If Adesanya beats Blachowicz, how would you compare this achievement with Anderson beating Griffin?

Entitlement has nothing to do with it you goof. Common sense does. Shove that up your anus. Kid were you even watching MMA back then??? Don't talk to me with that tone.

It isn't recency bias when I was enjoying MMA in both eras. Naming names on a resume is not really telling. Like you said most weren't in their prime. Although I will give Griffin full credit for the Franklin win. Rampage outscored him IMO, but it's still good for his resume.

But if you put Griffin against the guys Jan has fought recently, then you wouldn't get nearly the same results.

It's like the first time I watched Jones fight(the Bonnar fight). I knew he was better than Griffin and recency bias had nothing to do with it. Some things are just visible.

I think Prime Forrest could beat over the hill jacare, chinny rockhold, and unproven Reyes tbh... could he lose those? Sure, but I can definitely see him winning those fights as well.

I don’t think Jan is as good as u think he is apparently, I think he is strong and solid in the clinch and solid grappling but other than his power I don’t find his striking that incredible and he is SLOW SLOW SLOW...

I can definitely see prime Forrest beating the guys Jan beat.

Also unless Jan can tire izzy out with clinch work, I see Adesanya making it look easy tbh.. jan’s power scares me but I don’t see him landing much on the feet unless he can wear izzy down first.
 
Letting you know, as requested.

Can you kindly provide us some adults's insults?

As of discussing MMA - sure, I'll gladly do. But what purpose would it serve to discuss MMA with someone who's interested only in his own opinion and calls it "common sense"?
If you aren't interested in discussing the topic YOU made with me then stop quoting me. What is the purpose of quoting me and not saying anything about the topic????

There are a few others here who have varying opinions from mine and when they quote me they actually say why from their observations, and I in turn, give mine. If I didn't care about their opinions I wouldn't have discussions with them.

You are so hung up on the fact that I am confident in my opinion that you take it as an insult and are going off topic completely.

Again, if you don't think there is a point in discussing the topic with me, then don't quote me. Simple solution.
 
Last edited:
Countless people favored Forrest in the Silva fight. That is simply not the case with Izzy vs Jan even though I personally think Jan wins not a lot of people think that way and the betting lines reflect that.
 
I like revisionists, they're cool cats.
I'd say you're new, but I see your account is quite old - becoming senile much? Should probably drink your vitamins
Well it is the truth so I don't know why you attack me? Griffin was never considered elite and Silva's win while the way he won was impressive it wasn't rated highly.
 
Griffin was never considered elite and Silva's win while the way he won was impressive it wasn't rated highly.

Wrong, lol.
And the win was very meaningful considering how it is still talked about a decade and more after the fight happened. <Lmaoo>
 
I'm hoping for Jan, but realistically he's tailor made to be countered being much slower and predictable. Having said that, he might be big enough (and tall enough) to make it a big ugly and physical inside in a way that some of the 185 lb. fighters failed to, Adesanya counts on his height and leans back at times, but a tall guy like Jan may be able to take advantage.
 
Wrong, lol.
And the win was very meaningful considering how it is still talked about a decade and more after the fight happened. <Lmaoo>
That is probably more to do with the way Silva dismantled griffin. It's one of the most iconic beatdowns in the sport.
 
That is probably more to do with the way Silva dismantled griffin. It's one of the most iconic beatdowns in the sport.

Absolutely true, I didn't dispute that. I just commented on him saying the win was meaningless, which it obviously wasn't - for what reason wasn't even up to discussion.
 
If you aren't interested in discussing the topic YOU made with me then stop quoting me. What is the purpose of quoting me and not saying anything about the topic????

There are a few others here who have varying opinions from mine and when they quote me they actually say why from their observations, and I in turn, give mine. If I didn't care about their opinions I wouldn't have discussions with them.

You are so hung up on the fact that am confident in my opinion that you take it as an insult and are going off topic completely.

Again, if you don't think there is a point in disbelief the topic with me, then don't quote me. Simple solution.

Reminding you your original quotes, misdirected moron:

Honestly TS, this shouldn't even be a question. People try to really fantasize that Griffin was better than he was.

This is the way you DISCUSS?
Sorry, it's not a discussion. It's a moronic statement.

Moreover, you also told that Griffin was never #2. He WAS . It's a fact, whether you like it or not.

