- Joined
- May 24, 2014
- Messages
- 13,807
- Reaction score
- 1,506
Instead of bisping u should have put alves or definitely Hendricks
Yeah, GSP would never steal a title away and not defend it.This. Conor has zero title defenses. Not to mention it's much easier to steal the title away then it is to defend it. GSPs resume easily better when you factor in his string of defenses.
You can argue it if it put Eddie Alvarez who just got beat by a nobody over Khabib who CANNOT get beat by nobody.
Aldo
Alvarez
Poirier pre-prime
Holloway in his fourth UFC fight, coming off a loss against Bermudez
Mendes on short-notice
Diaz Nate, and also lost against him
Cerrone post-prime, coming off 2 consecutive brutal knockout losses
shields
Fitch
Diaz
Hughes
Penn
Condit
Bisping
IMO the first list of fighters beaten is far more impressive than the second list...Aldo is easily the most elite win to have out of those 14 names. Discuss
Other than Aldo GSP resume crushes Conor resume, context is very important in this kind of discussion
Shields was on a 15 fights win streak
(including Hendo, Lawler, Condit, Okami, Menne)
Fitch was on a 17 fights wins streak
Nick > Nate
Hughes and Penn were champ
Bisping was an upper weight class
and after a 4 yrs layoffs.
Aldo
Alvarez
Poirier
Holloway
Mendes
Diaz
Cerrone
shields
Fitch
Diaz
Hughes
Penn
Condit
Bisping
IMO the first list of fighters beaten is far more impressive than the second list...Aldo is easily the most elite win to have out of those 14 names. Discuss
Gsp did not beat anything close to prime bisping. Recent champ or not bisping was past itSure, but context is needed. GSP beat all those guys in their prime while defending his title.
Conor beat Poirier and Holloway before their primes, and Cowboy after. So as a whole, GSP's list is more impressive IMO. But yeah Aldo is the best win out of all of them, I'll give you that.
A very well educated post. I always say recency bias, but that explanation is spot on!The first list has fighters that are great now. The second list has fighters that were great 10 years ago. Just because the fighters on the 2nd list aren't good anymore, doesn't mean they weren't extremely impressive wins at the time.
Also - as someone else mentioned, most of them were title defenses - meaning that GSP fought them at the best in their careers.
TY! The term "recency bias" sums it up even betterA very well educated post. I always say recency bias, but that explanation is spot on!
I'll tell you why, TS is notorious for trying anything to belittle St-Pierres in every way possible.What about GSPs other wins? Hendricks and Koscheck are better wins than Poirer, Mendes, and Holloway at that stage in their careers.