Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

2017 Non-Event General MMA Talk Thread


Elsalvajeloco

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Oyaji said:

Cachoeira is the one that hits like a truck, right?

Apparently, it means waterfall but her actual nickname is Pedrita (meaning Pebbles as in Pebbles Flintstone). 

I'm starting to think even though he actually does he hit hard that Thiago Santos (BTW Polyvana Viana mentioned above is part of the same team as him, Tata Fight Team) gave himself the nickname Marreta. Either that or he got the giant chest piece and went from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TheVileOne said:

I can't in good conscious call GSP the greatest of all time after all this.

Bisping's title run was a complete and utter joke.

Just for sake of conversation, who is the greatest of all time if not GSP?  Anyone else in the running has way worse stuff going against them than GSP not defending the Middleweight Championship.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, supremebve said:

Just for sake of conversation, who is the greatest of all time if not GSP?  Anyone else in the running has way worse stuff going against them than GSP not defending the Middleweight Championship.

Megumi Fuji!

But seriously, I feel like Fedor's resume didn't age well and I've felt that way since at least 2010 or 2011. Not that I did it in the wake of the Werdum or Pezao loss, but Cain and Brock Lesnar were putting together comparative resumes at HW and had like 1/6th the experience at the time. I feel like if people can be within striking distance that quickly, you can't be the greatest of all time. If you remove the aura, then he has a very good and solid resume. However, the best of all time in 2017 going into 2018? Yeah, nope.

I feel like with the sport only having a modern timeframe of only 15-17 years, the need of having a greatest of all time doesn't really make sense especially when most of the dudes having an argument (with or without the drug test failures) are still active in some way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ Mega Megu

That's a hipster Sherdog reply.

The usual candidates for GOAT talk are usually the same few -- Fedor, Anderson, GSP, Jones and more recently Demetrious Johnson has been added to that list of guys. Other guys who I've seen frequent in those talks are José Aldo and Conor. Then there's the other group of guys -- Shogun, Hendo, Penn, Wanderlei, Liddell, Couture, Vitor, Cruz, Cormier, etc.

I personally don't like the GOAT talk and think it's all subjective, but those are the most common names you'll see in that discussion.

For WMMA, the usual ladies are the ones always in talk -- Mega Megu, Ronda, Joanna and Cyborg. However if it's too early to pick a MMA GOAT, picking a WMMA GOAT is no better unless you pick Mega Megu and you watched a ton of old DEEP and Smackgirl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At one point, I felt like it was easy to label someone as the GOAT in MMA, but bloom falls off the rose so freaking fast and the sport moves so fast that it's hard to give anyone that label. And if the sport isn't moving too fast, then guys stay fighting for way too long and they wind up looking like shit. Take Anderson Silva for example. Retiring after the Bonnar fight wouldn't be the best way to go out, but if he did and he avoided the complete collapse of a career he had, then he would probably be my pick. Instead he stuck around for too long and it would be tough to call him the GOAT.

If I had to name a few, though DJ makes that list. GSP is another. GSP stumbled twice in his career and came back as a better fighter after each of those losses. I can't call Fedor that because...man, his resume isn't great. IF Stipe beats Ngannou, does he start to enter that conversation, or is it still a thing where the bloom falls of the rose so fast that it's pointless to slap the GOAT label on anybody?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the list is GSP, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones, Demetrious Johnson, and Jose Aldo.  Recency bias goes against Aldo, but he is probably still the most developed defensive fighter the sport has seen.  GSP has the best resume, he's beat the most good to great fighters at their peak.  I guess Jon Jones resume is 2nd, and he's the one guy who seems to be furthest ahead relative to his opponents.  His one loss is basically because he beat Matt Hammil too badly.  Anderson is definitely in the conversation, but middleweight was the worst division in the sport for most of his reign.  DJ is the trickiest fighter to rate, because he's obviously great, but flyweight is clearly the shallow end of the MMA pool.  He's so dominant he has to be on the list, but is there a single fighter on his resume that you would consider great?

