The Greatest 205'er in MMA history

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » The Greatest 205'er in MMA history
« Previous Page
POLL: Who do you believe is the greatest 205 pound fighter in the history of MMA?
Shogun Rua 34% (20)
Chuck Liddell 36% (21)
Rampage Jackson 0% (0)
Wanderlei Silva 19% (11)
Other 10% (6)
Pookie
5/12/10 7:51:43PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Pookie

and as far as major fights is concerned, i think Shogun actually does have the best record.



Shogun's winning percentage is BARELY better than Rampage's. 82% to 81%

Ramage also has 14 more fights than Shogun.



Key word is "major" fights.
BlueSkiesBurn
5/12/10 7:59:41PM
Yeah, that's another thing I have a problem with. A fighter can't have a "major" fight every time. Even the mighty Fedor is fighting a former Costco Tire Changer. What do you want fighters to do? Tell the promoter "I'm sorry, I'd love to take this fight but it's not a major fight." Using the "major" fight thing allows too many people to use MMAth and excuses. "Forrest beat Rampage but his win against Rua doesn't count because Rua wasn't in tip top shape." That's garbage, Rua took the fight, Forrest beat him, end of story. If anything, that fight should count MORE against Rua than for him. Griffin was supposed to be an easy win to vault him into the title picture and instead he got choked out.
Pookie
5/12/10 8:08:30PM
Oh yeah for sure, If Espn were to have a segment on this topic theres no way the Forrest griffin fight comes into question. Its a Loss. Same with the first machida fight, though im sure with the subjective analysis that always follows, it will be mentioned the controversy of the fight just like Barrera-Morales 1.

But the Major Fight thing is of importance to me, or else you could have a Reinhardt challenge BJ for the top Lw ever. Its the roughest equivalent to Championship victories we can get, and even then it might even mean more than title defenses. Chuck Liddell Defended his title against Jeremy Horn. Shogun had a non title match against Overeem. Which objectively means more? Id have to say Overeem. But thats just my opinion, i understand people feel differently.

Whether or not its out of their hands who they get set up with, it doesnt matter.
Rampage has had more top level fights than Shogun has. In fact so has everybody in question. But every single one of them has been less consistent in beating the big names, and thats what im getting at.
BlueSkiesBurn
5/12/10 8:18:59PM
Okay, that makes more sense. I really think that this entire thread is a nebulous concept that can't be answered. It's up there with p4p or when they do those "who was the greatest college football team of all times" then they match up 2004 USC vs. the 72 Wishbone Nebraska. Who the hell knows who would have won that game (USC would have crushed them), but yeah, that's my problem with these conversations. I totally see your point now and agree with you there.
lohmann
5/12/10 8:22:59PM

Posted by Pookie

Props Lohmann

I personally feel that Wanderlei's legacy while it was happening was much more impressive than Chucks, but with that said - Wanderlei had more gimme matches.
However, i also feel Rampage and Shogun right now are much better fighters than Wanderlei or Chuck ever were in their respective primes. So its all about what you mean by greatest.

In terms of accomplishments relative to their time, Chuck and Wanderlei did more. But in terms of beating the better competition, i believe the 2.a, 2.b options Rampage and Shogun have beaten the better fighters overall, Shogun the most consistently out of any of the fighters.

Name / W-L in notable matches / Win streak / Overall Record

Shogun 7-3 / (8-2)*, Longest win streak 8 wins, 0 title defenses(19-4)
Wanderlei 9-9-1, Longest win streak 18 wins, 13 title defenses(33-10-1)
Chuck 12-7, Longest win streak 10 wins, 4 title defenses (21-7)
Rampage 9-6, Longest win streak 6 wins, 1 title defense (30-7)

With all the empirical data combined with the talent shown, i believe Shogun makes the best case for what i consider the Greatest 205'er to be.



Pookie, I think the "empirical data" you came up with is a great case of why Rua is not the greatest LHW ever (yet), even if he may be the most skilled. There's merit in the sheer volume of "big fights" Wanderlei and Chuck have had, always in competition for some sort of major title. Being in the fight is just as important as winning it sometimes, and Chuck and Wanderlei have/had been such staples at LHW for so long that they rarely got to showcase their skills against anything but B+ and better fighters because their goal was to be at the top of the sport. On top of that, Liddell and W. Silva are major reasons that MMA became as popular as it did, and intangible qualities like that must be substantiated.

