Cammo Counts Down The Top 100 MMA Fighters of All Time

[spykelee]

This was a great list, that generated some real nice discussion. Thanks for this Cammo!

[Cammo101]

This was a great list, that generated some real nice discussion. Thanks for this Cammo!

Thanks. I'm as surprised as you are.

[High 5]

Yes, well done, Cammo. You have impeccable list-making skills.

[CPT]

I think the argument for Silva over GSP is just "watch the fights."

GSP passes the eye test, Silva aces it.

[Cammo101]

I think the argument for Silva over GSP is just "watch the fights."

GSP passes the eye test, Silva aces it.

Also, the whole 16-0 in the UFC thing doesn't hurt either.

[REDDzone]

Yea it was cool to have discussion.

[skflives]

I have Fedor as #1 all time. IMHO he could have made LHW, which has to account for something in the P4P rankings. GSP never fought a guy bigger than him. Anderson Silva has fought 3 guys bigger than him, but never an elite guy that's bigger than him.

Fighting bigger guys is cool and all, but at this point, that isn't what the sport is about. GSP shouldn't be docked points for not doing so.

I think it's more important that there's nobody out there that can make a legit claim to being better than GSP. He's avenged every loss in dominant fashion. I think that counts for more, especially in a tougher division.

Maybe it's not enough to put him over Silva, but I think it's more than enough to put him over Fedor.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Pound for pound is all about deciding how Fighter A's success would translate if he fought in another division. Anderson Silva tested it by fighting everywhere from 170 to 205 over the course of his career. Fedor was a flabby 230 pound fighter competing in a division where guys cut down to 265. So Silva and Fedor put the pound for pound thing to the test literally and not just metaphorically. Not only that but Silva and Fedor are consistent finishers. If you step in against either of those guys chances are you're going to lose and get pounded in the process. You can't really say that about GSP. I think he's clearly number 3.

[CPT]

That's one view of pound for pound.

The other view is that it is a way to evaluate fighters' performances in their divisions, since they can't (and shouldn't have to) compete head to head. Essentially a strength of schedule/degree of difficulty type of measure.

I don't know that we need to see GSP beat the MW equivalents of James Irvin, Stephan Bonnar, and Forrest Griffin to know that he could. He shouldn't be docked points because there were enough worthy competitors in his own division to keep him from going outside it.

Do I even need to comment on Fedor? Fighting guys bigger than you is part of the deal if you decide to be a 230 pound heavyweight. The trade off being that you get to fight guys WAY less skilled. GSP could probably beat a handful of the guys on Fedor's resume straight up.

As for finishes vs. decisions, at what point is a win not a win? What I want to see out of a win is a sign that Fighter A is better than Fighter B, and that we could expect the same result if they were to fight again. You get that out of 99% of GSP's fights. Even with all of their finishes, I don't think you can say the same thing about Silva and Fedor.

I've already said I think Silva is #1, but GSP is a solid #2. IMO he's closer to #1 than #3, a spot that Fedor may lose his claim to sooner rather than later.

[REDDzone]

I think there is an argument for all three of Silva, Fedor, and GSP at number one.

Silva for sheer technique and wins in the octagon, GSP for strength of schedule and avenging losses, and Fedor for giant slaying and beating guys where they're best (Crop Cop on the feet, Nog on the ground, etc.).

I do have a hard time seeing Silva at 3 though. Just because whatever criteria you have (resume, finishes, etc.) he seems to always come in at 2 at worst and usually no. 1.

[cowboyronnie]

I have Fedor as #1 all time. IMHO he could have made LHW, which has to account for something in the P4P rankings. GSP never fought a guy bigger than him. Anderson Silva has fought 3 guys bigger than him, but never an elite guy that's bigger than him.

Fighting bigger guys is cool and all, but at this point, that isn't what the sport is about. GSP shouldn't be docked points for not doing so.

I think it's more important that there's nobody out there that can make a legit claim to being better than GSP. He's avenged every loss in dominant fashion. I think that counts for more, especially in a tougher division.

Maybe it's not enough to put him over Silva, but I think it's more than enough to put him over Fedor.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Pound for pound is all about deciding how Fighter A's success would translate if he fought in another division. Anderson Silva tested it by fighting everywhere from 170 to 205 over the course of his career. Fedor was a flabby 230 pound fighter competing in a division where guys cut down to 265. So Silva and Fedor put the pound for pound thing to the test literally and not just metaphorically. Not only that but Silva and Fedor are consistent finishers. If you step in against either of those guys chances are you're going to lose and get pounded in the process. You can't really say that about GSP. I think he's clearly number 3.

???

[skflives]

That's one view of pound for pound.

The other view is that it is a way to evaluate fighters' performances in their divisions, since they can't (and shouldn't have to) compete head to head. Essentially a strength of schedule/degree of difficulty type of measure.

True. That is another way to look at it.

I don't know that we need to see GSP beat the MW equivalents of James Irvin, Stephan Bonnar, and Forrest Griffin to know that he could. He shouldn't be docked points because there were enough worthy competitors in his own division to keep him from going outside it.

