Does Anderson Silva's immediate refusal to fight Jon Jones tell us anything?

Well, personally I don't consider tapping due to strikes to Serra back in 2007 as 'performing at a high level'...

Could be me.

And in UFC terms, 2 title defense is HUGE... In the HW division, two defenses and you're tied for the record I think.::

So in essence you questioned the value of what Reed stated but you can't deny it.

1) Performed at a championship winning level in the UFC since 2006 compared to 2008
2) 8 defense compared to 2
3) Has never been beaten in the UFC
4) Beat 2 legitimate 205 pound fighters in the UFC


So again, you might not like it, but Reed spoke the truth and that's that. Period.

 

As I said, I could argue both side when it comes to their resumes. All I was saying is that nothing Reed stated was untrue or even opinion.

In the UFC, Silva's legacy and dominance stands alone right now. He's never been beaten despite fighting at the championship level since his 2nd UFC fight.

On the other side, GSP got a title shot in his 3rd UFC fight and was quickly dispatched by Hughes and considered green.

Again, those are FACTS and not subjective.

What CAN be debated is the level of talent they've faced. I give that edge to GSP.

 

James Irvin is a scrub though. But at least Silva made him look the part by brutally KOing him in less than a minute.

GSP probably would've grinded out a decision.

 

If you don't like my arguments that were given then refute them, but don't try and state I didn't make an argument.

1) GSP has defeated every single person he has ever faced in MMA. You all keep bringing up Pierre's losses, but he avenged both of those losses and therefore had the last word with both of those men.

Silva won the MW crown in October 2006. Pierre won the WW crown in November 2006. So to say one has performed at a high level longer than the other is baseless.

2) 8 defenses compared to 2? 8 - 2 = 6. "Period." Pierre has 6 defenses

3) Silva's last two losses came while St. Pierre was already competing in the UFC. His UFC streak is certainly great, but you can't just discount his previous losses.

4) Beat Griffin who was coming off a KO loss. Beat James Irvin. Like someone else said; it's comparable to Roy Jones beating John Ruiz. You could argue Ruiz was a legitimate HW as he was a belt holder, but don't pretend like he accomplished some great feat.

 

3) Doesn't mean much. Silva was competing in PRIDE, which was arguably the better organization at the time anyway.

It wasn't as if Silva was fighting on the Brazilian circuit while GSP was fighting the top fighters in the world.

In fact, the guys to which Anderson was beating at the time were the higher ranked fighters, actually.

 

Now you're just being dense. Sure GSP won the WW belt in 2006 but he never defended it as he lost it in his next fight. Which to me means he wasn't 'performing a high level'. And it's not like he got edged in a close decision. He tapped to strikes from a non-puncher.

And as I said, GSP's dominance didn't start until he beat Serra in the rematch in 2008. But I would be willing to say it started when he beat Hughes in 2007.

And yes, you can discount Silva's last loss since it was a fight he was clearly winning and was DQ'd. He was performing at a very high level but an illegal up kick cost him.

Can you honestly not see the difference between a DQ loss and getting armbarred in THE FIRST ROUND or tapping to strikes. LOL. Hilarious.

My bad on the 2 defenses versus 6 typo.

And again, Reed didn't say Silva beat great Light Heavyweights. He said he had two dominant wins at a higher weight.

Debate if you like, but Reed stated 100% facts. It can't even be remotely disputed. It is what it is.

 

BIAS???....

Very FEW Fightbeat Posters have PRAISED GSP to the Extent that REED has...Do a Search on ANY of REED's GSP Related Posts & U'll B ENLIGHTENED...Hell, After the RE w/Serra, REED Called GSP the "Roy Jones of MMA"...

As Usual, U're REEDing Waaaaaaaay Tooooo Much Into Shit..."Bias", REED's Ass...



REED

 

Well, I look at it differently. Silva's 2006 loss to Okami was BS.

He was kicking Okami's ass and I personally think the up kick was borderline.

Neverthess, there's a huge difference between losing due to DQ compared to getting your arm twisted off or curling up and tapping due to strikes.

In Silva's case versus Okami, Anderson performed at a high level. In GSP's case, he did not and lost clearly twice.

Silva's last meaningful loss was Chonan WAY back in 2004.

 

Precisely...

While it's ADMIRABLE that GSP had the Stones to Revisit his Conquerors, the FACT is, he was Beaten BADLY in his 2 Losses...U CAN'T just Gloss it Over by Saying he Beat them in the RE...