The title defenses aspect of your data is the most determinative facet of greatness, moreso than major fights. In sports, team or individual, athletes desire titles: that is a great fighter's primary goal. Shogun just got his first major MMA title, and after a few defenses I think he can lay claim to the greatest LHW there ever was. (A great parallel is why Anderson Silva left PRIDE and Chute Boxe.)

If you're including fights before or beyond their respective primes (which basically ended when they fought one another), the numbers will look skewed, no doubt. Is that 8-2 changing the loss to Machida to a win?
BlueSkiesBurn
5/12/10 8:33:54PM
I one hundred percent agree with Lohmann. This is, more or less, what I was trying to illustrate vis-à-vis taking on all comers as opposed to major fights. We have the luxury of hindsight to say "so and so" was an extremely tough opponent for Liddell or Silva. The present cannot be indicative of the future. We won't know how good Shogun's competition will be after his opponents stand the test of time. More importantly, he's yet to make title defenses against the top of heap in the LHW division. If recent history has taught us anything about the LHW title, it's that it doesn't stay with one individual for very long. If Shogun can amass a record of defenses similar to that of Tito or Chuck, we can shut the door on this issue for the present time. I have a feeling, however, that much like his predecessors, he will also meet his bad match-up and drop the title to that person.
Pookie
5/12/10 9:48:31PM
So what do you guys weigh more heavily,

Wanderlei Silva's 16* fight win streak and 13 title defenses(though he lost twice in his time as champ)
Or Chucks 10(plus a 7 fight) win streak and 4 title defenses.

See most of Chucks big victories came outside of his reign as champ. If most of shoguns big name fights dont count as much as title defenses than Wanderlei wins by default.

But Wanderlei also holds the worst record out of any fighter named against top level competition, over which he was 9-9-1 in fights that were even in someway a B+ competitor at all.

And id like to ask why are we holding it against Chuck and shogun that most of their fights arent title defenses. Both fighters could have been champions long before they were. We acknowledged this in our rankings. Chuck had to wait like 6 - 7 fights because tito ducked him. And Shogun actually chose to wait because Wanderlei was his mentor. In the great footnotes of history, shouldnt this be relevant to the big picture here?





BlueSkiesBurn
5/12/10 10:09:57PM
I would say you could argue either way. Using what you just said, however, do we award Wanderlei that much more significance because Shogun was his student? There are so many variables that I think unless someone operationalized some specific criteria that we are just going to go around and around in circles. If I weren't busy writing my masters thesis this week I'd draw up a study based on agreed upon criteria using both quantitative and qualitative categories to at least come up with an academic answer to this question. Maybe this weekend, I'll come up with a template to analyze this data and we can, as a playground, come up (based on majority vote) units of analysis which would be acceptable.
lohmann
5/13/10 12:44:14AM

Posted by Pookie

So what do you guys weigh more heavily,

Wanderlei Silva's 16* fight win streak and 13 title defenses(though he lost twice in his time as champ)
Or Chucks 10(plus a 7 fight) win streak and 4 title defenses.

See most of Chucks big victories came outside of his reign as champ. If most of shoguns big name fights dont count as much as title defenses than Wanderlei wins by default.

But Wanderlei also holds the worst record out of any fighter named against top level competition, over which he was 9-9-1 in fights that were even in someway a B+ competitor at all.

And id like to ask why are we holding it against Chuck and shogun that most of their fights arent title defenses. Both fighters could have been champions long before they were. We acknowledged this in our rankings. Chuck had to wait like 6 - 7 fights because tito ducked him. And Shogun actually chose to wait because Wanderlei was his mentor. In the great footnotes of history, shouldnt this be relevant to the big picture here?




Different scenarios and therefore different questions. One is actively pursuing (but being ducked) while the other was content to wait until his mentor lost the belt or retired. Most people, before Tito Ortiz actually fought him, considered Chuck Liddell superior anyway. The same could not be said about Mauricio Rua. In this case a does not equate to b.

