Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../16/top.mma.fighters/index.html#ixzz0aZOhxf7V Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription What do you guys think?
Well i can't take much issue with the list myself, because i have only really become more than just a casual fan in the last 18 months or so. However, i do feel that with a sport that has developed so much in the last 10 years, if we were compiling a list based not on achievement, but solely on ability, then it'd be pretty much exclusively compiled of fighters who have had success in the last 2-3 years. Would Lidell, Hughes or Wanderlai Silva be able to put together such dominant streaks as they did in their prime, today?
I don't see why not. The talent pool is definately getting bigger, but these guys all had great abilities that would be relaitve whenever they fought. And the part about the list being based on ability makes no sense. There are plenty of fighters with plenty of ability that fought earlier in the decade. Just because the fighters you are familiar with happened to fight in the last 2-3 years doesn't mean there weren't other great talents earlier.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that great fighters have only existed in the last 2-3 years. Neither am i saying that the aforementioned fighters would cease to be relative today. Hell, even the shot versions of themselves are still considered top 15-20. They'd all be contenders at least for sure....but, in my opinion they wouldn't be able to repeat the success they had then, now. Why?...because the standard has increased, thus, those who ARE able to dominate NOW, are more skilled than those before them.
Even though the bar is being raised as the sport matures, the greats of the sport adjust with it, thats what makes them special. Fedor, Anderson, BJ and GSP ARE dominating right now so your argument doesnt really make sense.
....throw in Lyoto, and as a list of champions would you agree that is the strongest that MMA has ever had?....because that is my point. The fighters that are dominating now, are better than the guys that were dominating before.
Define "before" Your argument makes no sense. The reason that you think that they are better now is because they are more well rounded by cross training and having larger camps to train at with many different disciplines and styles to train with. If some of these fighters that dominated before had the same advantages as these new fighters then there is no telling what they would achieve. Your argument is pure speculation.