Ok, the GOAT conversation has at most 7-10 people in it.  The real question is, who is the best lightweight of all time?  I think BJ Penn has the best resume, but I also think every champion after him has enough of a resume to be in the conversation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't put someone like Jon Jones on a list like that when he has shit for brains. Like, it's just a poop mold of a brain inside his head. As athletically gifted as he is and as unbeatable as he seemed, his entire career is tainted now. Fuck him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Craig H said:

I can't put someone like Jon Jones on a list like that when he has shit for brains. Like, it's just a poop mold of a brain inside his head. As athletically gifted as he is and as unbeatable as he seemed, his entire career is tainted now. Fuck him.

How do you feel about Anderson Silva?  I see what you are saying, but once the testing got tougher, Silva started failing drug tests too.  I know Jones has a lot worse going on than failing drug tests, but none of those things have affected his fighting career in any meaningful way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inherent problem with P4P and GOAT discussions is the biases that come with that. For example, when Hopkins was on his run as middleweight champion and about to break the title defense record, the old boxing historians still were championing Carlos Monzon as the greatest middleweight champion of all time (Sugar Ray Robinson was also getting votes IIRC). That's known crazy man Carlos Monzon who spent a good majority of his life beating up women and then murdered one of his wives. Yet, years after the fact where it's not even alleged or gossip, people still act like Monzon is the greatest middleweight boxer despite all those issues and it never comes up anytime people discuss him. Shit, when Sergio Martinez was on his run and Jim Lampley would bring up the most notable fighters from Argentina, the first name that he mentions is Carlos Monzon and the connotation is never negative.  Yet, I always got the feeling is that the reason why Hopkins never got that nod or Golovkin probably isn't going to get that nod is the old fogies didn't and don't want anyone from the new generation to get that achievement. Moreover, some of those folks who are still around like a Larry Merchant were around when Monzon was in his prime (which is his entire career because he got out at the right time).

With the way the UFC commentators barely bring up drug test failures and other issues in the same way Lampley never mentions Monzon's issues outside the ring, they can maintain that a Jon Jones or an Anderson Silva is the "greatest of all time" because they ultimately control the narrative. To be fair, they bring it up a little on like UFC Tonight because they have to bring it up if you have card changes and stuff like that. However, that's not a platform big enough to sway anyone's opinions. If you're a newbie and they keep bringing up "X is the best ____weight of all time" like they do now, you have to believe that because you have no context of anything else. If I am a boxing fan and I started watching in the last 5 years and someone says "oh Salvador Sanchez is the best boxer below 135 pounds ever because he had an incredible run and then died in a car accident in the middle of it", I can't really challenge that because my context is only seeing Vasyl Lomachenko and Roman Gonzalez and whatever I see randomly on Youtube. MMA is different in that a good majority of the fans who watch can get a sense of context because a lot of these dudes are STILL active, but the problem is you have personal bias and promotional and fighter allegiances that we only just got over somewhat a four or five years ago. However, I see that starting up again just because as I said, the UFC controls the narratives and they can erase you out of history (ex. Frank Shamrock) or make you seem like the greatest thing since HD TV.  In a world where that persists, I see Jon Jones, GSP,  and Anderson Silva and whomever comes along in the interim being touted as the greatest of all time years from now just because the UFC has a vested interest in maintaining that debate. It doesn't matter if those guys flunk 300 drug tests in a row and get arrested 50 times. That's how people will think and believe as long it continues to go like this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm someone who takes my own opinions over the greater narrative almost every single time.  It's to the point that someone will bring up a fight where it was a robbery or controversial decision, and I'll swear the other person won despite what the judges thought (For instance, Jon Jones beat Matt Hamill.  His record says he lost, but anyone who has seen that fight knows who won.  I'm not sure I've seen Leonard Garcia win a fight.  I've seen fights where he got his hand raised, but that doesn't reflect anything that actually happened in the cage).  I'm a weirdo, I know.  The thing that really bothers me about these discussions is that we talk about these things using the UFC's logic and not our own.  Jon Jones is the best fighter I've ever seen.  I can say that confidently with no reservations. . . but I'm not going to sit here and act like his constant drug tests drop him down the P4P GOAT list.  Why isn't that part of the story?  It is kind of like Barry Bonds hall of fame candidacy.  People are smart enough to discuss these things with all of the facts.  These guys aren't saints, they are people who decided to climb into a cage and punch people in the face for a living.  We should expect them to be flawed, and overcoming or succumbing to those flaws are a big part of these conversations.  We should be able to talk about Matt Serra's improbable knockout of GSP as a great moment while not acting like GSP is a lesser fighter or propping up Matt Serra as anything but the journeyman that he was.  Just think how often we complain about the bullshit opinions of sports radio/TV personalities, we can't let their opinions completely guide these narratives.  

