UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> Seriously, how is A. Silva better P4P than Fedor?


10/29/08 8:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6286
PoundforPound - Career-wise, Fedor is P4P #1. But for the past year or two, taking into account quality of opposition, it's been Silva hands down.

Fedor has a chance to get back on top IMO by just beating some tougher opponents (i.e. Josh Barnett.)

The one knock against Fedor about recent competition (where this factor per se doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mythical "P4P" standing anyway) would go away if he beats Arlovski.

Fedor will have then beaten better competition (even within his own division, in addition to just on an absolute level) than Anderson will have in the last year (unless Anderson faces a top-5/top-10 opponent before January).

Fedor would have wins over Sylvia and Arlovski, while Anderson would have wins over Hendo, James Irvin, and Patrick Cote.
10/29/08 8:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13894
whistleblower - The one knock against Fedor about recent competition (where this factor per se doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mythical "P4P" standing anyway)....



It absolutely does have something to do with it. Beating top caliber fighters is part of what makes you P4P the best.
10/29/08 9:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cincibill
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/21/06
Posts: 200
Anderson: 1
Fedor: 2

Do you think Rich at 205 could beat Anderson at 185 ? (NO!)

Anderson could keep his weight at 185 and fight in 205 and still beat all the people.
10/29/08 9:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/29/08 10:46 PM
Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6287
PoundforPound - It absolutely does have something to do with it. Beating top caliber fighters is part of what makes you P4P the best.

Of course you're completely correct that a fighter would have needed to beat "top caliber fighters" at some point (to have initially, necessarily proven himself to be a "top caliber fighter" in turn), in order to even be included in the mythical "P4P" debate in the first place.

I never said otherwise.

But let me put it another way - up until 2006, Kid Yamamoto was the only other eminent candidate besides Fedor for being the #1 "P4P" (although Fedor was generally given this mythical distinction).

But now Kid has been largely inactive for the last couple of years (because of his attempt to make the Olympics and then injuries).

But based on his previous wins and performances - and the skills and attributes that he had already demonstrated more frequently before his inactivity - if you still feel that Kid would beat everyone else in a mythical world where everyone weighed the same, you could still reasonably argue why you feel Kid is the best "P4P."

You could reasonably speculate that because of his high-level wrestling and striking and his explosive power and athleticism, if those skills and attributes could still carry over to him at a higher weight, you would favor him to beat everyone else out there.

Just as long as those previously demonstrated skills and attributes were still there, of course - regardless of his recent competition (or lack thereof).

Again, "P4P" is ultimately a mythical, speculative "ranking," with people using even quite varying standards of definition or prioritizing different specific criteria. But recent competition in itself is not necessarily the defining factor.

(Although the skills and attributes themselves that are shown in beating top, recent competition would still certainly, unignorably factor in heavily.)
10/29/08 10:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 7764
BJ > DORKUS -  "END OF THREAD!"

If the date above your post were 2004, maybe.

"
even Mark Hunt would probably beat Anderson in an open weight fight"

I don't think so. Wanderlei took Hunt down at will and he is no wrestler. Anderson would submit Hunt. Nog, who knows? Anderson toys with him standing in training, Nog does not have great takedowns, and Anderson could quite possibly survive on the ground until he can get back to his feet (just like Herring did in 2 out of their 3 fights). Anderson vs Tim would be a cool fight.
Fucking LOL! If Anderson and his supporters who say he WASN'T carrying Cote are to be believed Silva let Cote get up because he was taking elbows on the ground and Cote was defending too well and Anderson was worried about Cote's granite chin (which he has) and one punch KO power (which he has). But somehow little skinny Anderson who HAS to cut 25lbs. to beat up on smaller guys would be able to take down Hunt because Wandy did? Fucking Wandy has better td defense then Fedor. Rampage had trouble keeping Wandy on his back and only Arona and Ortiz in his prime were able to effectively do that.

You are a non-stop train wreck of self-contradicting, revisionist horseshit my fren....
10/29/08 10:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BJ > DORKUS
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/29/08 10:36 PM
Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 34491
 "! If Anderson and his supporters who say he WASN'T carrying Cote are to be believed Silva let Cote get up because he was taking elbows on the ground and Cote was defending too well and Anderson was worried about Cote's granite chin (which he has) and one punch KO power (which he has). But somehow little skinny Anderson who HAS to cut 25lbs. to beat up on smaller guys would be able to take down Hunt because Wandy did? Fucking Wandy has better td defense then Fedor."

