# Who Had The Best Title Run - GSP or Anderson Silva?



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Who do you think had the best run?

On one hand you have Anderson Silva - At an age where most fighters are done or at the twilight of their careers, Anderson Silva was making the impossible look possible.

On the other hand you have GSP - The Ultimate game planner, he had the best wrestling in the business and seemed to be great at the other aspects of MMA. He also retired undefeated.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

GSP, retired undefeated as champion, faced the better standard of competition. Anderson can't say the same.


----------



## canecorso (Jul 10, 2012)

serra beat GSP?


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

GSP had the better run and tougher opponents. History will be kinder to Anderson though, people will watch his highlights forever.


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

For me its Silva because of the way he won. Feel the same way about Tyson/Mayweather. They were finishing fighs emphatically and depended less on a shit judges opinion. Also Gsp getting knocked out by Serra doesn't help. Love them both tho of course


----------



## Kickass32 (Mar 10, 2016)

Easily GSP, he did it without the help of PED's


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

It's close but I give it to GSP, WW has always been a stacked division and he cleared it out.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Unfortunately for Anderson once he got caught juicing it pretty much tainted and killed any "legacy" he ever had. But for me I consider four men to be the p4p best fighters in the world.

Bas Rutten 1995-2000
Fedor Emelianenko 2001-2006
Georges St. Pierre 2007-2011
Jon Jones 2011-2016

Georges St. Pierre

Fought every top welterweight
Rematched his toughest opponents
Avenged his loses
Didn't lose a round for 5 years
Had guys moving up and dropping down to face him

Taking away the cheating you can make a legitimate case that Anderson was never the best Middleweight in the world.

Frank Shamrock, Cung Le, Jason Miller, Jake Shields, Dan Henderson, Jacare Souza, Tim Kennedy, Robbie Lawler, Keith Jardine and Luke Rockhold
>
Rich Franklin, Anderson Silva, Nate Marquardt, Dan Henderson, Patrick Cote, Thales Leites, Demian Maia, Vitor Belfort, Yushin Okami, Chael Sonnen


----------



## systemdnb (Dec 7, 2008)

I feel all the arguments above but GSP even facing his weakest opposition never made look as easy as the Spider. He also NEVER moved up a weight class because there were no opponents and completely destroyed decent TOUGH talent not once, not twice, but three times. In which all 3 of those LHW's ALL tested positive for illegal substances. I stand with the GOAT. Anderson Silva.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

Has to be GSP. Silva had an amazing run but he lost rounds to multiple opponents and came very close to losing fights (Sonnen I). GSP never even came close to losing for so long, he made the best of the division look easy. I consider GSP's undefeated streak of rounds a far more impressive, unbeatable record than Silva's run (still obviously incredible).


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

JWP said:


> For me its Silva because of the way he won. Feel the same way about Tyson/Mayweather. They were finishing fighs emphatically and depended less on a shit judges opinion. Also Gsp getting knocked out by Serra doesn't help. Love them both tho of course





systemdnb said:


> I feel all the arguments above but GSP even facing his weakest opposition never made look as easy as the Spider. He also NEVER moved up a weight class because there were no opponents and completely destroyed decent TOUGH talent not once, not twice, but three times. In which all 3 of those LHW's ALL tested positive for illegal substances. I stand with the GOAT. Anderson Silva.


This for me. Finishing the opponents >>> not losing rounds

People rave about St. Pierre's dominance over his opponents for shutting their games down and not losing a round, but there is nothing more dominant than being awake while your opponent sleeps. In a real fight, Silva could have decided whether his opponent would die or not. St. Pierre could not.

The penis pills leave a bad taste though.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

He moved up three times to face slow brawlers that he matched up very well against...

also funny thing

Vitor Belfort would have earned a rematch in Fall 2012
Dan Henderson would have earned a rematch in Summer 2009
Rousimar Palhares and Martin Kampmann were in the mix in Summer 2008 

Those were tough fights, he fought Vitor coming off a year and half layoff and Henderson after a war with Rampage. I don't know if he would have won those rematches. GSP fought BJ Penn again who he beat the first time but gave him a tough fight. One guy ran towards tough fights and the other guy ran away from them.

Also Forrest Griffin and James Irvin were on "illegal" substances but we are talking about pain killers and depression medication. Which could be argued that one wasn't physically fit to fight and other wasn't mentally fit to fight.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Also Forrest Griffin and James Irvin were on "illegal" substances but we are talking about pain killers and depression medication. Which could be argued that one wasn't physically fit to fight and other wasn't mentally fit to fight.


Irvin had been popped for Steroids...and Griffin was on TRT when it was still granted (yet never suspended for it as he always tested within the threshold)...he may have been referring to that.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

LizaG said:


> Irvin had been popped for Steroids...and Griffin was on TRT when it was still granted (yet never suspended for it as he always tested within the threshold)...he may have been referring to that.


Years later though...and who else got popped for Steroids.

I don't get how a division filled with people juicing in one form or the other is greater than a division and champ and everyone else was relatively clean (Kos, Hughes, Penn, Condit, Diaz, Hardy, Jake (weed right), Alves (diuretic), Fitch)?

Oxy and Methadone are not "performance enhancing", their we've got a problem















And that's 2011 so don't give me any "broken leg" BS


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

John8204 said:


> Unfortunately for Anderson once he got caught juicing it pretty much tainted and killed any "legacy" he ever had. But for me I consider four men to be the p4p best fighters in the world.
> 
> Bas Rutten 1995-2000
> Fedor Emelianenko 2001-2006
> ...


Heck yeah Bas Rutten, imo the most well rounded and properly aggressive fighter ever. He would stalk down his opponents for real, not like a Mcgregor or a Silva but like a lion stalking its prey. Would smash through a fighters guard with open palm strikes that are in many instances more effective than punches. He had Anthony Johnson like explosive power that was pretty much impossible to take. Leave an opening for a knee strike to the body and it's going to change the fight, he took advantage of every opportunity better than any fighter, efficiency and brutality.

Bas suffered from terrible health issues as a child that always plagued him, if he were normal he'd probably be #1 all time.

sorry for music but you can see how hard he hits here


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

As others have said, it's GSP. Better competition, retired with the belt, and doesn't have an asterisk over his career by being caught taking banned substances.



John8204 said:


> Unfortunately for Anderson once he got caught juicing it pretty much tainted and killed any "legacy" he ever had. But for me I consider four men to be the p4p best fighters in the world.
> 
> Bas Rutten 1995-2000
> Fedor Emelianenko 2001-2006
> ...


I agree with everything except for the bold part... because I don't understand it. You say you can make a legitimate case that Anderson was never the best middleweight, I get that, but the two lists of fighters confuses me. Can you explain what you mean? I'm probably just being really stupid at the moment and for some reason not getting what you are saying.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

I think Bas Rutten vs Igor Vovchanchyn was the one great fight we never saw from that openweight era.