I grew up in a neighborhood full of older guys who used to box, so I had a pretty good understanding of who was great and who wasn't from a very young age.  I remember pretty heated discussions about whether or not Muhammed Ali was the greatest fighter of all time, and people having legitimate reasons why he was overrated.  I also grew up in a small town without cable, so most of my boxing was watched at a loud ass party or on an old video tape where and uncle was trying to show us some forgotten great fighter(I've watched more Donald Curry and Aaron Pryor fights than you'll believe).  I've never felt the need to buy into the narrative given by the commentators, because I grew up around knowledgeable boxing fans who all had valid, but different opinions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, supremebve said:

I'm someone who takes my own opinions over the greater narrative almost every single time.  It's to the point that someone will bring up a fight where it was a robbery or controversial decision, and I'll swear the other person won despite what the judges thought (For instance, Jon Jones beat Matt Hamill.  His record says he lost, but anyone who has seen that fight knows who won.  I'm not sure I've seen Leonard Garcia win a fight.  I've seen fights where he got his hand raised, but that doesn't reflect anything that actually happened in the cage).  I'm a weirdo, I know.  The thing that really bothers me about these discussions is that we talk about these things using the UFC's logic and not our own.  Jon Jones is the best fighter I've ever seen.  I can say that confidently with no reservations. . . but I'm not going to sit here and act like his constant drug tests drop him down the P4P GOAT list.  Why isn't that part of the story?  It is kind of like Barry Bonds hall of fame candidacy.  People are smart enough to discuss these things with all of the facts.  These guys aren't saints, they are people who decided to climb into a cage and punch people in the face for a living.  We should expect them to be flawed, and overcoming or succumbing to those flaws are a big part of these conversations.  We should be able to talk about Matt Serra's improbable knockout of GSP as a great moment while not acting like GSP is a lesser fighter or propping up Matt Serra as anything but the journeyman that he was.  Just think how often we complain about the bullshit opinions of sports radio/TV personalities, we can't let their opinions completely guide these narratives.  

I grew up in a neighborhood full of older guys who used to box, so I had a pretty good understanding of who was great and who wasn't from a very young age.  I remember pretty heated discussions about whether or not Muhammed Ali was the greatest fighter of all time, and people having legitimate reasons why he was overrated.  I also grew up in a small town without cable, so most of my boxing was watched at a loud ass party or on an old video tape where and uncle was trying to show us some forgotten great fighter(I've watched more Donald Curry and Aaron Pryor fights than you'll believe).  I've never felt the need to buy into the narrative given by the commentators, because I grew up around knowledgeable boxing fans who all had valid, but different opinions.  