This is possibly your most incoherent post ever. Anderson can't take HUNT down because WANDERLEI has better takedown DEFENSE than Fedor? Seriously, what are you smoking? Can you write that out as a syllogism for me, because I'm just not following you.

And Anderson was taking elbows from Cote on the ground? Anderson let Cote up because he was worried about Cote's chin and KO power?

Are you drunk?
 
10/30/08 1:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAmike
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 1042
top
10/30/08 3:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6288
YourFathersUncle - "In fact, MW was without question historically the weakest and most underdeveloped of the 5 major weight classes."

According to who?

According to the actual history of the division.

So then tell us who was in the 185 division before 2006 (when Anderson came in and dominated).

Before Anderson, Rich Franklin got to defend against such all-time-great "#1 contenders" like Nate Quarry and David Loiseau.

And yes, MW was without question the most historically underdeveloped of the 5 major weight classes.

Pride didn't even have a 183 division until 2005 - and the 185 division in the UFC was left largely inert for years, very shortly after its inception (after Busta left as the Champ).

It didn't actually take off again until the TUF era with Franklin and then Anderson - and only recently has deepened with the influx of surplus talent from 205 and the emergence of new top prospects.

But up until then, the MW division had largely been an uncultivated wasteland.

So try to name more than 10 top fighters from all of MMA history who actually fought at 185 before 2005-2006 - and if you can't, then STFU.

YourFathersUncle - Look, you can't just go around making absolute statements and passing them off as facts.

You mean like you just did with your typically overstated distortion about the historical weakness of the HW division?

When the fact is that there have easily been more top HW's throughout MMA history than top 185-ers.

YourFathersUncle - It's an erie passion that is often witnessed in religious, or politcal debates, as if someone's identity is wrapped up in the success of an MMA fighter.

You mean like with you and the Gracies? Or like you had with Nog, BJJ's last bastion of invincibility - before Fedor brutally dismantled it. (You still haven't gotten over it after all these years, have you, YF.)

LOL @ "erie passion that is often witnessed in religious, or politcal debates, as if someone's identity is wrapped up in the success of an MMA fighter" - coming from you of all people, YF.

You've been the most brainwashed and inveterate cultist of all. (As well as the most chronically distortive.)
10/30/08 4:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 5:10 AM
Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6289
Again, YF - try to name all these top fighters from all of MMA history who actually fought at 185 before 2005-2006. Or try to name even just more than 3 Hall-of-Fame-worthy fighters who actually achieved their greatness in the 185 division.

And if you can't, then STFU about how HW has always been the weaker division than MW.

The fact is that of the 5 major weight classes, MW has historically been, without question, the weakest division in MMA. And again, there have definitely been more top HW's throughout MMA history than top 185-ers.

Otherwise, name all of these top 185-ers who actually fought in the 185 division before the last couple of years, which is when Anderson came in.

Anderson came in and dominated a weaker and less developed division than Fedor did.
10/30/08 10:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
olafwd
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 10:44 AM
Member Since: 7/20/08
Posts: 19
"It's an erie passion that is often witnessed in religious, or politcal debates, as if someone's identity is wrapped up in the success of an MMA fighter.What a dumb argument.It could go back and forth forever. Such a strong belief in a p4p status, might be addressed by prescription medicine."You're exactly right about it being a religious discussion, because like all theology there is no possible test for any hypothesis. In every case the final argument comes down to "X is my favorite fighter, so he's the best P4P fighter

The whole P4P discussion is a strange one, in that its impossible to test. In a given weight division when you say fighter X is the best you know it will eventually be tested because X will fight other guys in his division. No one seriously doubts Anderson is the number one middle weight or Fedor is the number one heavy weight (actually there are people who rank Lindland ahead of Anderson and Couture or Nog above Fedor but they're never taken seriously).

It also makes it a very safe one to make predictions in, because the prediction can never be proven wrong - Anderson and Fedor will never fight in the same weight, and there's no magical device that can make them the same weight, so there's no risk in saying either is the best P4P. It also makes it about as relevant as arguing about how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin. The funniest part about it is that neither Anderson nor Fedor claim to be the best at anything, both take things one fight at a time. Their fans are rabid about something neither of them care about.