I implied in a previous post that Wanderlei Silva's "peak," which is generally the area where an athlete is defined by, was his tenure in PRIDE. His record in PRIDE reflects that, where he won every major fight against a light heavyweight he had (except against Arona and Henderson).

For me, I weigh both pretty equally, considering Silva's is a little bit more padded with lesser fighters (Oyama, Tamura, Otsuka, Kanehara, Minowa, etc.) but enough great fighters to make up for it.

I'm content to sit and wait to see how great Shogun is, because Liddell's and Silva's greatness are already set in stone whereas Shogun Rua needs to defend his position as top dog now that he has the belt. If he is incapable of holding onto this undisputed #1 spot, I will find it hard to put him over Liddell and Silva, who shared it for ages.

(If Shogun defeats three or four contenders, my position on this entire question will most likely change.)
BlueSkiesBurn
5/13/10 12:56:01AM
I have decided that I am going to start a thread this weekend to operationalize agreed upon criteria and I'll run a statistical analysis based off those qualitative and quantitative data sets. All that needs to be done is an agreed upon vote by majority.
lohmann
5/13/10 12:57:58AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I have decided that I am going to start a thread this weekend to operationalize agreed upon criteria and I'll run a statistical analysis based off those qualitative and quantitative data sets. All that needs to be done is an agreed upon vote by majority.



Greatness is a subjective value.
BlueSkiesBurn
5/13/10 1:00:50AM
Indeed it is but if we can agree upon weighted percentages for things such as; title defense, top 10 opponents, win streaks, and overall record, I think that we can at least come to a more agreeable solution for answering this question. I mean Al Capone never had it out with Jesse James but they were able to run statistics to determine the likelihood of victory and this isn't nearly as complicated.
Pookie
5/13/10 1:09:59AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Indeed it is but if we can agree upon weighted percentages for things such as; title defense, top 10 opponents, win streaks, and overall record, I think that we can at least come to a more agreeable solution for answering this question. I mean Al Capone never had it out with Jesse James but they were able to run statistics to determine the likelihood of victory and this isn't nearly as complicated.



yeah but they also got that one wrong. No way does ww1 machine guns lose to wild west pistols.
BlueSkiesBurn
5/13/10 1:19:23AM
I think they were also factoring in the James gangs' ability to fire accurately. I'm about as knowledgeable as they come on the topic of Al Capone and prohibition and I would have to agree that their longer range weapons and accuracy would have won that battle. The Thompson sub-machine gun was powerful, yes, but not very accurate. It's basically blowing your load in one shot and then they were left screwed with their weapons of choice.
Pookie
5/13/10 2:20:43AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I think they were also factoring in the James gangs' ability to fire accurately. I'm about as knowledgeable as they come on the topic of Al Capone and prohibition and I would have to agree that their longer range weapons and accuracy would have won that battle. The Thompson sub-machine gun was powerful, yes, but not very accurate. It's basically blowing your load in one shot and then they were left screwed with their weapons of choice.



But it wasnt the James Gangs ability that was measured. It was the #1 sharpshooters of todays age that was measured. While at the same time not measuring any type of skill that the capone gang might have possessed.
The system they use is obviously retarded, not enough important variables accounted for, and what they do account for they input it into the system with a 9/10 in deadlyness or some other fixed number that obviously is inherently inadequate.
BlueSkiesBurn
5/13/10 2:52:12AM
Al Capone's gunmen were not sharpshooters. "Machine Gun" Jack McGurn didn't get his nickname because he was an amazing sniper. Neither were Scalise or Anselmi. You are right about them using sharpshooters from today to test their sharpshooting ability but historical archives and records illustrate that they were accurate shots and the weapons "today's" sharpshooter used on the show are the exact weapons they had. If Scalise, Anselmi, and McGurn were sharpshooters there certainly weren't any historical documents to validate those facts.
Pookie
5/13/10 3:42:59AM
The difference between a great shot and the best shot in the world is enough to suggest that they're way of measuring statistics is flawed at best.