In the Same Span, Silva's Had 1 NEAR Loss...GSP's had 2 BAD Losses...When U're CONSISTENTLY Performing @ a High Level, U DON'T Need RE's....Moreso, GSP's Losses have GREATLY AFFECTED his Style of Fighting...While Undeniably EFFICIENT, it's Been QUITE Awhile Since GSP's Been IMPRESSIVE....




REED

 

How can you say that GSP was not competing at the highest of levels because he lost a championship fight? The fact that it was a championship fight in which he was the champion defending the title says that it was a fight at the very highest of levels no?

As for the "dense" comment, I'll choose to ignore that.

 

Back to the original point because this has turned into a GSP vs Silva debate: I am not saying that one is better than the other. I am arguing that both are equally accomplished. That both have already cemented their legacy. To say otherwise or to state that one needs the other is just wrong.

 

Don't act stupid Reed. Everyone who has ever posted with you is well aware of your bias. Hell you picked Rampage over Hamill simply because of "Blackness". You argued Cam Newton over Andrew Luck. Vick over Roethlisberger. Jacob Luck for fucks sake over every other contestant.

If you want to act like you don't have a bias then fine, but I think it's quite clear to everyone else.

 

I was going to apologize for the dense comment..... But then you say "Competing" at the highest level.

Arghhhhh. First, Reed said "performing" not "competing". And, yes, there is a huge difference.

GSP's first fight with Hughes was certainly "competing" at a high level. However, getting submitted via arm bar and then admitting afterward that you weren't at Matt's level yet IS NOT "performing" at the highest level.

Surely you understand that... right??????

Nevertheless, sorry about the dense comment. Unwarranted and childish.

 

So U'd HONESTLY Rate GSP's LOSSES to Serra & Hughes as "High Level Performances"????...REED's a Roy Jones Nuthugger SUPREME, but U'd NEVER See him Suggesting Roy's KO LOSS to Tarver was a "High Level Performance"...

When 2 Guys R Fighting @ a CHAMPIONSHIP Level for Virtually the Same Length of Time, w/1 of them Going UNDEFEATED & the Other Acquiring 2 BAD LOSSES in the Process, the Undefeated Guy has "Performed @ a Higher Level"...



REED

 

Forget about needing each other. Personally I think GSP needs to beat Diaz and Silva needs to beat Okami.

But otherwise, I don't disagree with your point. I just think Silva goes down as the better MMA fighter if they both retired today.

 

It's exactly like my argument over Lennox Lewis' standing among HW greats being negatively impacted by his two KO loses. Sure he avenged both loses, but it doesn't take back the fact that he was brutally stopped by 2 mediocre (All Time) HW's. And like GSP, those loses didn't happen when he was green or past his prime. They were directly in the core of his best fighting years.

If not for those two blemishes, guess what.??? Lennox could be regarded as the best HW ever. At least he'd be in the debate.

 

I don't even remember what you're arguing to be honest. I thought we were talking about the loss to Serra and now you're talking about the loss to Hughes?

My point was that GSP first won the WW title in 2006. Same year as Silva. Only one month apart. Yet you say one has been performing at a higher level longer than the other simply because St. Pierre lost in a title defense to Serra? He defeated Hughes prior to this loss so how is that not performing at the highest of levels?

 

Speak for YOURSELF, Not 'Everyone Else', Because As of Yet, "Everyone Else" HASN'T Accused REED of Bias Here...REED's Using FACTUAL Information, No Bias Required...

If YOU Think REED is "Biased", WHOgives a Flying Fuck???...REED's Never 1nce Asked for your Opinions of his Posts...You CLEARLY have a DOCUMENTED Problem w/REED, but he DOESN'T Even Care Enough to Entertain OR Ask Why...

Just DON'T Play the "Everybody" Card, when U're THE ONLY Motherfucker Going There...If REED Rubs U the Wrong Way, U'll Eventually Get OVER it OR Learn to Deal w/It...In the Interim, REED will Continue to B REED...




REED

 

They won the titles just one month apart. They've both been performing at the highest of levels the same amount of time.

Lennox Lewis lost the belt twice by KO. It doesn't mean he wasn't performing at the highest of levels before and after those losses. Rocky Marciano never lost a fight, it doesn't mean that his career was more accomplished or impressive or fought at a higher level than Lennox's.

 

It tends to diminish or at least put an asterisk on your argument when we're debating the accomplishments of a dark skinned guy versus those of a light skinned guy when you have a long history of racial bias.

An admittedly very loose analogy would be David Duke arguing McCain over Obama. He might even bring up some valid "facts" and make a good argument, but no one should take him seriously.

 

Congrats on Using Quite Possibly THE WORST Analogy that REED has Seen in Some Time...