Which makes P4P entertaining reading ...
10/30/08 11:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
WatchinMMA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/15/05
Posts: 5499
lol at hw being more established, that is so wrong. lemme see cro cop, legendary hw got smoked out as soon as he got into the ufc. not to mention werdum getting tooled, arlovski looks bad, sylvia losing every other fight, and mir fighting for the belt. plus friggin brock lesner in 2 fights is in title contention. there is only very small group of top hw and no I wont bother listing for you tards
10/30/08 12:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 12:30 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13897
whistleblower - But let me put it another way - up until 2006, Kid Yamamoto was the only other eminent candidate besides Fedor for being the #1 "P4P" (although Fedor was generally given this mythical distinction).

But now Kid has been largely inactive for the last couple of years (because of his attempt to make the Olympics and then injuries).

But based on his previous wins and performances - and the skills and attributes that he had already demonstrated more frequently before his inactivity - if you still feel that Kid would beat everyone else in a mythical world where everyone weighed the same, you could still reasonably argue why you feel Kid is the best "P4P."



But how do you know that he hasn't lost something with the time away? His speed, reflexes, and timing could all be off.

By considering recent quality of opposition you reward the active fighters who aren't facing cans. And it stops "legends" from just living off their past reputation.

Seems like the fairest way IMO.
10/30/08 12:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BJ > DORKUS
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 34501
 " But let me put it another way - up until 2006, Kid Yamamoto was the only other eminent candidate besides Fedor for being the #1 "P4P""

Classic whistleblower, making this statement like it's a fact, based on nothing but his own contention that "p4p" is a literal estimation of how much a fighter accomplishes "PER" (caps his) "pound". And NOT as the term has been defined and used since it's coining, as simply  a way of saying a fighter in a lower weight class can be "better" than one in a higher weight class, despite not realistically being able to beat the heavier fighter. While trumpeting authorities like Ring magazine when making his robotic ranking arguments, he chooses to ignore them when it comes to usage of the term p4p.
10/30/08 2:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SKARHEAD
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/11/04
Posts: 21737
Anderson is awsome, but was never the best p4p fighter in the world. That's just Dana talking and the TUFers lapping it up.
10/30/08 4:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6290
BJ > DORKUS - " But let me put it another way - up until 2006, Kid Yamamoto was the only other eminent candidate besides Fedor for being the #1 "P4P""

Classic whistleblower, making this statement like it's a fact

Classic orcus with his typically false revisionism (which always seems to fall right in line with his biases - what a coincidence).

All right then - name who else was considered a top candidate for the #1 "P4P" spot up until 2006.

Anderson?

Nope. Anderson hadn't even made his splash in the UFC yet and wasn't even on any top-10 lists for his own weight class.

GSP?

Nope. He hadn't ever become Champ yet and was still #2 in his own division.

BJ?

Nope. He had been dabbling around at 185 and hadn't really been relevant for a couple of years.

So yes, it is a FACT that the generally acknowledged #1 "P4P" in the world up until 2006 was Fedor - and the only other candidate who was being seriously considered at the time was Kid.

If you dispute this fact - then name who else was ever really mentioned as #1 "P4P" at the time.

Again, most people said Fedor because he was a small HW who was absolutely dominating the HW division at the time (plus he had still been active up to then, so there was no knock against him for inactivity yet). And the only other substantial minority was for Kid because he was a small FW who was actually succeeding at LW.

Again, name these other alternative candidates who were generally considered for being the mythical "P4P" #1 at the time, up until 2006 - or STFU.
10/30/08 5:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 5:35 PM
Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6291
BJ > DORKUS - While trumpeting authorities like Ring magazine when making his robotic ranking arguments, he chooses to ignore them when it comes to usage of the term p4p.

Orcus dogmatically talking about something when he doesn't actually know WTF he's talking about yet again.

The Ring without question factors in size - and "per pound" accomplishment - when doing its P4P rankings.

You evidently don't know much about The Ring and its history of rankings standards and practices - and yet that doesn't stop you from actually trying to use that ignorance to support your argument anyway. Typical orcus.

For instance, Lennox Lewis was the most dominant HW in boxing - arguably the most dominant fighter in any weight class, period - and yet he was never even close to being the #1 "P4P."