Igor won 12 tournaments in a row, when he was 5'8, 230. And his loss came against Mark Coleman after fighting an hour, to knees on the ground. But you know Bas didn't do the tournament thing and we missed it. He was definitely smarter for it.



M.C said:


> I agree with everything except for the bold part... because I don't understand it. You say you can make a legitimate case that Anderson was never the best middleweight, I get that, but the two lists of fighters confuses me. Can you explain what you mean? I'm probably just being really stupid at the moment and for some reason not getting what you are saying.


Strikeforce MW title run during the Silva title run.

Anderson was great but he was fighting half a division, arguably the weaker half of the division.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Oh okay.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

I vote for GSP!
He was more complete, more well rounded without weaknesses.
Anderson had weaknesses and was losing or had close fights when opponents were able to push his weak spots (wrestling).

GSP had no weaknesses.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

GSP had the better title run, and in hindsight with Anderson testing positive he also has been dropped down a few steps in his career.

I really don't agree with adding Bas Rutten in there. Bas built a career on beating people with limited skill sets at a time when MMA wasn't established at all. If Kevin Randleman had ground and pound, he would have won that fight effortlessly. He may have been the best in the world at that time, but I feel that in the Greatest of All Time lists you also need to have the quality in opponents there as opposed to just the streaks and dominance.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I really don't agree with adding Bas Rutten in there. Bas built a career on beating people with limited skill sets at a time when MMA wasn't established at all. If Kevin Randleman had ground and pound, he would have won that fight effortlessly. He may have been the best in the world at that time, but I feel that in the Greatest of All Time lists you also need to have the quality in opponents there as opposed to just the streaks and dominance.


You have zero idea of what you are talking about.

He beat guys with "limited" skill sets....everyone had "limited" skill sets, the sport was built on the competing mixed martial arts styles. 

If Kevin Randlman had "ground and pound" well except for the most common way he won back then was submission to strikes.

He didn't have "quality" opponents. 
-he beat the King of the Cage Light HW Champion (Vernon White)
-he beat the UFC LHW champion...twice (Shamrock)
-he beat the UFC LHW tournament champion (Mezger)
-he beat the UFC HW champion...twice (Smith)
-he beat the future UFC HW champion (Randleman)
-he beat the man the beat Fedor (Kohsaka)
-he beat the Pancrase MW and WW Champion (Kunioku)
-he beat the Pancrase LHW Champion (Yamamiya)
-he beat the Pancrase HW Champion (Takahashi)
-he beat the Pancrase Openweight Champion (Minoru Suzuki)
-he beat the Pancrase Openweight Champion (Masakatsu Funaki)
-he beat the Pancrase Openweight Champion (Frank Shamrock)
-he beat the Pancrase Openweight Champion (Guy Mezger)
-he beat Jason Delucia and Yamada who fought for the title on multiple occasions

He didn't clean out a division he cleaned out an entire promotion.

He fought at a time where you showed up 6-9 times a year to fight.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

John8204 said:


> You have zero idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> He beat guys with "limited" skill sets....everyone had "limited" skill sets, the sport was built on the competing mixed martial arts styles.
> 
> ...


You're so aggressive on here recently. Take a deep breath before each post mate.

Anyways, yeah, the sport was developing, that's why I think it's hard to add them into the list. People talk about how great Royce Gracie was, but by UFC 10 I don't see him winning a tournament against some of the guys they had signed. Bas Rutten would have probably struggled win many fights in the UFC by about 2003/2004 (had he avoided injuries). 

Bas Rutten did great because he had the ability to do most things, same with Ken Shamrock. The problem with that is once you start fighting guys who are great at specific aspects and competent in others, you struggle to find a place where you will be dominant. I don't think Bas Rutten outstrikes Andrei Arlovski or outgrapples Frank Mir in those days. I think he would have struggled with the majority of top UFC and Pride fighters and have looked pretty average, as he did when he fought Randleman and Kohsaka. I don't think he had too much of a chance with Randy either (an unfortunate fight we never got to see).

He was a big fish when the talent pool was limited.


----------



## MMAexamined (May 11, 2015)

Silva was more attractive to watch than GSP. GSP had that killer tactic. He was a chess player inside of the ring. 

Silva has that special vibe that separates him from all others. Being that good at age of 40+ is something really special.

IMO Anderson had attractive wins and I feel the privileged to watch him.

So my vote goes to the effect of wins by Anderson (really hard to pick)


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

For me Andersons reign was the most impressive.

Not to take anything away from GSP, but when I'm old and grey and talking to the grand-kids about my era of MMA, I think they'll listen in awe as I recite tales of Matrix Silva.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You're so aggressive on here recently. Take a deep breath before each post mate.
> 
> Anyways, yeah, the sport was developing, that's why I think it's hard to add them into the list. People talk about how great Royce Gracie was, but by UFC 10 I don't see him winning a tournament against some of the guys they had signed. Bas Rutten would have probably struggled win many fights in the UFC by about 2003/2004 (had he avoided injuries).
> 
> ...


You mean Frank Shamrock, well actually you mean Ken because you likely don't know the difference between the two.

As for Frank Mir and Andrei Arlovski they were good in the B HW division and they didn't even face each other.

But lets say Bas vs Frank happened in 1996, how is a guy who can't go for five minutes going to go for a twenty minute round? 

Andrei Arlovski would have been knocked out if he fought Bas, he was after all Ko'd several times including to Pedro Rizzo.

The first generation of fighters had it much tougher then any other generation, they fought all the time against each other with rules changing constantly. They didn't have weight classes and years of training, Dan Severn walked off the street into the UFC and almost beat Royce Gracie.

You know what's worse than fighting a wrestler, BJJ, and K1 Striker fighting them back to back which is what most of those guys did. Either in a night or after a few weeks, you didn't have six months to prep and train specifics you had to be great and what you did and you had to improve because chances are you would see that person again.

And we don't discuss Royce as a GOAT for the same reason we won't discuss Anderson, they juiced.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I really don't agree with adding Bas Rutten in there. Bas built a career on beating people with limited skill sets at a time when MMA wasn't established at all. If Kevin Randleman had ground and pound, he would have won that fight effortlessly. He may have been the best in the world at that time, but I feel that in the Greatest of All Time lists you also need to have the quality in opponents there as opposed to just the streaks and dominance.


I disagree. A limited skillset at a specific time also means it's harder to find training partners to push and evolve you and less material in opponents to analyse that gives you riddles to solve. So being dominant in such a time is already an achievement by itself, it means you found the right way to train and the others didn't. This is part of being a fighter - being ahead of the others.

This is a different consideration than P4P where you put fighters as they are at an imaginary same weight.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

John8204 said:


> You mean Frank Shamrock, well actually you mean Ken because you likely don't know the difference between the two.
> 
> As for Frank Mir and Andrei Arlovski they were good in the B HW division and they didn't even face each other.
> 
> ...