Hell, I thinking about Aaron Pryor just before you posted this as he is the best example. Aaron Pryor is basically the Jon Jones of his time except Jon Jones eventually got to the position to where he could be called the GOAT. Go back and read some of those old articles about Aaron Pryor. There was this amazing Sports Illustrated article (if the vault is still around, you should be able to find it) when Pryor was the IBF super lightweight champion, and he was clearly hopped out of his mind on drugs and holding his young son (Aaron Jr. IIRC) with a gun in his other hand. This man was on the verge of self destruction. And we're just discussing the recreational drugs. You also have the stuff with Panama Lewis and the bottle from the first Arguello fight. God knows what Aaron Pryor had in his system when he was fighting. Yet, that certainly didn't hinder Pryor from getting into the IBHOF.  You would think in a time where folks didn't know or didn't care who was cheating that obtaining proof later on would be a deterrent for athletes from getting those accolades. However, it isn't in the least bit. Yeah, it likely stopped him from getting a lot of big fights (SRL, Duran, Benitez, Hearns, etc.) just like Jon Jones missed out on a lot of big paydays. The thing is I would say the self destruction from the drug use caused that moreso than the headcase reputation gained resulting from that. The latter didn't stop a bunch of people from getting marquee fights in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

The thing is I would say the self destruction from the drug use caused that moreso than the headcase reputation gained resulting from that. The latter didn't stop a bunch of people from getting marquee fights in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s.

Mike Tyson says "Hello."  

That is kind of my point.  There is a pretty big overlap between being a crazy person and being someone who wants to fight for a living.  If we sit around not considering broken, destructive, out of control people, as the best of all time, we'll run out of people to consider.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, supremebve said:

Mike Tyson says "Hello."  

That is kind of my point.  There is a pretty big overlap between being a crazy person and being someone who wants to fight for a living.  If we sit around not considering broken, destructive, out of control people, as the best of all time, we'll run out of people to consider.  

This goes especially since everyone can find out if you're doing drugs, if you got stuff going on in your personal life, and/or who you turned down a fight against (seeing as Dana will put that shit out there) relatively quickly. If this was the 80s and Jon Jones on coke, the information would trickle out slowly or someone from the commission years later would be like, "And oh yeah, Jon Jones failed a test for cocaine back in 1987" as an aside. There was a point where only Josh Gross knew about Josh Barnett failing that first test in Nevada. Now, people are hovering around like vultures above an injured man crawling through the Sonoran Desert on any story. We know about fighters being in trouble before they do in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, supremebve said:

I think the list is GSP, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones, Demetrious Johnson, and Jose Aldo.

You forgot to add Fedor to that list.

The majority of MMA fans will always associate him with being the/one of the GOAT. Many fighters too.

In his defense, when he was the HW king in PRIDE, PRIDE arguably had a better HW division than the UFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Craig H said:

I can't call Fedor that because...man, his resume isn't great.

In proper context, Fedor's resúmé was great.

His wins over Herring, Big Nog, Coleman, Randleman, Cro Cop, Hunt, Sylvia, Arlovski and Rogers were big wins back in the day.

  • Herring was a top 15 HW
  • Big Nog was the top HW
  • Coleman was a top 10 HW
  • Randleman was coming off a massive upset by KO'ing Cro Cop
  • Cro Cop was a top 10 HW
  • Hunt was a top 10 HW
  • Sylvia was a top 10 HW
  • Arlovski was a top 10 HW
  • Rogers was a top 10 HW

Sure he has some questionable opponents; Nagata, TK, Zuluzinho, Lindland (MW), Hong Man Choi, etc., but that still doesn't mean he wasn't one of the, if not the best when he was at his prime.

Edit: I'm not one of those "PRIDE WAZ BETTA, BRO!" or anything, but it's clear why a lot of people still consider him one of the GOAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Edwin said:

In proper context, Fedor's resúmé was great.

His wins over Herring, Big Nog, Coleman, Randleman, Cro Cop, Hunt, Sylvia, Arlovski and Rogers were big wins back in the day.