Well on one hand it might be a safe assumption to say that GSP would probably beat the middleweight equivalent of those 3 guys but it'll still be an assumption. There is no need to make assumptions with Silva.

Do I even need to comment on Fedor? Fighting guys bigger than you is part of the deal if you decide to be a 230 pound heavyweight. The trade off being that you get to fight guys WAY less skilled. GSP could probably beat a handful of the guys on Fedor's resume straight up.

I am just going to call bull$hit on that one. Technically, heavyweights aren't as skilled as fighters of lighter weights. But it isn't as if GSP was fighting guys who were world class all around either. Matt Hughes, Josh Koshchek, Johnny Hendricks, Jake Shields, Jon Fitch, Jayson Mayhem Miller and Matt Serra etc. are all really excellent grapplers. But I wouldn't really call them technically proficient strikers. Hell, Jake Shields and Mayhem Miller's standup games are downright pathetic. Then you have guys like Dan Brown who are excellent strikers but have severe grappling deficiencies.I think a very good argument can be made that the only guy GSP fought that was elite at both grappling and standup was BJ Penn but even then Penn is a natural 155 pounder.

Your line of reasoning is further diminished when you acknowledge that GSP fought to his opponents weaknesses whereas Fedor fought them at their strengths. Fedor got into a kickboxing match with Mirko Cro Cop at the point in Cro Cop's career when he was man people feared. Fedor fought with a top level wrestler and Godfather of GnP in Mark Coleman on top of him. Fedor regularly jumped into the guards of top level BJJ guys like Nogera and Werdum. And despite regularly playing to his opponents strengths Fedor almost always came out on top. When you willingly play to your opponents strengths AND are the smaller guy AND you win then you deserve to be ranked higher than someone who played it safe in terms of both fight and career strategy.

As for finishes vs. decisions, at what point is a win not a win?

When you are comparing the resumes of the top 3 fighters in MMA history.

What I want to see out of a win is a sign that Fighter A is better than Fighter B, and that we could expect the same result if they were to fight again. You get that out of 99% of GSP's fights. Even with all of their finishes, I don't think you can say the same thing about Silva and Fedor.

Actually yea. I would say that about Silva and Fedor as well. Silva has never really been threatened by anyone other than Sonnen in a long time. And that was one fight. As for Fedor there are only two fights in his entire career that I think would play out differently if they were fought again. Those fights would be his losses to Werdum and Henderson. I think if Fedor fought those fights again he'd fight a little smarter and win. I think every other fight of his career would play out the same. Even his loss to Antonio Silva.

[CPT]

Your line of reasoning is further diminished when you acknowledge that GSP fought to his opponents weaknesses whereas Fedor fought them at their strengths. Fedor got into a kickboxing match with Mirko Cro Cop at the point in Cro Cop's career when he was man people feared. Fedor fought with a top level wrestler and Godfather of GnP in Mark Coleman on top of him. Fedor regularly jumped into the guards of top level BJJ guys like Nogera and Werdum. And despite regularly playing to his opponents strengths Fedor almost always came out on top. When you willingly play to your opponents strengths AND are the smaller guy AND you win then you deserve to be ranked higher than someone who played it safe in terms of both fight and career strategy.

As for finishes vs. decisions, at what point is a win not a win?

When you are comparing the resumes of the top 3 fighters in MMA history.

What I want to see out of a win is a sign that Fighter A is better than Fighter B, and that we could expect the same result if they were to fight again. You get that out of 99% of GSP's fights. Even with all of their finishes, I don't think you can say the same thing about Silva and Fedor.

Actually yea. I would say that about Silva and Fedor as well. Silva has never really been threatened by anyone other than Sonnen in a long time. And that was one fight. As for Fedor there are only two fights in his entire career that I think would play out differently if they were fought again. Those fights would be his losses to Werdum and Henderson. I think if Fedor fought those fights again he'd fight a little smarter and win. I think every other fight of his career would play out the same. Even his loss to Antonio Silva.

So when GSP fights "safe" and wins, it's lame and something he should be deducted points in all-time rankings for, but when Fedor loses, we can just write it off and say he would have won if he fought "smarter", and he's still actually better than those guys? Do you not see the inconsistency there?

The legend of Fedor is a lot cooler than that of GSP's, I'll admit, and if that's why you would rank him higher, I can't tell you otherwise, but I just think GSP is a better and more accomplished fighter, so he's ahead in my books.

[NZB2323]

Sky, I agree with you saying that P4P is saying that if these guys were all the same size who would win. However, I don't think that that's an argument against GSP. Wrestling is the most dominant martial art in the UFC, and the WW division is, IMHO, the division with the best wrestlers and GSP hats out wrestled them all. So Silva KO'd James Irving, Forrest Griffin, and Stephan Bonnar. Does that mean he would beat Phil Davis, Rashad Evans, and Jon Jones in a fight? On the other hand, if you made GSP the same size as mighty mouse, I see GSP outwrestling him. If you made GSP the same size as Cain, I see him outwrestling him.

