All Time GOAT poll
- Thread starter Tachy
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2014
- Messages
- 22,398
- Reaction score
- 17,081
It's passion. Why stop it? Whenever someone yells out "he/she is the GOAT" based on them having delivered an impressive performance, we can laugh at it and think: "Yeah, you said the same thing last year about a different fighter".
And that is true. You're not always being factual in a moment of doing live commentary and being passionate.
But would you prefer strict analysis? No hype? Are you that boring?
And that is true. You're not always being factual in a moment of doing live commentary and being passionate.
But would you prefer strict analysis? No hype? Are you that boring?
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Messages
- 7,821
- Reaction score
- 3,596
"they gave the belt to Aldo at the beginning of his UFC career which is why he has that many of title fights against lower level competition."
The UFC owned WEC when Aldo was champ, when they absorbed the divisions they carried over his belt. You think the WEC was "lower level competition" for 145 and 135? It was quite literally the highest level org for lighter weight classes.
You can miss me with that bullshit.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 60,962
- Reaction score
- 30,863
Notice his join date.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 25,052
- Reaction score
- 15,080
LMAO
Amanda?
The same women who averages one defeat in every five fights she takes part in? Has never beaten anyone great in their actual peaks at the right weight class? I mean if you lose one in every five fights against soccer moms and that too usually by a clear stoppage (not even Bad decision ) and only have twenty or so wins in your entire career while constantly being accused on being on the juice by all opponents, there is no way you should in the GOAT convo.
cowboy and Guida have better names on their records and more wins in tougher weight classes maybe they should be undeniable GOATs too
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 49
The only two acceptable answers are either GSP or Bones Jones.
Bones Jones has only lost officially once and it was by DQ. He has beaten Legends (Rashad, Machida, Shogun, Rampage, Vitor and Cormier) and Elite fighters (Bader, Gustafsson, Glover) then other solid vets(Matyushenko,Bonnar,Vera). So he's probably the easy pick.
But if you disqualify him for PEDS, then it's obviously GSP.
GSP beat the GOAT in his division at the time(Hughes), beat a Two division champion twice(Penn), won belts in two weight classes, beat elite fighters at the time he fought them (Sherk,Shields,Diaz,Fitch,Koscheck,Karo) and solid vets(Serra, Heiron, Menjivar, Mayhem Miller). GSP while losing twice, avenged both losses.
Bones Jones has only lost officially once and it was by DQ. He has beaten Legends (Rashad, Machida, Shogun, Rampage, Vitor and Cormier) and Elite fighters (Bader, Gustafsson, Glover) then other solid vets(Matyushenko,Bonnar,Vera). So he's probably the easy pick.
But if you disqualify him for PEDS, then it's obviously GSP.
GSP beat the GOAT in his division at the time(Hughes), beat a Two division champion twice(Penn), won belts in two weight classes, beat elite fighters at the time he fought them (Sherk,Shields,Diaz,Fitch,Koscheck,Karo) and solid vets(Serra, Heiron, Menjivar, Mayhem Miller). GSP while losing twice, avenged both losses.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2021
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 450
Amanda isn't even the woman's GOAT, much less overall GOAT.
Valentina is woman's GOAT.
She beat Amanda second fight somewhat clearly IMO (although it was close) and idc that she was slightly robbed by the judges.
This loss (vs Pena) does hurt Amanda's case.
Valentina is just better, and this gap will only continue to grow.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,218
- Reaction score
- 64,335
Amanda’s resume is superior to Val’s, pretty significantly. And Nunes has two wins over her as well, despite how some Val fans want to paint those losses.
Valentina is *probably* ahead of Ronda now, although Ronda still has more title defenses. Not even Nunes has more title defenses than Ronda. All time WMMA top 10, as of now:
- Nunes
- Valentina
- Rousey
- Joanna
- Rose
- Cyborg
- Miesha
- Marloes
- Holly
- Kaufman
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2021
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 450
This basically re Jones & GSP.