lohmann
5/13/10 4:06:41AM
A much more pertinent question is whether or not an army of Al Capones and Jesse Jameses could take on an army of Chuck Liddells and Wanderlei Silvas.
BlueSkiesBurn
5/13/10 4:32:49AM


Without a doubt Wanderlei and Chuck would be the deadliest warriors.
Pookie
10/2/11 7:16:53AM
Damn Jon Jones for making my arguements irrelavant.
warglory
10/2/11 8:09:52PM
Just to toss in another name, what about Lyoto? It can be argued that he dominated the division in a far more convincing fashion with superior competition than either Wandy or Chuck. He destroyed Soko who was riding the hype train after beating Arona and Lil Nog, made Tito look like an amateur, KO'ed both Thiago Silva (arguably a top 10 205'er at the time), and champ Rashad Evans (not TKO, but KO), and put up a hell of a fight against Shogun in their first fight, and won. Literally, up until Shogun 2, no one had a clue on how to beat this guy. He was on a 16 fight win streak overall, and a 6 fight win streak in a stacked ufc division. Shogun may have beat him convincingly, but he also defended the title, while Shogun did not. And now finally in his comeback fight, KO'ed Couture, who has only ever been KO'ed one other time in his career, and that was Chuck, 5 years prior.

Outside of his major victories, he also eliminated Nakamura, who is one of those seemingly forgotten names despite being a very tough fighter in PRIDE. In addition, he also TKO'ed both Bonnar and Franklin, which I believe were both at 205, but I could be wrong about that.

Lyoto, since entering the UFC, I don't think has ever been handed an easy win, unlike Chuck in the UFC, or Wandy in PRIDE.
Boo_Radley21
10/3/11 2:48:27PM
Chuck Liddell. Silva had huge win streaks yea but how many of those fights were against dodgy competition? Liddell didn't take easy fights, and even though he lost to rampage he had the balls to go to another organization in a different country in a different kind of ring with different rules to fight the other best LHW in Wandy. And he KOd 2 guys on his way to the semis. Which is better than most of the Pride fighters switches to the UFC's octogon and rule changes. Plus Chuck beat Wandy when they fought.

Hands down gotta be Liddell. But I'll give Silva a close second for being so badass all those years
armbar66j7
10/7/11 10:39:50PM
i think the question should be rephrased-which light heavyweight was the most dominant for the longest period of time(which would automatically make them the best of all time
armbar66j7
10/7/11 10:46:09PM

Posted by TimW001

The reason I chose 205 is because every other division it is pretty clear who has been the greatest champion.

Here are the suspects...

Mauricio 'Shogun' Rua
Notable wins
Lyoto Machida
Kevin Randleman
Chuck Liddell
Rampage jackson
Ricardo Arona
Alistair Overeem
Antonio Rogerio Nogueira

Major Losses
Forrest Griffin
Lyoto
Sobral

Wanderlei Silva
Notable Wins
Michael Bisping
Keith Jardine
Fujita
Ricardo Arona
Guy Mezger
Sakuraba
Rampage Jackson

Major Losses
Rampage Jackson
Rich Franklin
Dan Henderson
Chuck Liddell
Mirko Cro Cop
Ricardo Arona
Mark Hunt
Tito Ortiz
Vitor Belfort

Chuck Liddell
Notable Wins
Wanderlei Silva
Tito Ortiz
Sobral
Jose Landi-Jons
Randy Couture
Jeremy Horn
Alistair Overeem
Vitor Belfort
Guy Mezger
Kevin Randleman
Jeff Monson

Major Losses
Rampage Jackosn
Shogun Rua
Keith Jardine
Rashad Evans

Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson
Notable Wins
Chuck Liddell
Wanderlei Silva
Dan Henderson
Ricardo Arona
Keith Jardine
Kevin Randleman

Major Losses
Forrest Griffin
Shogun Rua

Other notable 205 greats
Tito Ortiz
Sakuraba
Dan Henderson
Rashad Evans



rampage also lost to wanderlei, antonio rogerio nogeuira, and sakuraba, which are all notabkle losses
Pookie
10/9/11 1:07:18AM
Rampage did not lose to Nog
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Topics