Marciano & Lewis WEREN'T Contemporaries or Anywhere Close...On the Flipside, Even in the Ever EVOLVING World of MMA, GSP & Silva ARE CONTEMPORARIES...& That Affords Fans the LUXURY of DIRECTLY COMPARING their Exploits...

GSP's Tenure @ 170 is VERY SIMILAR to Silva's @ 185...EXCEPT, GSP has LOST TWICE...& he was STOPPED on BOTH Occasions...In that Same Span, Silva Has Beaten EVERYBODY he Faced, No RE's Required...GSP Obviously WASN'T "Performing @ a HIGH Level" if he Needed a RE to Set the Record Straight w/Serra & Hughes...& It's Not Soooo Much that GSP Lost, it's HOW he Lost...Tapping Out to STRIKES vs. an Undersized, Mediocre OLD Fighter ISN'T a "High Level Performance", No Matter How BADLY U Want to Sugarcoat it...

Again, in the Same Span, Silva's UNDEfuckingFEATED...More Consistently IMPRESSIVE in his Performances...AND he's Actually Fought TWICE @ 205...

It's NOT a Slight on GSP to Say that Silva has "Performed @ a HIGHER Level"...Moreso, it's a FACT!!!...



REED

 

In YOUR Eye's it Does...Sorry to Break it To U, but REED ISN'T Here for YOUR Posting Pleasure, Homegirl...He'll Post WHAT he Wants, WHEN he Wants...If U're just Going to Attribute EVERY Post of REED's to "Bias", while IGNORING the FACTS he's Using in his Argument, Don't Even Bother Replying....

In the Future, DON'T B a PUSS by Playing the "Everybody" Card when YOU'RE the Only Motherfucker Going There, Accusing REED of Racial Bias...



REED

 

Wrong.

Silva lost twice AFTER St. Pierre lost to Hughes. Sure he was DQ'd in one, but he was submitted in the other. He rematched neither guy.

What will your argument be now? Well, well, well, Silva fought Griffin!!@#!

LOL

As I have said, I think they are extremely comparable. They have both cemented their legacies. What you asserted earlier about Silva having cemented his and GSP not having cemented his is just wrong. "Period".

 

So when Sources Such as MMA Live or UFC Types like Dana White or Joe Rogan Suggest that GSP Needs to Move Up to Cement his Legacy, they're "Wrong" Too, Huh???...

Just Yesterday you LITERALLY Clung to the Notion that a Submission LOSS & a Tap Out LOSS to Strikes was a "High Level Performance", so REED Shouldn't Expect U to Understand, Even as the MAJORITY of the MMA World DISagrees w/U...

But Hey, Maybe MMA Live, Dana White & Joe Rogan Share the Same "Biases" that U CHILDISHLY Accused REED of Having...



REED

 

I think the fight would be good for both fighter's legacies.

The winner surely would....in most of the MMA mainstream media, be considered the top p4p fighter in the sport's short history. And individual, a win over Silva for GSP would prove that he could overcome his fear and take out a great striker who can hurt him, it'd also be a great p4p achievement moving up in weight.

For Silva it'd prove that he can beat great wrestlers, and that it has been no fluke that he's been able to beat the two best wrestlers he's fought in his career.

 

No, the Lewis analogy is not exactly the same. But the point was more about a loss not being erased just because a fighter wins a rematch. A loss is still a loss.

And you're right GSP got caught versus Serra, which by itself doesn't mean much. But the way he curled up and tapped due to strikes certainly wasn't indicative of performing at a high level.

Beyond that, the Serra loss changed GSP's style dramatically. He started game planning far better and started taking less chances in the cage. In my opinion, it wasn't until that point that he became the dominant force that he is now.

The GSP that fought Miller, Trigg, Sherk, and Penn prior to the Serra loss was a far more exciting fighter but also wasn't nearly as clearly dominant. The difference between Penn 1 and Penn 2 is indicative of this. He was very good before Serra but absolutely great afterward.

 

Sonnen wasn't a fluke. Sonnen taps to verbal arm twisting.

 

Are you kidding me? If you can't see a difference in GSP's game plan from the first Serra fight to the second Serra, I'm not sure what you're watching.

Sure GSP was aggressive but only in take downs and GNP. He took no chances on his feet and got the fight down as quickly as possible.

And I guess you didn't see the Koscheck fight immediately following the Serra loss wherein George almost shit himself trying to get the fight to the ground.

But honestly, this isn't an opinion I formulated on my own. I am basically regurgitating the sentiment of almost any expert that's chimed in on GSP's transformation.

We will just have to disagree.