting anything after is essentially irrelevant, but I did it for the GSP kids. The point of doing so is to show that Fitch and Okami have been very fucking comparable throughout their entire careers. At 22 fights in - virtually identical.

Okami had 4 top 10 wins going into his fight with Silva, Fitch had 1. Okami earned two title shots on his path. The first by beating top 5 former champ Evan Tanner, but the fight got canceled due to injury. The second was against top 5 ranked former title contender Nate Marquardt. Fitch earned his shot with a decision over unranked UFC newcomer Chris Wilson. What does that tell you about quality of wins? It's all there, homie.

The premise here, pushed by the GSP cult, is that a 5 round decision over Fitch was better/more significant than Silva's 7 minute flawless victory KO over Okami because Fitch was just so much better than Okami. I just want to know how or why they think that is. Everything they've tried to say has been debunked.

That's actually quite surprising. I know Fitch was considered a pretty dominant number 2 but I didn't realize he had such a low amount of top 10 wins.

 

[Fioretti]

Didnt know. Anyways, I dont discuss as much based on official data and numbers as you and other folks in this thread. I folllowed their trajectories and I do believe Alves and Sanches were legit ranked material wins for Fitch back then

Alves wasn't the first time Fitch beat him. He was the second time around. The first time they fought, Alves was 2-1 in the UFC with wins over Derrick Noble and Ansar Chalangov. He lost to Spencer Fisher in his UFC debut. Losing to Fitch brought him to 10-5 overall (2-2 UFC) with no ranked wins. He went apeshit after that and cleaned shop. 7 fight win streak in the UFC with 5 finishes. He racked up a few unranked wins, then finished Lytle, Parisyan, and Hughes all in a row before decisioning Kos to get his title shot. Definitely a top 10 win the second time around. Alves was actually ranked #2 after knocking Hughes out, right before Fitch fought GSP. These kids keep saying Fitch was #2 when he fought GSP, but he wasn't. Fitch beat Sanchez, who was 5 or 6, then Chris Wilson. Alves leap frogged him by knocking out Hughes right after he lost the interim title fight vs GSP.

 

[Fioretti]

A better way to think of it is that a .500 fighter has as many wins as he has losses, and your hypothetical fighter does indeed have an equal number of wins and losses.

Which is 0.

You're caught up on the team sport way to calculate win percentage. Somebody with 0 wins and 10,000 draws still hasn't won a fight. Doesn't matter how football counts draws.

 

[Fioretti]

That's actually quite surprising. I know Fitch was considered a pretty dominant number 2 but I didn't realize he had such a low amount of top 10 wins.

Count em up.

Before GSP: Diego Sanchez
After GSP: Paulo Thiago and Thiago Alves

Paulo Thiago went 5-8 in the UFC by the way. He was supposed to be cannon fodder for Koscheck, who they were building back up after he dropped a decision to Alves then KO'd Yoshida, but 'ol homie came in and knocked Kos the fuck out gangster style. Fitch took his 0, then the only significant win he got after that was choking out Swick, who had just started his decline. Granted, it's a legit top 10 win, but Thiago was only ranked for 5 months between knocking out Kos and losing to Fitch. Big flash in the pan momentary ranked win for Fitch. If it wasn't for Paulo's KO of Koscheck, Fitch would only have 2 top 10 wins in his career. Lol

 

[pankrat]

I was only pointing out that the other info you posted was quite irrelevant. I also don't think Fitch was "many leagues" ahead. Fitch was slightly ahead but Silva's performance was better. Which is why I rated the wins pretty much equal.

You're also overlooking the quality of their wins btw. Now I don't actually know if Fitch's wins were of a higher quality. But it does matter in ranking their strength.

Another thing I think is quite relevant and that actually favours Silva is that Okami was a bad matchup for Silva, who played into his weaknesses. While Fitch was a good matchup for GSP because he just keeps it standing against wrestlers and outboxes them most of the time.

Okami wasnt a bad match up for Silva at all. This sherbro talk of "Sonnen with sub defense" was an uneducated take IMO.

Yushin was a laid-back, counter fighter who needed to impose his jab or his clinch to get going; in Silva was facing a fellow southpaw with the longest reach in the division who mastered clinch and was the finest counter-striker in the sport

Silva's performance was a masterclass shutting down the clinch specialist and outjabbing the jabber to enter the Matrix and put away a guy who had barely been rocked in his previous 23 fights.

It made Okami look bad until you look back to him fighting legitimate top5 competition in Franklin, Marquardt or Shields, all of them in their prime, and see that none of them did look good at all or even got a dominant round on Yushin.

I respect your opinion but any fight fan would agree that a finish > decision when facing similar caliber of competition. Let's give credit where it's due, Silva was the better finisher, and if Okami was seen as much less of a chalenge for the champ is because Silva looked unbeatable at the time coming off front kicking Belfort while GSP had a losst to Serra fairly recent, not because were different leagues of competition in this case

 

[ThunderStruck]

Damn it took a while but...

