Ranking discussion

Exactly what it says on the tin.

* Edited at 09.13.2013, 12:37 AM ET *

Naw. Majority of people I've talked to gave it to Torres, but judges like themselves some TDs.

Also gave that fight to Torres. But after the fight was over, I knew the judges were gonna give it to MM.

Sass in the top 5 seems a little generous. 

I don't have guys like Magalhaes, Roger or Drysdale high on my list since they haven't done much in MMA.

I also gave that fight to Torres.

* Edited at 09.16.2013, 10:07 AM ET *

I agree with everything AnikM been saying. In terms of strictly MMA Condit is one of the best guards. And lackof recent submission does not take away from that. Most guys are not facing the level of opposition that Condit is facing in his last 10 fights. Nor can many say they are able to give elite levels wrestlers like Hendrick/GSP fits on the ground. I mean even look at comparisons between Diaz/condit fight with GSP. GSP was able to especially in the first few rounds do what he like on top against diaz. He was able to constantly change position. Something he was struggling with against with Condit. Condit also takes minimal damage when on bottom. He constantly attacking with strikes/submissions/sweeps which few can claim to be nearly as active. And like many brought up when Kim, when he got on top of condit he was swept perfectly, something Nate diaz was unable to do. Something many good fighters where not able to accomplish. He also was able to nulify rory/hendrick/ellenburger for the most part on the ground. To the point that being on the ground with Condit was wearing them out not condit. I think everyone except GSP would be hard pressed to win a fight on top against condit for 5 rounds.

* Edited at 09.16.2013, 12:47 PM ET *

As for Torres. I agree I gave him the fight against mighty mouse. Though it was great ground work by him.

@Nomad "If my post has nothing to do with then thread why comment on it when it was directed at someone specifically for the sake of conversation ( not you) ? You comment on my ****, we argue then you say "wrong thread" when I make points, Great. "


That...might be one of the lamest replies I've ever gotten. It doesn't even make sense. If your post has nothing to do with the thread topic, don't post it in the thread. I don't care if it's directed to anyone else in the thread. You made no points and if you actually read my post you'll see why.


@skelliher I am relaxed. I'm not allowed to call someone's opinion stupid even if it is? Relativism doesn't exist, I'm just trying to educate the poor boy.

You know what, you got a striking background so I'm sure you could answer this question fairly easily; is the number of finishes by a fighter the only direct link to their skill level? Because I'm pretty sure that the answer is an obvious one and any other would be wrong.

Eh, you know what? I take what I said in the beginning back; Nomad's opinion isn't stupid, I apologize.

It's just wrong. 100% wrong. Completely wrong. So wrong that I'm afraid it could dumb people down if they try to read it more than once.

But it ain't stupid.

I agree @Anik, GSP doesn't finish fights, but I still think he's one of the best strikers in the game, along with the best MMA wrestler as well. Same thing goes for a jiu jitsu player. Paul sass has great submissions, but only has wins against mid-low tier guys, Matt Wiman is a great grappler, that's why he ran through Sass. 

@Anik: Sifting through the muck to answer your question, I would say no, finishes don't translate directly to skill. Some of the best fighters in MMA and boxing in terms of technical skills have a lack of finishing power. A lot of finishers take big risks to get their finishes. 

GSP, Money Mayweather, Frankie Edgar, even Jose Aldo on many occasions.