Why did I mean Frank Shamrock exactly? Frank was a bit more talented in every area and he adapted to later styles of the game a bit more. Ken Shamrock, whom I mentioned, joined the UFC with ideas of wrestling and submissions as well as some at least basic striking which allowed him to beat a lot of guys. You stick Ken in with someone who is very proficient at one aspect, say striking, and has competent takedown defence, and he likely gets crushed every time.

Why in 1996? The reason I used 2003 as an example was because Bas wouldn't have even been 40 by then. He'd still have been in shape and everything if we take away the injuries, so what I'm talking about is Bas Rutten Vs a then-top level Frank Mir. 

"He'd been knocked out several times". He'd been knocked out twice. If you want to do this maths, Bas Rutten has a zero % chance of beating Mir because he got submitted 3 times. 

I wasn't aware you were the official judge and jury of who we're allowed to speak of in GOAT terms. You should get a special sticker to put on your jumper.



Voiceless said:


> I disagree. A limited skillset at a specific time also means it's harder to find training partners to push and evolve you and less material in opponents to analyse that gives you riddles to solve. So being dominant in such a time is already an achievement by itself, it means you found the right way to train and the others didn't. This is part of being a fighter - being ahead of the others.
> 
> This is a different consideration than P4P where you put fighters as they are at an imaginary same weight.


Don't get me wrong, it's a MASSIVE achievement to succeed like Bas Rutten did. He was a great fighter with a lot of solid accolades. I'm not writing off what he did. My personal idea of being the greatest of all time isn't relative to timelines though. It's down to how good you were, your achievements and who you beat. I find it hard to say Bas Rutten is the greatest of all time when I don't think he would last in a fight with guys like Fedor, Cro Cop, Big Nog, Cain, Werdum or even Brock. 

Martial arts constantly advances, but bodies aren't changing. Mike Tyson was one of the hardest punches on the planet before the UFC was even invented, and would still be one of the hardest punchers of all time. Muhammad Ali still had the flow and rhythm to his striking that he did. I think to say "Ahhh well, it was the early days, that means you can give them allowances" is writing off guys like Matt Hughes or BJ Penn who were capable of putting it all together just a few short years after Rutten hung up his gloves.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I think Anderson has the better resume. Beating top 5 guys with utter ease. KOs. Subs. Went up to fool around. I would rather have Anderson's career for sure even as impressive as GSPs is. How you do it matters to me. He was able to take risks and go on that tun while GSP had to play a "game" and be considered the most calculated fighter ever. 

With all that said I feel Anderson getting popped tarnished it a bit. If he was on roids for his run or part of it then obviously id rather take GSPs.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I'll stick with Frank Shamrock. Nobody has ever done it better. LHW Champion not as big as todays welterweights. 5 defenses against the best the ufc could find and walked away on top. Y'all can argue quality of opposition or what ever but he was the smallest man in the fight every time against champions from other organizations and Olympic medalists. Others may have fought against better but there never was a champ that the UFC wanted to lose more than Frank. 

yay frank!


----------



## halifaxdonair (Aug 27, 2011)

Silva was more dominant in his title run than GSP. I know that people like to think welterweight was a tough division, but honestly, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Jake Shields, Dan Hardy, and Matt Serra did very little to earn shots. 

I do think that GSP would have beaten Silva, but Silva had the better title run.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Why did I mean Frank Shamrock exactly? Frank was a bit more talented in every area and he adapted to later styles of the game a bit more. Ken Shamrock, whom I mentioned, joined the UFC with ideas of wrestling and submissions as well as some at least basic striking which allowed him to beat a lot of guys. You stick Ken in with someone who is very proficient at one aspect, say striking, and has competent takedown defence, and he likely gets crushed every time.
> 
> Why in 1996? The reason I used 2003 as an example was because Bas wouldn't have even been 40 by then. He'd still have been in shape and everything if we take away the injuries, so what I'm talking about is Bas Rutten Vs a then-top level Frank Mir.
> 
> ...


But I disagree that Hughes was on the same level as Rutten.

Rutten had elite standup and grappling as well as a deadly clinch game, he was dangerous everywhere. More dangerous than BJ Penn even, Rutten fought with a brutal efficiency that very few even get close to. Penn would pick his opponents apart, Rutten would hit with the intention of hurting his opponents while they were guarding to mentally break them.

His palm strikes would work in todays mma, right behind the ear they are just as effective as punches with no chance of breaking the hand, better defense and a larger target to hit. 

The way he beat his opponents is why he stands out as elite, he would crush them most of the time. Just smash right through them and if it went to grappling he could cinch up a choke faster than anyone I've ever seen. 

When most fighters (even today) would be locking it up he's already holding it and the opponent is already near unconscious, when the scramble turns to trying to defend the choke the opponent was already going out. Aoki level submission aggression. His skillset is transferable today and he'd give many fighters a really tough fight, especially if he were healthy in top form. 

Put him in the pocket with anyone, 2 or 3 strikes smash through the guard, a liver shot and a knee to the body nobody could withstand, especially no one at 205. He had strikes inbetween the range of punches and elbows that nobody else had, a completely different range. If he's real close but just outside elbows he could land devestating strikes over and over without any windup or need to get off balance, he could stay right inside the pocket and hit people when they least expected it. 

He also had more class than pretty much any fighter not named GSP, he showed grace even to fighters that were trying to cheat. 

Left to the head, chop at the liver and they're going down.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

M.C said:


> As others have said, it's GSP. Better competition, retired with the belt, and doesn't have an asterisk over his career by being caught taking banned substances.


This, and it isn't even close.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

halifaxdonair said:


> Silva was more dominant in his title run than GSP. I know that people like to think welterweight was a tough division, but honestly, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Jake Shields, Dan Hardy, and Matt Serra did very little to earn shots.
> 
> I do think that GSP would have beaten Silva, but Silva had the better title run.


Nick Diaz was the Strikeforce Welterweight Champion
Jake Shields won the Rumble on the Rock Tournament (which featured Carlos Condit, Yushin Okami, Anderson Silva, Frank Trigg and David Menne)
BJ Penn almost beat GSP
Matt Serra or Chris Lytle would have been excellent challengers

Dan Hardy was the last Welterweight standing after Mike Swick, Martin Kampmann, Carlos Condit, and Jake Ellenberger loss

Also George never lost his title



oldfan said:


> I'll stick with Frank Shamrock. Nobody has ever done it better. LHW Champion not as big as todays welterweights. 5 defenses against the best the ufc could find and walked away on top. Y'all can argue quality of opposition or what ever but he was the smallest man in the fight every time against champions from other organizations and Olympic medalists. Others may have fought against better but there never was a champ that the UFC wanted to lose more than Frank.
> 
> yay frank!