Now, this discussion has certainly entered the ridiculouness, and Chael Sonnen is right when saying people who argue about P4P are one step removed from the guys who argue who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman. (It's Batman, by the way. Batman always has the materials that he needs, so he'd have kryptonite and find a way to weaponize it.)

I have a hard time putting Silva P4P 1, because I see him losing in a fight to the champion the weight class above him and below him. Jon Jones and GSP are superior wrestlers.

[skflives]

So when GSP fights "safe" and wins, it's lame and something he should be deducted points in all-time rankings for, but when Fedor loses, we can just write it off and say he would have won if he fought "smarter", and he's still actually better than those guys? Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Yes because that is what great fighters do. GSP got KO'ed by Matt Serra and then dominated the rematch. Silva caught Sonnen with a submission in the latter half of the 5th round after getting dominated for the entirety of the rest of the fight. In the rematch he absolutely destroyed Sonnen. Just as you thought we didn't need to see GSP beat the middleweight equivilant of Irvin,Bonnar and Griffin I don't think its that much of a stretch to say Fedor would win those rematches with a slight adjustment in his strategy. After all, he lost those fights when he became overly aggressive after dropping Werdum and Henderson.

[UN-Owen]

I think winning percentage is what matters most

If Fighter A is 10 - 0, but his opponents have a .500 career winning percentage

Is he better than Fighter B who has a record of 8 - 2, but his opponents had a career winning percentage of .800?


I'm no math major, but it shouldn't be too difficult to determine a math-based rating system based on winning percentages

Maybe somebody could do this for the big 4? (Fedor, GSP, Silva and Jones)

Maybe take into account their opponent's winning percentage at the time of the fight as well as their opponent's career winning percentage?

[CPT]

So when GSP fights "safe" and wins, it's lame and something he should be deducted points in all-time rankings for, but when Fedor loses, we can just write it off and say he would have won if he fought "smarter", and he's still actually better than those guys? Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Yes because that is what great fighters do. GSP got KO'ed by Matt Serra and then dominated the rematch. Silva caught Sonnen with a submission in the latter half of the 5th round after getting dominated for the entirety of the rest of the fight. In the rematch he absolutely destroyed Sonnen. Just as you thought we didn't need to see GSP beat the middleweight equivilant of Irvin,Bonnar and Griffin I don't think its that much of a stretch to say Fedor would win those rematches with a slight adjustment in his strategy. After all, he lost those fights when he became overly aggressive after dropping Werdum and Henderson.

It's not a huge stretch, but I think it takes a larger leap of faith to assume Fedor would avenge his losses in dominant fashion the way GSP did. Part of what you love about Fedor is his strategy-be-damned, I'm kickboxing with CC and grappling with Nog nature. That's part of him as a fighter.

[CPT]

I think winning percentage is what matters most

If Fighter A is 10 - 0, but his opponents have a .500 career winning percentage

Is he better than Fighter B who has a record of 8 - 2, but his opponents had a career winning percentage of .800?


I'm no math major, but it shouldn't be too difficult to determine a math-based rating system based on winning percentages

Maybe somebody could do this for the big 4? (Fedor, GSP, Silva and Jones)

Maybe take into account their opponent's winning percentage at the time of the fight as well as their opponent's career winning percentage?

FightMatrix does some interesting stuff along those lines.

[skflives]

It's not a huge stretch, but I think it takes a larger leap of faith to assume Fedor would avenge his losses in dominant fashion the way GSP did.

The only reason why its a larger leap of faith to assume Fedor would avenge those losses in a dominant fashion like GSP did is because Fedor wouldn't grind out a won sided decision. Besides that its a smaller leap of faith because we actually have visual evidence and historical presidence to base our point of view on with Fedor vs. Henderson and Werdum. We saw Fedor drop both guys. We've also seen Fedor spend an entire fight in the guard of a BJJ blackbel and win in a dominating fashion. The GSP vs. middleweight version of Bonnar/Griffin/Irvin argument is pure speculation. I'll be more than happy to agree with you that GSP would likely dominate those kind of middleweights as well but its still pure speculation.

It would however be interesting to figure out which middleweights we'd consider the equivalent of the Irvin/Griffin/Bonnar so we can have some basis to go on. As of right now the only name that pops in my head would be Rich Franklin considering that as an aging former middleweight champion he's probably the best equivalent for Forrest Griffin.

[Headliner]

Those opponets were hand picked for Silva, they were sluggers who would stand in front of him.
It would be like giving GSP Chris Leban, Brian Stann and Franklin.
GSP would dominate them.

[Cammo101]

Those opponets were hand picked for Silva, they were sluggers who would stand in front of him.
It would be like giving GSP Chris Leban, Brian Stann and Franklin.
GSP would dominate them.

Anderson Silva has fought every elite fighter at MW the UFC has had. They did not hand pick him opponents. GSP has been given plenty of guys you could argue were hand picked for him to look good against. Dan Hardy anyone? Nick Diaz?

Every top fighter has a few fights like that. Hell, I think Fedor might have fought a bear or a giant with 2 heads in Pride.