I finished compiling the results!!

See the OP for them!

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Which is 0.

You're caught up on the team sport way to calculate win percentage. Somebody with 0 wins and 10,000 draws still hasn't won a fight. Doesn't matter how football counts draws.

Team sports has nothing to do with it. Team sports and individual sports do not calculate win percentage differently.

Like I said, if you want to make up your own system, go for it, but currently your system is treating draws like losses. According to your method a guy who is 5-5-5 has a winning percentage of .333 and has a record indistinguishable form that of a fighter who is 5-10. The rest of the sports world correctly sees that same record as a winning percentage of .500, which si substantially better than that of a fighter who is 5-10.

I bring this up because you have been harping on winning percentages in quite a few posts, and in almost all of them they are intentionally calculated incorrectly. It is unintentionally deceptive. It's not too much to ask that if you are going to argue using stats that you use them correctly.

 

[gono btw]

Even if you want to treat it as a loss (different peoples have different opinions), thats still a 8 fights win streak. Almost 3 times longer than Okami's leading up into the fight.

There´s no different 'opinions': in the middle of the 3rd Rd, Fitch called (!) for a time-out out of nowhere & granted himself some 2 mns to recover. There´s a name for this shit: pro-wrasslin´.
In real conditions, that´s an automatic TKO.

Even if you dismiss this shit, the fight should have been scored 30-27 for Joslin since the KD Fitch got at the end of the first round was due to a headbutt.

Do you have a rebuttal for this or are you gonna use this 16 Wins Streak argument ad nauseam?

 

[Fioretti]

Team sports has nothing to do with it. Team sports and individual sports do not calculate win percentage differently.

Like I said, if you want to make up your own system, go for it, but currently your system is treating draws like losses. According to your method a guy who is 5-5-5 has a winning percentage of .333 and has a record indistinguishable form that of a fighter who is 5-10. The rest of the sports world correctly sees that same record as a winning percentage of .500, which si substantially better than that of a fighter who is 5-10.

I bring this up because you have been harping on winning percentages in quite a few posts, and in almost all of them they are intentionally calculated incorrectly. It is unintentionally deceptive. It's not too much to ask that if you are going to argue using stats that you use them correctly.

Wins/attempts = winning percentage

Win Percentage Calculator - Calculator Academy

Win Percentage Definition
A win percentage is a ratio of the total number of wins to the total number of attempts or games played multiplied by 100.

Team sports incorporate draws/ties differently. That's cool if that's your preferred method, but it does not accurately depict a fighter's winning percentage. At 0-0-10, your winning percentage is 0, as you have not won a single fight. Same for your 5-5-5 example. You've won 5 out of 15 fights, you have a winning percentage of 33.33%.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Wins/attempts = winning percentage

No. Winning percentage in sports is calculated differently. Seeing as how winning percentage is something you are interested in discussing, you should humble yourself and learn the right way to do it. I get that its hard to hear from me because a) we are already arguing and b) I can be annoying. But the sad fact remains that you are dead wrong on this issue.

Winning percentage in pro sports is calculated like this: (wins x 2) + ties/ total games x 100 = win percentage. This is not my opinion, this is how its done. Google it.

 

[Fioretti]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of %. You act like a difference of 8% isn't a big deal.

Okami :
37 wins 14 losses
Win % : 72%

Fitch :
32 wins 8 losses (including a win vs Okami)
Win % : 80%

Fitch lost 1 fights out of 5 on average.
Okami lost 1 fights out of 3.5 average.

Fitch fought older too.

That's not how it works. You can't dismiss his draws and NC. Winning percentage is the number of wins divided by attempts. Attempts in MMA = total number of fights. You're wrong....again.

 

[Fioretti]

No. Winning percentage in sports is calculated differently. Seeing as how winning percentage is something you are interested in discussing, you should humble yourself and learn the right way to do it. I get that its hard to hear from me because a) we are already arguing and b) I can be annoying. But the sad fact remains that you are dead wrong on this issue.

Winning percentage in pro sports is calculated like this: (wins x 2) + ties/ total games x 100 = win percentage. This is not my opinion, this is how its done. Google it.

That's for team sports, and the 1/2 win for ties is assumed.

I don't need humbling to understand math, bro. I don't care if it comes from you or not, I've no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I like to learn. Your preferred method just doesn't translate well to MMA. A man that is 5-5-5 in MMA has only won 5 fights. Period. It's not counting his draws as losses. I'm not doing a W/L ratio here and including draws into the losses. I'm calculating winning percentage, which is the total number of wins divided by the number of fights. It's a much more accurate and absolute way to do it for MMA. You've told me that you think a man who is 0-0-10 in MMA has a winning percentage of 50%. That's fucking wrong. He hasn't won a fight. His winning percentage is 0. Doesn't matter what you prefer or how hockey would calculate it. Dude hasn't won shit.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That's for team sports, and the 1/2 win for ties is assumed.