With the qualification that Khabib is the GOAT that would have been. Like if Tiger Woods stopped playing golf in 2007. You'd say he was the most dominant golfer ever, and could argue GOAT but you'd still kinda have to keep it with Jack Nicklaus. Basically the same thing for Khabib.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2021
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 450
I just think Valentina won the second fight, as does anyone unbiased who watched it.
Amanda is 21-5 overall, and 20-6 if you score 2nd fight vs Valentina correctly.
Valentina is 22-3, and 23-2 if you score their fight correctly. And she avenged both losses (to Nunes & Carmouche)
Her record is significantly better. I think that's almost enough right there to put Val ahead of Nunes.
You could try to argue strength of competition... Both have beaten Holm. The only truly great victory Nunes has that Val doesn't is vs Cyborg. Ehh, maybe Rousey, but she's pretty overrated. Nunes lost to Zingano as well. It's insane to think it's close between Rousey & Val on a woman's GOAT poll.
IMO if you watch them fight, it's clear Valentina is a more skilled fighter basically everywhere. And I'd bet on her if they fight a 3rd time. Nunes is on the way down. She cares more about being a mom then fighting. Val is going to keep kicking ass for at least a couple more years bc she wants to be the GOAT. You can glean all this just by watching some interviews.
I don't say this as a big Val fan. I'm a fan of my opinion more than fighters. I don't keep posters up or anything like that. I bet fights. My opinion is that Val is underrated bc she's the woman's GOAT and most people think it is Nunes.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 49
Khabib is the greatest LW of all time. He is in the top 10 for greatest of all time in any weight, but you are right, he was likely a couple of wins away from really being up there with GSP and Bones.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,218
- Reaction score
- 64,335
Sorry for the long post, but I have to work today and it’s crazy slow.
I appreciate both fighters but don’t consider
myself a “fan”of either—and I scored both fights for Nunes.
I agree that Val is more well-rounded, but that doesn’t factor in GOAT convos for me at all. I can name several LWs more well-rounded than Khabib, but they aren’t the LW GOAT—Khabib is.
It’s also hard to make a judgement from Val’s 22-3 record, because almost half of her fights were against literal nobodies. Normally, I look at ranked wins, title defenses, and former/future champs beaten (although that last one is less significant). With WMMA it’s tough because many orgs didn’t have rankings, and women couldn’t always fight in major orgs which makes counting champs difficult. But to compare my top 3 or 4 WMMA GOATs along those types of metrics, it looks like this.
Title defenses:
Nunes - 7 (that’s WBW and WFW belts combined)
Rousey - 7 (UFC and Strikeforce)
Val - 6
Notable wins:
Nunes - 12 (Porto, Budd, GDR x 2, Valentina x 2, Baszler, McMann, Miesha, Ronda, Cyborg, Pennington, Spencer, Anderson)
Valentina - 10 (Kaufman, Holm, Pena, Jedrzejczyk, Eye, Carmouche, Chookagian, Maia, Andrade, Murphy)
Ronda- 8 (Tweet, Budd, Tate x 2, Kaufman, Carmouche, McMann, Davis, Zingano). I didn’t count Bethe but we could I suppose.
Former/future champs gets really goofy depending on whether we look at major orgs only or all orgs. Normally when ranking men I wouldn’t look at all orgs, but obv women couldn’t fight in all the major orgs for many years.
Nunes - 10 (Budd, De Randamie x 2, Baszler, Schevchenko x 2, Rousey, Tate, Cyborg, Holm, Spencer, Anderson). 7 if we do major orgs only.
Valentina - 8 now that Pena has become champ: Kaufman, Holm, Jedrzejczyk, Chookagian, Andrade, Jennifer Maia, Lauren Murphy, and Peña). 5 if we count major orgs only.
Ronda: 6 total (Tweet, Budd, Tate x 2, Kaufman, Davis, and Zingano) 3 from major orgs.
Since Val has Ronda beat in 2 of those 3 areas, I’m cool with ranking her ahead of Ronda even though she hasn’t beaten her title defense record (or tied it, even). But I can’t rank Val ahead of Amanda. Amanda leads Valentina comfortably in all 3 areas. But these lists are always subjective so if you rank them differently that’s cool with me.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2021
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 450
I appreciate the time and thought in to this post BFoe.