Frank's great but I think of him as an earlier BJ Penn or Randy Couture, great fighter but too many loses and to many split series to put him ahead of Bas and Igor.

But he's a solid top five guy and his fight Tito is still in my opinion the greatest LHW title fight of all-time.

Bas Rutten won the series 2-1 against Frank and he beat two men who beat Frank in Yamada, and Kunioku


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

John8204 said:


> Also George never lost his title


He did not¿ :confused02:

Was the Serra fight only about who'd pay the other guy's beer at the after party¿

After regaining the title, St. Pierre was smart enough to "retire" before the inevitable loss. (Many thought he lost to Hendricks though). That was after 9 title defenses, Silva had 10 + 4 non-title fights, 3 of which were a weight class above his own which makes it 5 successful fights more for Silva during the title run than St. Pierre.

And St. Pierre greased


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I always forget GSP greased.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

Easy Anderson. GSP is great but he was an extremely boring fighter who never finished anyone. To be all time great and impressive you need some greats KO's and subs on the resume. Matt Serra ruined GSP.

If were talking about cheating, they both are cheaters. I give them a pass because I honestly think 90% of fighters have tried to cheat at some point.


----------



## halifaxdonair (Aug 27, 2011)

John8204 said:


> Nick Diaz was the Strikeforce Welterweight Champion
> Jake Shields won the Rumble on the Rock Tournament (which featured Carlos Condit, Yushin Okami, Anderson Silva, Frank Trigg and David Menne)
> BJ Penn almost beat GSP
> Matt Serra or Chris Lytle would have been excellent challengers
> ...


Nick Diaz got the title fight on a loss and drug suspension. He was 1-1 in the division.

Jake Shields had 1 fight at welterweight in the previous 2 years. his win was an unimpressive split decision. 

BJ had no welterweight fights in 2 years and a 2 fight division losing streak. 

Serra won a reality show, but was 1-1 in division. he won so I guess he deserved it. 

Dan Hardy at least had a winning streak, so you are right. 

All good fighters, but most were fast tracked to a titleshot because the division is remembered more fondly then it was.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I just don't think John realizes that he does what he fights other people for doing. He would sit there and rip Anderson's entire record apart (pre-juicing cause now he feels he doesn't have to) and would say things like "He beat an old man Hendo, so what?". 

You can rip anyone's record apart. People rip Mayweather's record apart when the dude for a while fought an exclusive list of potential Hall of Famers.


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

I would give my opinion, but it is clear it will only lead to be being argued with. My post will more than likely be picked apart by experts.

With that being said... GSP.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

People might hate me for this. I'd have to go with Jon Jones having the best title run. Not only is he still undefeated, he dominated his opponents everywhere. If GSP's wrestling were combined with Anderson Silva's striking in the same body, Jon Jones might be the outcome.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

Both title runs were on par and both have asterisks. GSP got KOed and won a razer thin decision against Hendricks before retiring. Anderson's asterisk is well documented, but that wasn't til after his late comeback so it can never be 100% verified. 

Georges' struggled early on losing against Hughes, Serra, and nearly to BJ in their first encounter. Anderson never struggled til very late in his career. You have one fighter who had a clinical game plan. Another who was pure talent and in my opinion improvised along the way. Both are impressive in that regards. 

However, you rarely hear or see any GSP highlights. Both were chess players, but GSP was the master positional grinder and Anderson was the grand master creating advanced level traps (Yushin, Vitor, Chael, Forrest in particular), hitting high risk maneuvers, and executing flawlessly. Simply put, GSP had too many decisions. I believe most people go with GSP due to some bias especially with the PED situation. But lets be frank no other MMA fighter has been able to replicate what Anderson has done consistently. Both were impressive runs and peaked simultaneously. I just wished GSP would have taken the fight for both their legacies. :thumbsup:


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

I prefer GSPs because with the exception of Hardy i think for a 3/4 year period GSP was always fighting the concensus number 2 Welterweight in the world in his title defenses. I cant say the same about Silva (which isn't necessarily his fault a lot of the best Middleweights werent signed to the UFC for a long time).
But definitely Silva's title defense will live on longer in the memory than GSPs.

The funniest thing about this thread is people discrediting GSPs or Silvas wins. Its so easy in hindsight to say they had 'easy fights' that they were expected to win but if you go back and read the old threads of GSP/Fitch, GSP/Condit, Silva/Hendo or even Silva/Griffin a sh*t load of people thought theyd lose. Everyones a genius with hindsight on their side.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

No_Mercy said:


> Both title runs were on par and both have asterisks. GSP got KOed and won a razer thin decision against Hendricks before retiring. Anderson's asterisk is well documented, but that wasn't til after his late comeback so it can never be 100% verified.
> 
> Georges' struggled early on losing against Hughes, Serra, and nearly to BJ in their first encounter. Anderson never struggled til very late in his career. You have one fighter who had a clinical game plan. Another who was pure talent and in my opinion improvised along the way. Both are impressive in that regards.
> 
> However, you rarely hear or see any GSP highlights. Both were chess players, but GSP was the master positional grinder and Anderson was the grand master creating advanced level traps (Yushin, Vitor, Chael, Forrest in particular), hitting high risk maneuvers, and executing flawlessly. Simply put, GSP had too many decisions. I believe most people go with GSP due to some bias especially with the PED situation. But lets be frank no other MMA fighter has been able to replicate what Anderson has done consistently. Both were impressive runs and peaked simultaneously. I just wished GSP would have taken the fight for both their legacies. :thumbsup:


Anderson had double the losses on his record pre-Weidman than GSP has total. Anderson struggled more than GSP did in the "early years", he had more losses.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

M.C said:


> Anderson had double the losses on his record pre-Weidman than GSP has total. Anderson struggled more than GSP did in the "early years", he had more losses.


True pre-UFC he had a few losses, but he was the Shooto and Cage Rage Champ. Once he got into the Octagon he shredded all competition. GSP had a bit of a bumpy learning curve and dropped a title defense. I don't deny GSP's title run at all though. He's one of my favorites as well, but I've always been about flashy wins so based on that and the length of tenure my pick goes to The Spider. Big picture, everyone will always talk about these two and it's a good thing cuz I don't think we're going to see champs as dominant and popular as they were at their height.


----------



## Intermission (Oct 1, 2009)

GSP without a doubt.

I also think we'll be saying the same about Cruz in a few years.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Trix said:


> People might hate me for this. I'd have to go with Jon Jones having the best title run. Not only is he still undefeated, he dominated his opponents everywhere. If GSP's wrestling were combined with Anderson Silva's striking in the same body, Jon Jones might be the outcome.


I actually have Jones as #2 on my GOAT list not far behind Silva, ahead of St. Pierre also because of wrecking opponents instead of grinding. So no hate there.

A few more wins and maybe going up to HW, then Jones could surpass Silva.