I don't need humbling to understand math, bro. I don't care if it comes from you or not, I've no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I like to learn. Your preferred method just doesn't translate well to MMA. A man that is 5-5-5 in MMA has only won 5 fights. Period. It's not counting his draws as losses. I'm not doing a W/L ratio here and including draws into the losses. I'm calculating winning percentage, which is the total number of wins divided by the number of fights. It's a much more accurate and absolute way to do it for MMA. You've told me that you think a man who is 0-0-10 in MMA has a winning percentage of 50%. That's fucking wrong. He hasn't won a fight. His winning percentage is 0. Doesn't matter what you prefer or how hockey would calculate it. Dude hasn't won shit.

1. Please show me individual sports that calculate it the way that you do.
2. Your method of calculation win percentage mathematically counts draws as losses. That's why your method has continually undercounted Fitch's record in this thread; you are treating his draws as losses and even more absurdly treating his NC as a loss. It's bad math and a deceptive use of stats.

Since you seem to have a hard time comprehending this issue, let me restate it. Your method cannot distinguish between a fighter who is 0-10 and a fighter who is 0-0-10. The reason this is bad is because a fighter with ten draws has clearly been performing better than a fighter with ten losses.

3. 50 or 60 years ago, some sports did not count draws in winning percentage at all. So under that system, a fighter who was 19-2-2 would have a winning percentage of .904 (19/21). Your method would give that fighter's percentage as .826 (19/23), because your system counts draws as losses. Modern sports statisticians would calculate it as .869, and this is the superior method [(wins x 2) + ties/ 2 x total attempts]. I have been unable to find any system that counts NC as part of total games or total fights.

tl/dr you are making shit up and your system is inferior to that used in North American sports.

 

[Fioretti]

1. Please show me individual sports that calculate it the way that you do.
2. Your method of calculation win percentage mathematically counts draws as losses. That's why your method has continually undercounted Fitch's record in this thread; you are treating his draws as losses and even more absurdly treating his NC as a loss. It's bad math and a deceptive use of stats.

Since you seem to have a hard time comprehending this issue, let me restate it. Your method cannot distinguish between a fighter who is 0-10 and a fighter who is 0-0-10. The reason this is bad is because a fighter with ten draws has clearly been performing better than a fighter with ten losses.

3. 50 or 60 years ago, some sports did not count draws in winning percentage at all. So under that system, a fighter who was 19-2-2 would have a winning percentage of .904 (19/21). Your method would give that fighter's percentage as .826 (19/23), because your system counts draws as losses. Modern sports statisticians would calculate it as .869, and this is the superior method [(wins x 2) + ties/ 2 x total attempts]. I have been unable to find any system that counts NC as part of total games or total fights.

tl/dr you are making shit up and your system is inferior to that used in North American sports.

I'm calculating WIN percentage. Draws, ties, and NCs are not wins. The only relevant numbers are wins and attempts.

Wins/attempts = winning percentage.

A fighter who is 1-1-1 has won only 1 out of 3 fights. He has not won 1.5 fights.

The way you want me to calculate it isn't the law. It's more commonly used in team sports for seeding purposes, and doesn't translate well to individual combat sports. Even if I used your preferred method, the slight increases Fitch would get aren't significant enough to make a different determination in the overall analysis. They're still very comparable fighters, and he still has less top 10 wins. You're clinging to this because you have nothing else to cling onto.

 

[Stoic]

I'd say Okami. He held a win over Anderson already and was just a tougher stylistic match-up for Silva than Fitch was for GSP. Fitch didn't really have a path to victory vs. GSP since what he was good at, GSP was even better at and could neutralize. Okami, despite not being as highly touted, was actually the more well-rounded fighter with better striking than Fitch and good grappling/wrestling to boot. Fitch was a bit of a one-dimensional wrestler/grappler that didn't have great stand-up. GSP's wrestling was more than enough to counter Fitch's greatest strength and his striking was leaps and bounds better to cruise to an easy UD.

 

[pankrat]

I'd say Okami. He held a win over Anderson already and was just a tougher stylistic match-up for Silva than Fitch was for GSP. Fitch didn't really have a path to victory vs. GSP since what he was good at, GSP was even better at and could neutralize. Okami, despite not being as highly touted, was actually the more well-rounded fighter with better striking than Fitch and good grappling/wrestling to boot. Fitch was a bit of a one-dimensional wrestler/grappler that didn't have great stand-up. GSP's wrestling was more than enough to counter Fitch's greatest strength and his striking was leaps and bounds better to cruise to an easy UD.

In top of that, the referee actually had to intervene to stop the fight,