You make a number of good points. There is one area that I disagree, however. I don't like using title defenses as so strong a criteria.
Why?
There are a ton of situations where the organization puts someone in line for a title way earlier or later than others, and it has nothing to do with how good they are.
Ronda started the UFC out as the champion. (You can also definitely argue about the quality of some of her wins - like Davis & McMann who don't really have very good records)
Someone like Khabib had to fight 8-0 before getting his title shot.
If fighters fought a lot more, than I would agree that title defenses is a pretty good criteria to hold up there with stuff like record, notable wins, etc... but given most fighters have less than 30 fights, and often half or less of those in the UFC, using title defenses so strongly ends up being ridiculously biased to who the UFC pushes and not who really is the GOAT.
I don't use Khabib as an example bc I think he's the GOAT, and in fact address this in a post from yesterday like 5 posts back.
I don't think arguing Nunes is absurd. I think putting Rousey up there with Val is though.
So let's say I grant you that Nunes has had 2 more notable wins (12 : 10) - I didn't check everything and decide I completely agree, but for argument's sake I grant you this. Same w/ beating former/future champs (10:8).
I'd argue that Val has much more consistency, as shown with her better record. Throughout her fighting career, she hasn't dropped the ball. 2 or 3 losses, one avenged for sure. Other IMO avenged. 70% of people on MMA decisions agree with me here as opposed to you. It was a close fight though. The first was a 3 round fight only.
Additionally, I think you're overly dismissive about this difference. Your main argument being "Val fought a bunch of nobodies". During her early career she did pick up the loss to Caramouche. We really have no idea the strength of a lot of that competition. Nunes herself had 6 fights in a Brazil org that was also likely not that strong / we have no idea. She even lost one there to a nobody.
Val clearly was a better more consistent fighter earlier in her career.
Val is 11-2 in UFC or 12-1. Nunes is 14-2 in UFC or 13-3. So just looking at their UFC career it is very close and giving it to Nunes is totally reasonable, and it does kinda swing on how you judge the 2nd fight. Again, 70% agree with me that Val won.
But I don't think the UFC encapsulates their careers. They both fought for years before the UFC, and one was significantly better than the other.
Valentina also has to go up in weight to Bantamweight to fight Nunes. The fact she's basically drawn Nunes at a higher weight class is impressive. Nunes fights more comfortably at the next highest weight class, Featherweight. A weight class which btw doesn't have many skilled competitors or much competition that's almost falling apart. At Val's best weight class, Flyweight, she is much more dominant then Amanda, having lost 0 fights.
I agree 100% about the argument with Khabib, and I'm not trying to argue that being well-rounded is a criteria. I said she is better everywhere, which is different. And I do think how all your skills adds up counts. For example, with Khabib you'd give him massive points for grappling skillset where he's arguably the grappling GOAT of MMA. So even if he's sometimes outclassed in striking, he'd still be the more potent fighter. (And obviously the fact his grappling is so dominant allows him to do a lot with his striking + pressure, such as his eagle punch that he wings up when faking takedowns, knockdown vs Mcgregor, etc... which is very cool when you watch Khabib fight) The only area Nunes is better is she is bigger and stronger. But Val is better technically everywhere and a better grappler. I do think that matters and it's not the same as being well-rounded.
Anyways, I get the Nunes argument. I disagree. I am pretty sure that 2+ years from now it won't be an argument anymore. Val will have 4 more defenses and Nunes will have at least another loss.
You make a number of good points. There is one area that I disagree, however. I don't like using title defenses as so strong a criteria.
Why?
There are a ton of situations where the organization puts someone in line for a title way earlier or later than others, and it has nothing to do with how good they are.
Ronda started the UFC out as the champion. (You can also definitely argue about the quality of some of her wins - like Davis & McMann who don't really have very good records)
Someone like Khabib had to fight 8-0 before getting his title shot.