Silva is something special to me though because of his technique and efficiency. There are other successful grinders just a bit short of St. Pierre's skill level, but dropping people with a jab via timing and using their forward momentum (and of course all the matrix stuff) is something you don't see elsewhere. If Jones matures and can transfer his superbe intuitive/instinctive fighting abilities into fighting knowledge/wisdom, he can take over Silva's torch.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

After Cormier I think Jones went ahead of GSP tbh.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

No_Mercy said:


> True pre-UFC he had a few losses, but he was the Shooto and Cage Rage Champ. Once he got into the Octagon he shredded all competition. GSP had a bit of a bumpy learning curve and dropped a title defense. I don't deny GSP's title run at all though. He's one of my favorites as well, but I've always been about flashy wins so based on that and the length of tenure my pick goes to The Spider. Big picture, everyone will always talk about these two and it's a good thing cuz I don't think we're going to see champs as dominant and popular as they were at their height.


GSP actually earned a title shot running through the division to get to Matt Hughes, Anderson was given a very favorable fight against Chris Leben.

I would argue that they did this to avoid Anderson having to face a tough three round fight which he could lose against a wrestler/grappler. 



halifaxdonair said:


> Nick Diaz got the title fight on a loss and drug suspension. He was 1-1 in the division.
> 
> Jake Shields had 1 fight at welterweight in the previous 2 years. his win was an unimpressive split decision.
> 
> ...


They were fasttracked to title shots because they had titles. BJ Penn was the LW champion when he fought the WW champion. 

Did Anderson Silva go from the MW championship fight to the LHW championship fight?

Nick Diaz was 1-1, but was the Strikeforce WW champion and he lost a close fight to Carlos Condit for the UFC WW championship. It could be argued that he was in line for a title fight.

Matt Serra was a TUF tournament winner he was actually 1-2 officially but 3-2 unofficially avenging his loss to Shonie Carter in the process. Serra didn't have the best record but he fought some of the best welterweights in the world.

Jake Shields, you can't bring up Jake Shields in an arguement between Silva and GSP. We just saw Anderson get wrestled to death against Chael Sonnen when Jake came over so the UFC did the only thing natural to do.

They made Jake enter at a lower division and gave Anderson Silva a guy coming off a year and a half layoff.

Anderson Silva took a title fight against a guy who won his fight having lost all three rounds but won a split decision due to point deductions.

You know whats worse than fighting a guy off a reality show, fighting the winner and the runner up of that reality show...that Anderson did.

We agree 1-1 is a crappy record to get a title fight on well how many 1-1's did Anderson face...two Maia and Henderson. When Henderson earned his rematch beating Bisping, Palhares, and Franklin the UFC shipped him off to fight for the real Middleweight belt in Strikeforce (which he lost because Jake Shields > Anderson Silva).

And that is the thing that really pisses me off about Anderson's "run". If he was really fighting the best in the world why did the UFC cut most of his title challengers (Leites, Henderson, Marquardt, Cote, Okami, Lutter) and make Rich Franklin leave the division.

GSP fought the best ww's in the UFC and then the best ww's of his generation. Anderson Silva took the fights that would make him look the best in 5 second gifs.

Anderson Silva is the pound for pound best politician in the game. He was the dirtiest player in the game and he was so good at it. His greatest fights weren't the ones he won but the ones he ducked so beautifully.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

Just wanted to add that Jon Jones is the greatest fighter I've ever seen. I have him as P4P #1 all time. Gsp was the greatest ambassador as champion we have ever seen and by far the most likable. Anderson Silva came across as a nice guy (even though I've heard otherwise) but he was the Matrix and would take huge risks many fighters wouldn't dream of. It's all speculative, I'm sure many people still feel Chuck or Randy, even Fedor or Hendo are the greatest ever. It comes down to a matter of opinion.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

John8204 said:


> GSP actually earned a title shot running through the division to get to Matt Hughes, Anderson was given a very favorable fight against Chris Leben.
> 
> I would argue that they did this to avoid Anderson having to face a tough three round fight which he could lose against a wrestler/grappler.
> 
> ...


He did take out the former ww champion in Carlos Newton in Pride who was a grappler and eventually had to face Lutter, Maia, Leites, Hendo, Chael, then Weidman who were all grapplers. I don't think you can really duck too many fighters in the UFC. Sooner or later they all have to face one another. Whether it's prolonged is another question. I think it's simply another angle to criticize em. The same could be said about GSP although weighing in at 198 pounds not willing to move up to 185 ever in his career. I respect him immensely so I don't hold that against em. 

IMO he could have definitely beat Chuck, Rampage, Shogun, and Lyoto for the LHW belt. Rashad and the former champ would have been much more difficult. I do feel he could have been a two division champion. 

Barring your opinion of em, did you enjoy any of his fights at all... Did you feel he brought anything to the table that hasn't been done before. If ya dislike a fighter it's almost impossible to recognize his accolades. Your posts are very articulate, but it's highly opinionated. One can only fault him for arriving on the scene and taking on the best candidates at that given time. I look at his entire career culminating with a six year+ long reign in the UFC. It wasn't a fluke or done in dodgy circumstances. His opponents were the top contenders at that time. Nobody wanted to go down or up to challenge him. Everyone felt they had a better chance in defeating GSP. Shields is slow, has a jab, and that left mid kick he always does. Fairly rudimentary striking. Shields isn't a ground wizard either. Solid, but not stellar. He's a top control grinder. I believe Anderson would have nullified it and won by TKO. 

I think ultimately his flashy wins is what's ingrained in our minds.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

John = Anderson is the dirtiest player in the game and he ducked all of his big fights. Btw I'm totally not biased.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

At least, Silva has done everything to satisfy his wife!


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

No_Mercy said:


> He did take out the former ww champion in Carlos Newton in Pride who was a grappler and eventually had to face Lutter, Maia, Leites, Hendo, Chael, then Weidman who were all grapplers. *I don't think you can really duck too many fighters in the UFC.* Sooner or later they all have to face one another. Whether it's prolonged is another question. I think it's simply another angle to criticize em. The same could be said about GSP although weighing in at 198 pounds not willing to move up to 185 ever in his career. I respect him immensely so I don't hold that against em.


The thing with the UFC is, they really don't want a division filled with wrestlers and grapplers. They'll keep you around if they think your a future champion but if they think you'll knock out champions and big fights they will let you go. 

Anderson Silva lost to Chonen and Takese, I thought at certain points he might have lost to Matt Lindland, Ivan Sallavery, Paulo Fihlo, Rousimer Palhares and Jake Shields in a three round fight. I also think he would have had trouble with Joe Doerkson, Drew McFredries, Dennis Kang, and Martin Kampmann.

The Maia and Leites...maybe he should have lost those fights, those were terrible fights. He completely ducked the rematch with Hendo. He would have lost a three rounder to Chael and I don't think much of Lutter. 