In fact, during most of his reign, he wasn't even included in Ring's top 10 at "P4P" - and never in their top 5. And Lennox was actually a very technically skilled fighter, too (which was actually a knock against him at the time - that he was just TOO technical for a giant).

Meanwhile, RJJ, who was now competing at HW as well, and was actually ranked only #4 in the HW division - easily behind Lennox - was simultaneously ranked #1 at "P4P."

And the basis for that discrepancy was purely size and "per-pound" accomplishment - because even though Lennox was well ahead of RJJ, even while they were actually competing together in the same division - Lennox was still a gigantic HW while RJJ was a small HW.

(And again, Lennox was a big HW who actually used technical skill to win - but it was that size advantage which largely discounted him from being a top "P4P" candidate.)

So if "P4P" were based purely on divisional dominance - without factoring in size and per-pound accomplishment at all - then no way would The Ring have ever put RJJ over Lennox at "P4P," when RJJ was firmly below Lennox within the same weight class.

Try actually knowing what you're talking about before spouting your baselessly false opinions.

But then again, that never stopped you before from dogmatically asserting your ignorance anyway - and even trying to twist that subject of ignorance to somehow support your preexisting biases - when it actually directly contradicts them. Typical orcus distortion.
10/30/08 5:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 5:10 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13916
A heavyweight can have PFP status as long as he has skill comparable to, or better than, that of the lower weight fighters around at the time.

Lennox Lewis never did.
10/30/08 5:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
clattymine
410 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/05
Posts: 4691
So after 5 pages did we get an answer to what PFP is or who the best is right now?


I really don't want to read all the retarded ramblings.
10/30/08 5:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 5:55 PM
Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6292
PoundforPound - A heavyweight can have PFP status as long as he has skill comparable to, or better than, that of the lower weight fighters around at the time.

Lennox Lewis never did.

What? LOL.

Lennox was actually a very technically skilled boxer. Don't let his size fool you.

In fact, as I mentioned, he was actually widely criticized for being TOO technical - where people wanted a giant to just slug it out more instead.

But you are correct that "A heavyweight can have PFP status as long as he has skill comparable to, or better than, that of the lower weight fighters around at the time" - and that same principle also applies exactly to Fedor.

But Lennox did have the technical skill - but he was just largely dismissed from "P4P" consideration mainly because of his size.

And btw, the only two HW's who have ever been #1 in Ring's P4P rankings were Tyson and RJJ - two of the smallest HW's in the division (just like Fedor).

That's no coincidence. Actually, it's directly related. Because people with smaller size who are still able to dominate bigger opponents are generally viewed as having more technical skill, to be able to compensate for their relative lack of size. And it is the greater "per pound" accomplishment.

And thus P4P rankings - including The Ring's, the standard-bearer - have historically always favored smaller fighters in the division, or smaller fighters who have gone up in weight and still succeeded.

(Even starting with the original "P4P" #1 in Sugar Ray Robinson to Leonard and Hearns, Chavez, ODLH, RJJ, and Mayweather and Pacquiao today - all of whom were top "P4P" fighters - and all of whom went up in weight and still became champions again.)

Relative smallness may not be absolutely necessary for "P4P" consideration - but it has always been "heavily" favored.
10/30/08 6:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 6:13 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13917
whistleblower - But Lennox did have the technical skill - but he was just largely dismissed from "P4P" consideration mainly because of his size.


He was dismissed because he didn't have better skill than RJJ, Oscar, Bernard Hopkins, etc. There were a lot of great fighters in the lighter weights during Lennox's time.
10/30/08 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
155 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 6:12 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13918
double post
10/30/08 7:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
whistleblower
113 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10/30/08 7:55 PM
Member Since: 3/25/04
Posts: 6293
PoundforPound - 
whistleblower - But Lennox did have the technical skill - but he was just largely dismissed from "P4P" consideration mainly because of his size.


He was dismissed because he didn't have better skill than RJJ, Oscar, Bernard Hopkins, etc. There were a lot of great fighters in the lighter weights during Lennox's time.

And yet he was still included in the P4P top 10 at times during his reign (although not most of the time). So his general exclusion wasn't just because there were just too many "great fighters in the lighter weights."

The bottom line was that Lennox was just too big to be considered a very top "P4P" candidate, even with his dominance and technical skills.

