Originally Posted by jonnyg4508
So you want to compare these fighters to Hendo.
I used a common quality opponent. You used irrelevant fighters.
Why even waste your time being goofy?
Who said MMA Math is the tell all? Because I used one RELEVANT example it means my whole basis for thinking ANderson is better all time is based around MMA math? You don't need to sit here and try to teach me the incorrect sciences of mma math like you know something that I don't.
Fedor was straight KO'd by 40 year old straight 206lb Hendo. Hendo was straight laced and tapped out by 185lb Anderson. Fedor lost several in a row when he came to teh States to fight legit HWs. Hell even a small 205er he couldn't get past. Fedor was great. But in my opinion not the best of all time. If Anderson went up to 205 to fight guys and started to get straight OWNED like Fedor did at the end of his career I'd say the same thing about Anderson.
Just my opinion. You can go teach someone else about the ins and outs of MMA math tho.
You mean declining? Or do you mean a man who actually started fighting real competition again after taking a couple years out to fight freak shows?
You mean Fedor at what? 35 was past his prime...but much smaller 40 Dan Henderson was a young stallion? Fedor got KNOCKED OUT by a smaller...older man. Much older. He was a decent sized favorite in that fight. Everyone picked Fedor because "well he isn't at a size disadvantage he was against Bigfoot".
Anderson is almost 38. When do you suppose he will start declining? The convenient thing to say would be as soon as he loses that must mean he is declining. When Fedor came to SF he was still unstoppable. When he started losing he was all of a sudden declining.
Oh so MMA math only works when you use QUALITY opponents, gotcha. So Chuck beat Vitor and Vitor KOd Franklin, so clearly Chuck would demolish Franklin ... all quality opponents there... waitaminute.
Yes Chuck lost to Franklin at the end of his career, but according to your logic tail ends of career don't matter, every fighter is the same at 80 as at 20. Good thing for the sake of this discussion you picked a fighter (Anderson) who hasn't hit his tail end yet, otherwise you really wouldn't make any sense. Give it a couple of years, everyone ages differently.
MMA math doesn't work. Period. You have to look at careers in total. I can accept if you compare legacies in their entirities and come out with Anderson on top, but that is still debatable.
IMO peak Arlovski (on a win streak), Sylvia, Big Nog with less miles on him, peak CroCop and near peak Coleman and Randelman are more than a match for the likes of Leites, Cote, 24-12 Sonnen, inconsistent Belfort, Lutter, Marquardt, Irvin, Bonnar etc.
Aside from Henderson and Franklin, Anderson's wins are not that impressive. Most of them are bums that aren't even in the UFC anymore, and many others (like Sonnen, Okami, Belfort etc.) are very inconsistent.
Compared to them, Fedor's opponents were unbeatable behemoths when he beat them .. Big Nog and CroCop ran through the world's elite HWs at the time. Coleman and Randelman were not far removed from winning the Pride GP and being the UFC HW champs, as were Timmy and Arlovski.
Oh and Fedor got knocked out by on older man WITH A 20 YEAR OLD'S HORMONES. Let's not pretend like Hendo is your average 40 year old any more than a steroid pumped racehorse is a circus pony. Unlike Hendo, Fedor aged naturally and so his career has to be looked at during it's peak.
Just my opinion. You should be the one teaching everyone about MMA math since you seem so attuned to it's rules of application and nuances.