  • Herring was a top 15 HW
  • Big Nog was the top HW
  • Coleman was a top 10 HW
  • Randleman was coming off a massive upset by KO'ing Cro Cop
  • Cro Cop was a top 10 HW
  • Hunt was a top 10 HW
  • Sylvia was a top 10 HW
  • Arlovski was a top 10 HW
  • Rogers was a top 10 HW

Sure he has some questionable opponents; Nagata, TK, Zuluzinho, Lindland (MW), Hong Man Choi, etc., but that still doesn't mean he wasn't one of the, if not the best when he was at his prime.

But the thing is what is a top 10 or top 15 HW? Ben Rothwell was a perennial top ten heavyweight for like 3-4 years (longer than Brett Rogers) and he was no great shakes. I mean Mark Hunt probably had no idea what ground fighting was at the time and was arguably a top heavyweight. That's not a strong indictment of the sport let alone one for the division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

But the thing is what is a top 10 or top 15 HW? Ben Rothwell was a perennial top ten heavyweight for like 3-4 years (longer than Brett Rogers) and he was no great shakes. I mean Mark Hunt probably had no idea what ground fighting was at the time and was arguably a top heavyweight. That's not a strong indictment of the sport let alone one for the division.

HW has always been a slim division when it comes to talent.

Same can be said for the short lived UFC FLW division however.

Look at some of Mighty Mouse's wins: Tim Elliot, Wilson Reis, Chris Cariaso, Ray Borg, etc.

Those aren't exactly fighters one would even think should be in title fights, but they were because the division is thin. Sure they may not be Zuluzinho levels of bad, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Edwin said:

HW has always been a slim division when it comes to talent.

Same can be said for the short lived UFC FLW division however.

Look at some of Mighty Mouse's wins: Tim Elliot, Wilson Reis, Chris Cariaso, Ray Borg, etc.

Those aren't exactly fighters one would even think should be in title fights, but they were because the division is thin. Sure they may not be Zuluzinho levels of bad, but still.

That's my point. The status and credibility that a lot of these early heavyweights enjoyed come from the early UFC tournaments, these vale tudo/NHB tournaments in Russia and Brazil, and the fragmented ruleset in Japan like in Pancrase and RINGS. It would be the same as saying Jeff Curran or somebody from HookNShoot was the best featherweight fighter before Jose Aldo. Well, okay... I guess. But that doesn't change the fact that any top FW now would soul snatch those dudes. What does the RINGS King of Kings tournament mean in 2017? What does the HW Pride tournament in 2004 mean now exactly? I mean once you get past the historic bits here and there and the novelty, they don't shape what the heavyweight division looks like now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edwin said:

You forgot to add Fedor to that list.

The majority of MMA fans will always associate him with being the/one of the GOAT. Many fighters too.

In his defense, when he was the HW king in PRIDE, PRIDE arguably had a better HW division than the UFC.

Fedor is in the conversation, but I don't think he belongs with the 5 I named.  At this point, all of those dudes are inarguably the greatest fighter in the history of their weight class.  I don't think Fedor is still the greatest heavyweight ever.  He's probably the hardest person to rate properly, because all of the dudes he was dominating in Pride got to the UFC and turned into gatekeepers.  If he would have gone to the UFC and continued his dominance I'd gladly rate him higher, but he decided to fight guys who were either already cut by the UFC or guys who'd never make it.  As soon as he started fighting UFC quality fighters he went on a 3 fight losing streak.  At this point, we have no idea if his dominance in Pride was evidence of his dominance or if he was the big dog in a small yard.  

5 minutes ago, Edwin said:

HW has always been a slim division when it comes to talent.

Same can be said for the short lived UFC FLW division however.

I'd say the current level of talent in the Flyweight division is higher than the Pride Heavyweight division then.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think any of Mighty Mouse's opponents have been world beaters, but they've all been really skilled MMA fighters.  Mark Coleman was good for the time, but he was pretty much useless on his feet and would gas after the first 5 minutes if he didn't have top control.  Herring was just a guy in the division, not anything special.  Big Nog and Cro Cop are the only legitimate great fighters on that list and both of them are more one dimensional than anyone DJ has fought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...