No_Mercy said:


> IMO he could have definitely beat Chuck, Rampage, Shogun, and Lyoto for the LHW belt. Rashad and the former champ would have been much more difficult. I do feel he could have been a two division champion.


Could he have or would he definitely have? 

He beats Shogun Rua. 
I think he loses to Machida, you beat Machida with wrestling and getting his timing down. I think Lyoto had more ways to win and I think he would knocked Anderson out.
Chuck Liddell, before or after he lost his chin.
Rampage, it would have been up to what condition came into that fight in.

I don't think he would have had an answer for Rashad's shot, and I think Randy would have been a nightmare for him. But we'll never know because he only fought LHW brawlers with weak KO power.



> Barring your opinion of em, did you enjoy any of his fights at all... Did you feel he brought anything to the table that hasn't been done before. If ya dislike a fighter it's almost impossible to recognize his accolades. Your posts are very articulate, but it's highly opinionated.


I dislike the narrative of Anderson Silva as one of the all-time greats. For me he was never the undisputed MW champion of the world he was the UFC MW champion of the world. It doesn't mean I don't *like* him as a fighter. I like Brock Lesnar more than I like Fedor but I would never call Brock greater than Fedor.




> One can only fault him for arriving on the scene and taking on the best candidates at that given time. I look at his entire career culminating with a six year+ long reign in the UFC. It wasn't a fluke or done in dodgy circumstances. His opponents were the top contenders at that time. Nobody wanted to go down or up to challenge him. Everyone felt they had a better chance in defeating GSP. Shields is slow, has a jab, and that left mid kick he always does. Fairly rudimentary striking. Shields isn't a ground wizard either. Solid, but not stellar. He's a top control grinder. I believe Anderson would have nullified it and won by TKO.


The UFC MW division of Anderson's run was nothing special. The difference between Silva and Lombard is Silva had better paperwork. I think Anderson would have lost to Shields 4-1, I think he would have taken him down with trips or held him against the cage and Anderson would have never gotten an opening.



> I think ultimately his flashy wins is what's ingrained in our minds.


Great, think of him as flashy and fun but don't ever treat him like he was an undisputed champion that a special achievement you don't get from popularity or the support of the company. You get that from beating the best, from being good at everything, for being smart and not using PEDs.

Love the man but don't act like he was something that he wasn't.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> John = Anderson is the dirtiest player in the game and he ducked all of his big fights. Btw I'm totally not biased.


Anderson = GREATEST dirtiest player in the game and he ducked all of his bad fights and built up big fights.

Clyde = Making friends in every thread on this board. You manage to be as popular as Ebola and as charming as Kayne West.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

Ultimately I wished GSP had agreed to fight Anderson and Anderson agreed to fight both Lyoto and Bones for his legacy. Anderson is on the same boat as Mike Tyson. Everyone remembers Tysons obliteration, but in fact other champion boxers may have faced stronger opposition. Ultimately it's about timing. 

Matt Lindland, Doerkson, Kang were all on par with Jeremy Horn whom Anderson beat soundly. Fact is he was always susceptible to getting taken down and submitted. One point we agree on is the filtering of wrestling/grappling based fighters. That's why Fitch, Shields, and Yushin are gone. Not fan friendly, but all are competent and capable of picking off top contenders.

Besides the "viagra gate" I feel it favors Anderson and the consensus world wide is probably the same whether by a slim margin or not. Now this statement is a matter of opinion therefore it will always be debated. Nothing you do or say will sway my opinion and I'm sure the same as well for you. 

After all is said in done, both names will always be mentioned in the top P4P list with two of the best title runs in the history of the sport.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

John8204 said:


> Anderson = GREATEST dirtiest player in the game and he ducked all of his bad fights and built up big fights.
> 
> Clyde = Making friends in every thread on this board. You manage to be as popular as Ebola and as charming as Kayne West.


Oh no, the crazy crew don't like me. By 2020 you guys will be living in shacks without the internet, fighting against the establishment as badass anarchists anyways so I don't care much for your friendship big man.

Anderson > Bas Rutten on any day of the week.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

And for sure, Silva is the best dancer of all those in question!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Love both.

Overall fight wise, Anderson Silva hands down. Some of the best moments in MMA that dude provided to us and he is ahead on the records too. Talent from another world.

Now, regarding work ethics, example, focus, drive, strategy, respect and discipline, though, GSP hands down. For me, a role model champion and athlete for any other younger fighter for his attitude combined with his skills and dedication.

Now you just imagine a fighter putting together these two sets of qualities.


----------



## endersshadow (Mar 10, 2010)

One of the biggest differences between GSP and Silva is GSP adapted his gameplan to the weakness of his opponent. Silva just struck with everyone. Don't get me wrong, GSP DID beat people at their own game, but only if he knew he could. What would GSP do if he fought Damian Maia - both in their prime? GSP sure as hell wouldn't try and take Maia down.

You could say that GSP was a smarter fighter or could only do so because he was more well rounded. However, I tend to think GSP always took the more cautious, sure-win strategy. To me, that doesn't make him a better fighter. It just makes him more conservative.

Regarding the never losing a round for X number of years, GSP took people down and laid on them for 5 minutes. Of course he's going to win every round. Does that make him a better "fighter" or a better "wrestler"?


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

endersshadow said:


> One of the biggest differences between GSP and Silva is GSP adapted his gameplan to the weakness of his opponent. Silva just struck with everyone. Don't get me wrong, GSP DID beat people at their own game, but only if he knew he could. What would GSP do if he fought Damian Maia - both in their prime? GSP sure as hell wouldn't try and take Maia down.


What did you want Silva to do? Grapple with strikers? Why would he do that?


----------



## Kickass32 (Mar 10, 2016)

The big caveat though is, you can't question GSP's career, it is what it is. Anderson is a proven cheater that throws his entire career into question


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Silva without a shadow of a doubt. He entertained. Sure he got caught cheating, but so did GSP. . .

Don't get me wrong, i like both guys for different reasons, and both were impressive in their own right, but i hate that GSP turned into a points fighter post-Serra loss.


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

honestly Anderson had way better finishes and just matrix syle flashy stuff. GSP had higher caliber opponents. The best title run though of all time goes to Jon Jones who has beat a whos who of people and is flashy. Jones is by far the best fighter ever and has had the hardest competition.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

JASONJRF said:


> honestly Anderson had way better finishes and just matrix syle flashy stuff. GSP had higher caliber opponents. *The best title run though of all time goes to Jon Jones who has beat a whos who of people and is flashy. Jones is by far the best fighter ever and has had the hardest competition.*


IDK, man. I think these three competitions are perfectly comparable.
We must not forget ages have passed and the new fighters learned from those senior ones. That's simple evolution, so it is hard to compare new fighters to those who were really good in the past, but just look like dinosaurs today 

Anderson fought great fighters in their time in Rich Franklin and Hendo.

