Joined
·
36 Posts
There is so much debate in MMA as to who is the p4p best. And what is the actual definition of p4p.
After some significant internal debate I have decided that my definition of p4p is as follows:
Which MMA fighter, when not including advantages or disadvantages gained from size and weight, is superior. On a purely technical basis, which MMA fighter is the best in the world.
I have also spent a significant amount of time reconsidering my beliefs on who is p4p best. And my reasoning. Those are also as follows:
1. Anderson Silva. While it is beyond debate that he has not defeated the very best fighters in the world in many cases, it is the manner in which he has beaten them that speaks volumes. Never in his career since joining the UFC has Silva been in danger or near defeat; and his lanky frame shows that his advantages remain completely natural and technical.
2. Fedor. The most tremulous debate concerning Fedor is that he has not defeated the very best that MMA has to offer. On this count I disageee. He has defeated some of the very best MMA fighters ever over the course of his great many wins, yet he weighs up to 40lbs less than most heavyweights. His shows a skill level that is disputeably unmatched in his weightclass.
3. BJ Penn. The debate concerning Penn stems from his size as well as from his two defeats to GSP. While it is obvious he cannot defeat GSP in his current incarnation, he has proven superiority over a great many skilled fighters. The most important reason, to my thinking, as to why he is superior to GSP in this form of ranking is that he fought him at WW. Him fighting in a weightclass other than his own brings into account the value of weight and musculature. This nullifies the point of the p4p system, and cannot be counted in this way.
4. GSP. Concerning GSP the debate rages as to whether or not he is actually capable of defeating an opponent he must stand and strike against. Can he finish an opponent? His skill on the ground, outwrestling everyone he competes against, proves a technical superiority that is disputably unmatched in MMA. In my opinion he is a very skilled wrestler with potential for tremendous striking ability though his lackluster use of such limits his position.
5. Lyoto Machida. Debate concerning Machida focuses around his bout with Rua, as well as his defensive counter-fighting nature. In his bout with Rua, the fundamental weakness of Shotokan was expoited, the centered, partially-immoble stance. Rua exploited this weakness to great effect, coming within a hair's bredth of winning. Each round could have been scored either way IMO. Machida's advantages come from the same place as his weaknesses. Shotokan. The art focuses on the defensive, evading rather than intercepting, and jumping in at your opponent to attack instead of stepping in. A great example is the switch kick against Ortiz. The advantages he exploits in his style are purely technical IMO.
What are the opinions of MMAF? Does your definition of p4p differ? What is your list of fighters and why do you see them in that order?
After some significant internal debate I have decided that my definition of p4p is as follows:
Which MMA fighter, when not including advantages or disadvantages gained from size and weight, is superior. On a purely technical basis, which MMA fighter is the best in the world.
I have also spent a significant amount of time reconsidering my beliefs on who is p4p best. And my reasoning. Those are also as follows:
1. Anderson Silva. While it is beyond debate that he has not defeated the very best fighters in the world in many cases, it is the manner in which he has beaten them that speaks volumes. Never in his career since joining the UFC has Silva been in danger or near defeat; and his lanky frame shows that his advantages remain completely natural and technical.
2. Fedor. The most tremulous debate concerning Fedor is that he has not defeated the very best that MMA has to offer. On this count I disageee. He has defeated some of the very best MMA fighters ever over the course of his great many wins, yet he weighs up to 40lbs less than most heavyweights. His shows a skill level that is disputeably unmatched in his weightclass.
3. BJ Penn. The debate concerning Penn stems from his size as well as from his two defeats to GSP. While it is obvious he cannot defeat GSP in his current incarnation, he has proven superiority over a great many skilled fighters. The most important reason, to my thinking, as to why he is superior to GSP in this form of ranking is that he fought him at WW. Him fighting in a weightclass other than his own brings into account the value of weight and musculature. This nullifies the point of the p4p system, and cannot be counted in this way.
4. GSP. Concerning GSP the debate rages as to whether or not he is actually capable of defeating an opponent he must stand and strike against. Can he finish an opponent? His skill on the ground, outwrestling everyone he competes against, proves a technical superiority that is disputably unmatched in MMA. In my opinion he is a very skilled wrestler with potential for tremendous striking ability though his lackluster use of such limits his position.
5. Lyoto Machida. Debate concerning Machida focuses around his bout with Rua, as well as his defensive counter-fighting nature. In his bout with Rua, the fundamental weakness of Shotokan was expoited, the centered, partially-immoble stance. Rua exploited this weakness to great effect, coming within a hair's bredth of winning. Each round could have been scored either way IMO. Machida's advantages come from the same place as his weaknesses. Shotokan. The art focuses on the defensive, evading rather than intercepting, and jumping in at your opponent to attack instead of stepping in. A great example is the switch kick against Ortiz. The advantages he exploits in his style are purely technical IMO.
What are the opinions of MMAF? Does your definition of p4p differ? What is your list of fighters and why do you see them in that order?