So , you're a liar, you're incoherent, and you think it's called confidence. It's called ignorance.
 
I love Forrest but Jan is a much bigger threat in literally all areas. Wasnt Forrest also Xanaxd?

Oh yeah. And Silva is a steroid cheat.

1dd87b80-0391-11eb-bb7b-e70399b4871c
 
Griffin was not considered to be top 2 back then? Considered by whom? You? Your nonexisting friends?
Just to state completely obvious for anyone with an ounce of a brain: When I say "top something " it means ranking. And rankings mean the consideration. An actual consideration, by actual experts - unlike the worthless opinion of dumb incels like you.

And funny you mention that in a division of Rampage Griffin was not considered top talent - after Griffin beat him. And in the division of Rashad, after Griffin dominated him for two rounds and lost due to a sloppy kick which allowed Rashad to take him down.
First of all, allow me to take back all my insults towards you. It's really not my style, although I don't believe I was the one who directly insulted you first. Either way it's childish and I'm done with it. You might be a decent guy in real life.

As for the topic at hand, I still say you are completely wrong. Me saying Griffin wasn't a top 2 talent does not mean rankings, it means exactly what I said. If you misinterpreted that's your bad and I corrected you.

You act as if I'm making up the statement that Griffin wasn't considered a top 2 talent and claiming the rankings as your evidence.

However there is evidence to my claim as well and it goes back to common sense. If you look at the betting odds before Jackson vs. Griffin, you would see that Forrest was a heavy underdog. If they were to have had an immediate rematch, Griffin would have been the underdog because Rampage was considered the better talent compared to Griffin.

Go back to Griffin vs. Evans. Rashad was also the favorite over Forrest in this fight and despite dropping the first 2 rounds he'd have been favored in the rematch. I don't believe that is unreasonable to say.

Then you have Lyoto Machida, who challenged Rashad for the title and came in as the favorite. Is it not fair to assume Machida would have been favored over Griffin???

Why is that???? Maybe because Machida was considered to be a top talent by "experts." There was a time when Matt Serra was ranked number 1 welterweight in the world. That doesn't mean he was considered to be a top two talent.

If that is too hard to understand then hey, you got it.
 
Last edited:
Jan is not really an undisputed champion. He won the vacant belt. He isn't the lineal champ at LHW.

Griffin was the lineal LHW champ. He lost the belt in the fight directly prior to his fight with Silva.

At the time of the Silva fight, Griffin was 30 years old and had gone 7-3 in the golden age of the LHW division. Jan is 38 years old and has gone 10-5 in an extremely watered-down LHW division.
lol @ golden age filled with unsophisticated, one dimensional brawlers. Jan would kill any version of griffin in half a round, these guys aren’t even comparable.
 
I don't know if izzy will win, but it would be much more impressive. Anderson never fought elite lhws in their peak. Blachz is the undisputed champ and is on a streak //
 
Silva beats up slow 1 dimensional guys like forest, lutter and irving and hes the goat but the moment he jumps into izzys level of competition he goes on a 7 fight losing streak {<doc}
 
Reminder: Griffin fought Anderson Silva immediately after losing the title to Rashad Evans.
Back then this win was considered as one of the most important pound 4 pound accomplishment by the Spider, and made him surpass Fedor as P4P king.
Let's see how the fight plays out. Silva played with Forrest like he was a toy.

Let's see how the fight plays out then judge it.
 
Love Anderson, but that was so impressive due to the way he won against a former World Champion, but many knew that Forrest was getting smoked. Jan is a whole other ball game if you ask me. He is so much better than Forrest ever was, and he is dangerous in so many different aspect of the game. Dont sleep on Jan, last guys doing that got slept themselves.
 
Jan would of sent forest to a very deep shadow realm, not that same fight lol.
 
Jan is not really an undisputed champion. He won the vacant belt. He isn't the lineal champ at LHW.

Griffin was the lineal LHW champ. He lost the belt in the fight directly prior to his fight with Silva.

At the time of the Silva fight, Griffin was 30 years old and had gone 7-3 in the golden age of the LHW division. Jan is 38 years old and has gone 10-5 in an extremely watered-down LHW division.
Reyes beat Jones though, and Jan knocked Reyes out. He's the champ bro
 
Back
Top