Anyway, apart from DC and Gustaffson, I don't really get impressed by Jones competition to the point of saying he fought the whos who of people. And he went to the decision with the best he fought, last three fights, including Glover.

He and Anderson shared Bonnar, Vitor and Sonnen. Jones decisioned Bonnar while Anderson TKOed him. Jones almost got his arm ripped by Vitor, while Anderson gave Vitor no chance, while Sonnen roughed up Anderson bad in the first fight to get TKOed in the second, while Jones toyed with him. Perfectly comparable.

While GSP, wow, Nick Diaz, Carlos Condit, Matt Hughes, Jake Shields (have a look on who Jake Shields beat before losing to GSP: Dan Henderson, Robbie Lawler, Paul Daley...)

I really don't see Jones that ahead, if ahead at all in his competition.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

1. JBJ
2. GSP
3. drostanolone


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

1- Anderson Silva
2- GSP
3- Jose Aldo
4- Eye Poker Snow Sniffer Event Killer for Ducking Sonnen DUI Car Wrecker Who Almost Kills Mother and Child and Runs Away Dude


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

It's really hard to say. I'd give allaround skills and quality of fighters he faced to GSP but Anderson was a finisher above any we have ever seen, while GSP was considered boring by many. Silva would toy with his opponents & make it look so easy, while GSP would play it safe. Silva was good allaround but a specialist striker while GSP was great at everything. It's 50/50 for me.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

GSP for me.


----------



## Beeg (Nov 19, 2006)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Silva without a shadow of a doubt. He entertained. Sure he got caught cheating, but so did GSP. . .


Remind me when GSP was caught cheating. I know you're not going to say the vaseline thing because that was all legal.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Beeg said:


> Remind me when GSP was caught cheating. I know you're not going to say the vaseline thing because that was all legal.


Plus I mean who hasn't "cheated" in some minor way, I'm sure the vasaline on the shoulders is what stopped BJ Penn from taking GSP down.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Beeg said:


> Remind me when GSP was caught cheating. I know you're not going to say the vaseline thing because that was all legal.


I really can't tell if youre being sarcastic or not? :confused02:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I really can't tell if youre being sarcastic or not? :confused02:


GSP was never "caught" cheating..


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

slapshot said:


> GSP was never "caught" cheating..


I guess that depends on your interpretation of 'caught'.

He (and/or his corner) was caught illegally adding vaseline to parts of the body other than the face. He escaped punishment, and the fight wasnt ruled a no contest due to it being outside the criteria of events which would allow the athletic commission to overturn the outcome of the fight.

In my eyes thats being caught but not punished.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I guess that depends on your interpretation of 'caught'.
> 
> He (and/or his corner) was caught illegally adding vaseline to parts of the body other than the face. He escaped punishment, and the fight wasnt ruled a no contest due to it being outside the criteria of events which would allow the athletic commission to overturn the outcome of the fight.
> 
> In my eyes thats being caught but not punished.


GSP 100% cheated. You can find the GIF of his trainer rubbing him down in between the rounds. GSP is the reason Vaseline isn't allowed in the octagon by corner-man. This was huge issue back in the day.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I guess that depends on your interpretation of 'caught'.
> 
> He (and/or his corner) was caught illegally adding vaseline to parts of the body other than the face. He escaped punishment, and the fight wasnt ruled a no contest due to it being outside the criteria of events which would allow the athletic commission to overturn the outcome of the fight.
> 
> In my eyes thats being caught but not punished.


Yeah, basically is wasn't against the rules when they did it.... The rule did not exist so how the hell were they "illeagaly adding vaseline" when it was legal?


TheNinja said:


> GSP 100% cheated. You can find the GIF of his trainer rubbing him down in between the rounds. GSP is the reason Vaseline isn't allowed in the octagon by corner-man. This was huge issue back in the day.


What kind of bullshit do you two think you're selling?

It was not illegal at the time, at the time it was up to the ref's discretion and GSP was never in violation of any statute. I remember so many fighters having their corner do that, people act like he was the only person who's team used extra tube..:thumb02:

I can assure you I know about the situation in as much detail as anyone else and the small bit left on GSP's back was seen by the ref who directed his corner to wipe it off, they did, ref starts the round, end of drama. 

Greasegate was weak then and its weak now, I watched that fight over looking for some advantage that gave GSP and if it did it wasn't perceivable.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

slapshot said:


> Yeah, basically is wasn't against the rules when they did it.... The rule did not exist so how the hell were they "illeagaly adding vaseline" when it was legal?
> 
> 
> What kind of bullshit do you two think you're selling?
> ...


You must be a N.E. Pats fan because that's exactly how they sound. Denial is cool.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

TheNinja said:


> GSP 100% cheated. You can find the GIF of his trainer rubbing him down in between the rounds.


So GSP's trainer is... GSP? :confused02:


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

slapshot said:


> Yeah, basically is wasn't against the rules when they did it.... The rule did not exist so how the hell were they "illeagaly adding vaseline" when it was legal?
> 
> 
> What kind of bullshit do you two think you're selling?
> ...


Of course it was against the rules. I sometimes wonder whether you argue just for the sake of arguing. Basically Greg Jackson and the other numpty played dumb when questioned by the athletic commission, saying they misinterpreted or misundestood the rule.

"the tiny bit left on gsp's back" - c'mon kid, quit clowning.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Woodenhead said:


> So GSP's trainer is... GSP? :confused02:


Gsp is ultimately responsible.

Lets say Anderson Silva's coach slipped some banned sh!t into his water and Silva failed a post fight test. Regardless of whether he knew about it or not, Silva has to shoulder the responsibility. Same goes for Gsp. And for the record I dont believe for one second that Gsp didnt know what was going on. His integrity is tarnished because of that - even more so that he didnt take responsibility for it.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

OK, so we rank cheaters according to our personal bias, got it.

I don't agree regarding your view on responsibility.

At any rate: Using PEDs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "greasing" (altho Silva greased, too)


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Woodenhead said:


> OK, so we rank cheaters according to our personal bias, got it.
> 
> I don't agree regarding your view on responsibility.
> 
> At any rate: Using PEDs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "greasing" (altho Silva greased, too)


Ranking? Bias? 

Why do you imply peds are worse than greasing?


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

You think someone else throwing on too much vaseline, without being told to do so by the fighter, is the exact same as a fighter knowingly using banned performance enhancing substance(s)?

meh, none of it matters, I simply find it humorous how so many people think that their opinions and beliefs are also truisms. Modo hoc, indeed.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

GSP no doubt for me. Avenged all his losses, mandhandled most of his competition and held his own in whatever discipline.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Woodenhead said:


> You think someone else throwing on too much vaseline, without being told to do so by the fighter, is the exact same as a fighter knowingly using banned performance enhancing substance(s)?