Let's look at it this way - if Lennox had been the same size as Tyson and RJJ - while achieving the same level of supreme dominance in the division as he did - don't you believe he would have consistently been much higher on the "P4P" rankings?

At least a perennial top-5 P4P-er (or even very possibly #1 - just like Tyson and RJJ themselves were).

And again, Lennox was NOT considered a non-technical, unskilled boxer at all. (He arguably even had the best jab in the whole sport.)

It was just that his size and length distracted (and detracted) from his perceived technical skills - especially when seen being used to great effect in beating up generally smaller opponents.

So it was mostly that superior size that kept him out of the upper echelons of "P4P" - not technical deficiency, and certainly not divisional dominance (especially when there were times when he was actually the most divisionally dominant Champion in the whole sport).

Again, if Lennox had been around 6'0", 220-230 lbs. (like a Tyson or RJJ) - and with everything else being the same (i.e., record, accomplishment, dominance) - he would have been given much more "P4P" credit than he was.

It has always been the case that a smaller guy dominating bigger opponents has generally been given more "P4P" credit than a bigger guy dominating smaller opponents (like Lennox - even despite his apparent technical skills, in addition to that size).
10/30/08 7:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kansas Comet
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/29/07
Posts: 6198
Whistleblower just thrashing folks as usual; Orcus of all of you should know that you will lose.
10/30/08 8:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
pulsar
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 41736

Much as WB's dogmatic approach and approval of disastrous MMA events such as EliteXC and Affliction while also champioing Pride as the way forward was incorrect, and irksome... He's correct on this thread about Lennox and Fedor.

Not sure where Orcus developed this Anderson passion, he's great, obviously, but the people he's beaten save Henderon (who I think could do things in a rematch), is not in the same league as Cro Cop, Nog etc.

10/30/08 8:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BJ > DORKUS
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 34511
 "the people he's beaten save Henderon (who I think could do things in a rematch), is not in the same league as Cro Cop, Nog etc."

Why not? Marquardt is more consistent than Crocop, as is Franklin. Not to mention everyone -- including WB -- routinely talk about how thin the HW division is. If Anderson's opponents are the best guys in a better division, how do they become WORSE wins for Anderson? Obviously Nog is an all-time great, but Marquardt has better standup and better wrestling; he's also faster, has more striking power, and is obviously no slouch at JJ. It can certainly be argued that he is "not in the same league" because he is in a more competitive division and thus wasn't able to establish the same kind of dominance. I would pick him to win over any other 185er, though, except for Silva.

"
Henderon (who I think could do things in a rematch)"

Come on. Dan/Anderson was the one bet I've EVER made on this forum for money, because Dan simply has nothing for Anderson. If they fight again I will happily bet anyone as much as my meager income allows.

"
Orcus of all of you should know that you will lose."

lol, whatever. I can't really argue effectively with him these days because I've had him on Ignore for a long time now. I can only respond to what I happen to see in quotes. Anyway, it's stupid to talk about "losing" on this. P4P is 100% opinion. I think Anderson is better p4p than Fedor is. I base that on how each guy has performed against top competition. Anderson has obliterated them; on the rare occasions Fedor fights top guys, he decisions them -- at least until running into the much-maligned Sylvia (although I think he will quickly dispose of Arlovski as well, whom I've always considered very over-rated).

The closest to a moment of weakness Anderson has shown was that he had the temerity to be taken down by Olympic alternate Dan Henderson and laid on for a couple minutes. Meanwhile, Fedor spent five minutes on his back against a kickboxer, who got side control and worked a kimura. Yet somehow that is just proof of how calm Fedor is and can be safely dismissed because he was never in danger (thanks in no small part to his opponent a) not throwing a single strike and b) having zero submission knowledge).

You can talk all you want about how Crocop is the universe's deadliest striker and how Fedor outstruck him. Whatever. Crocop has lost several times as a result of being outstruck -- to Randleman, to Hunt, to Kongo, to Gonazga, and to Fedor (and he was certainly not doing well against Alistair on the feet or anywhere else). Rich Franklin has been outstruck by only one guy EVER aside from Anderson, and that's the undefeated Lyoto whom no one has so much as managed to touch. I have not seen Marquardt be outstruck and he has never been stopped with strikes in his career aside from Anderson. So I'm a little baffled as to how you guys can say "omg Fedor is one of 5 or 6 guys to outstrike Crocop so he must be the greatest ever!".

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.