If fighters fought a lot more, than I would agree that title defenses is a pretty good criteria to hold up there with stuff like record, notable wins, etc... but given most fighters have less than 30 fights, and often half or less of those in the UFC, using title defenses so strongly ends up being ridiculously biased to who the UFC pushes and not who really is the GOAT.
I don't use Khabib as an example bc I think he's the GOAT, and in fact address this in a post from yesterday like 5 posts back.
I don't think arguing Nunes is absurd. I think putting Rousey up there with Val is though.
So let's say I grant you that Nunes has had 2 more notable wins (12 : 10) - I didn't check everything and decide I completely agree, but for argument's sake I grant you this. Same w/ beating former/future champs (10:8).
I'd argue that Val has much more consistency, as shown with her better record. Throughout her fighting career, she hasn't dropped the ball. 2 or 3 losses, one avenged for sure. Other IMO avenged. 70% of people on MMA decisions agree with me here as opposed to you. It was a close fight though. The first was a 3 round fight only.
Additionally, I think you're overly dismissive about this difference. Your main argument being "Val fought a bunch of nobodies". During her early career she did pick up the loss to Caramouche. We really have no idea the strength of a lot of that competition. Nunes herself had 6 fights in a Brazil org that was also likely not that strong / we have no idea. She even lost one there to a nobody.
Val clearly was a better more consistent fighter earlier in her career.
Val is 11-2 in UFC or 12-1. Nunes is 14-2 in UFC or 13-3. So just looking at their UFC career it is very close and giving it to Nunes is totally reasonable, and it does kinda swing on how you judge the 2nd fight. Again, 70% agree with me that Val won.
But I don't think the UFC encapsulates their careers. They both fought for years before the UFC, and one was significantly better than the other.
Valentina also has to go up in weight to Bantamweight to fight Nunes. The fact she's basically drawn Nunes at a higher weight class is impressive. Nunes fights more comfortably at the next highest weight class, Featherweight. A weight class which btw doesn't have many skilled competitors or much competition that's almost falling apart. At Val's best weight class, Flyweight, she is much more dominant then Amanda, having lost 0 fights.
I agree 100% about the argument with Khabib, and I'm not trying to argue that being well-rounded is a criteria. I said she is better everywhere, which is different. And I do think how all your skills adds up counts. For example, with Khabib you'd give him massive points for grappling skillset where he's arguably the grappling GOAT of MMA. So even if he's sometimes outclassed in striking, he'd still be the more potent fighter. (And obviously the fact his grappling is so dominant allows him to do a lot with his striking + pressure, such as his eagle punch that he wings up when faking takedowns, knockdown vs Mcgregor, etc... which is very cool when you watch Khabib fight) The only area Nunes is better is she is bigger and stronger. But Val is better technically everywhere and a better grappler. I do think that matters and it's not the same as being well-rounded.
Anyways, I get the Nunes argument. I disagree. I am pretty sure that 2+ years from now it won't be an argument anymore. Val will have 4 more defenses and Nunes will have at least another loss.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2016
- Messages
- 13,247
- Reaction score
- 7,550
Greatness, just like in boxing, is not judged upon record on paper. Maybe in the eyes of uneducated posters in sherdog heavies, but that's it.
Anderson Silva will always have a case above GSP because he beat similar caliber of competition applying all kind of finishing techniques, not just points or neutralizing techniques, which are great, but this is martial arts.
But above all, because Silva was widely considered the greater p4p fighter than GSP during most of their championship runs, which happened at the same time.
You can look at what pundits, fellow fighters or even UFC itself said at the time, during those long 7 years: Silva was widely recognized as the greater fighter than George's. Period
Now you have dudes on the internet doing revisionist history based on what the record looks on paper, but Sugar Ray Robinson is not regarded as the greatest boxer of all time because of how pretty or ugly his record looks on paper
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,152
- Reaction score
- 8
GSP
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,041
- Reaction score
- 11,604
Usman is 170 goat
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 40,436
- Reaction score
- 33,618
<45><45><45><45><45><45><45><45><45><45><45>
Latest posts
-
-
-
Youtuber SunnyV2 Makes a Video on Why People Are Laughing at Ronda's Failure- Latest: MMA Maine-iac
-