I've not said or implied anything like that.

Greasing potentially allows you to damage your opponent in situations where you previously might not have been able. I see it being just as bad as taking peds.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Of course it was against the rules. I sometimes wonder whether you argue just for the sake of arguing. Basically Greg Jackson and the other numpty played dumb when questioned by the athletic commission, saying they misinterpreted or misundestood the rule.
> 
> "the tiny bit left on gsp's back" - c'mon kid, quit clowning.





> “This is a non-action, informational item, and therefore no formal action can be taken by the commission regarding this item,” Brady said.


Get a life buddy, that fight is why the rule was changed. It was 100% totally legal for GSP's trainer to be able to use Vaseline, that is an indisputable fact. 

It was legal to apply it to his face. 

Lets see this gif of his trainer dropping a vat on GSP's back because I watched the fight. The ref saw it, corrected it and away we went. Legally speaking the term non-actionable is very simple. 








I gotta tell ya, knowing that after GSP stood up the ref made him get wiped down with a towel makes this a non issue. 



As far as the kid comments, I have children who are more adult than you.. and probably know more about martial arts to boot if Im being honest.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

slapshot said:


> Yeah, basically is wasn't against the rules when they did it.... The rule did not exist so how the hell were they "illeagaly adding vaseline" when it was legal?
> ........
> 
> It was not illegal at the time,


It didn't prevent you from bashing TRT users when it was perfectly legal.



Woodenhead said:


> So GSP's trainer is... GSP? :confused02:


Hum, IDK, man, that's like blaming the one applying the steroid injection rather then the fighter who is taking it. I doubt GSP wasn't aware what his trainer was doing.

Anyway, he did grease, so what? I am a big fan of him and still consider him the most ethical fighter. At least his way of having advantage over others *in one occasion* wouldn't risk his opponents going blind.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

slapshot said:


> Get a life buddy, that fight is why the rule was changed. It was 100% totally legal for GSP's trainer to be able to use Vaseline, that is an indisputable fact.
> 
> It was legal to apply it to his face.
> 
> ...


Of course it was legal to apply it to his face. Thats not the issue. But like I said, you seem to enjoy picking arguments for the sake of it. Thats why I love the ignore list - to block rage machines like you.

Its a forum, kid, its nothing to get wound up about. And if me addressing you as 'kid' gets you so irate, perhaps you arent fit to have any yourself. Maybe think about what kind of an example youre setting for your children by spitting rage all ovet an internet forum.

Father of the motherphuckin year right there.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Of course it was legal to apply it to his face. Thats not the issue. But like I said, you seem to enjoy picking arguments for the sake of it. Thats why I love the ignore list - to block rage machines like you.
> 
> Its a forum, kid, its nothing to get wound up about. And if me addressing you as 'kid' gets you so irate, perhaps you arent fit to have any yourself. Maybe think about what kind of an example youre setting for your children by spitting rage all ovet an internet forum.
> 
> Father of the motherphuckin year right there.


Spitting rage? lol..


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> It didn't prevent you from bashing TRT users when it was perfectly legal.


If something is actually, you know... legal. Then why perhaps did they need a TUE for it eh?



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Hum, IDK, man, that's like blaming the one applying the steroid injection rather then the fighter who is taking it. I doubt GSP wasn't aware what his trainer was doing.
> 
> Anyway, he did grease, so what? I am a big fan of him and still consider him the most ethical fighter. At least his way of having advantage over others *in one occasion* wouldn't risk his opponents going blind.


Except for its not the same thing at all.. 

I looked it up back when it happened and the rule regarding the use of Vaseline was vague, really vague and thats why they changed it. But up to that point everyone used their own cut man and he was allowed to apply Vaseline.

I dont think they cheated or even if they tried the ref made them wipe him down anyway so whatever. Much to do about nothing IMO.

My response was more pointed at the tinfoil hat wearing GSP conspiracy contingent looking to diminish his accomplishments because of some trainer from Jackson's. 

It's not bad enough that GSP's methodical, cautious, anti climatic, fun killing style was the best style but now it was all all due to his chicanery? 

Bah, have fun with that.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

I can not believe that any adult would compare vaseline with injecting drostanolone.

Keep in mind the people complaining about GSP "cheating".

BJ Penn - who claimed he's lost fights because of Edgar corners celebration and Mike Dolce diet.

Matt Hughes - who raped a girl by pretending to be his brother and hangs out with KKK members.

Kenny Florian - who then went on to train with GSP and oh yeah got in trouble with plagerism.

Jason Miller - who has been an upstanding citizen and has done nothing wrong, But alas all of GSP's critics can't have the character of Jason Miller.


----------



## Kickass32 (Mar 10, 2016)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> It didn't prevent you from bashing TRT users when it was perfectly legal.
> 
> 
> Hum, IDK, man, that's like blaming the one applying the steroid injection rather then the fighter who is taking it. I doubt GSP wasn't aware what his trainer was doing.
> ...


The only thing I'll say, and it might not even be relevant.....but, for the most part, the only reason many fighters need the TRT was because of past PED abuse, I think that's why TRT got bashed so much before becoming illegal....at least that's why I hated it



John8204 said:


> I can not believe that any adult would compare vaseline with injecting drostanolone.
> 
> Keep in mind the people complaining about GSP "cheating".
> 
> ...


Let's not pretend GSP is of a high moral compass either, he hung out with and was friends with a known serial killer back in Quebec

......and what's with all the member bashing....can't there be a legitimate debate without trashing each other???


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

John8204 said:


> I can not believe that any adult would compare vaseline with injecting drostanolone.


Has anybody ever had an exemption for drostanolone? :confused02:
Because I think we are discussing "cheating" subject. Can you compare a strawberry with an watermelon? Well, both are fruits...


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

John8204 said:


> I can not believe that any adult would compare vaseline with injecting drostanolone.
> 
> Keep in mind the people complaining about GSP "cheating".
> 
> ...


So youre saying that because there are bigger asshats out there we cant point the finger at GSP's questionable actions?

Well then, with the likes of Lee Murray and War Machine, we best call granny to get the extra chairs out, because the whole roster is rosy enough to come for tea.

Crazy logic.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Has anybody ever had an exemption for drostanolone? :confused02:
> Because I think we are discussing "cheating" subject. Can you compare a strawberry with an watermelon? Well, both are fruits...


Does the cut man apply drostanolone to every fighter before they get into the cage?

fighters are required to have Vaseline on them, to say that a cutman's fingers went to a bad place is in the same league, nation, world as taking a steringe as steroids and shooting yourself in the ass is insanity.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

I think it's funny some posters are in absolute denial about what is cheating. Who cares. So what your hero may have cheated a little or even a lot. Most likely they have cheated 100x more then we will ever know. I'm not talking about any particular fighter, just in general. This is an MMA community and we should be able to give our OPINIONS without being insulted or told what is FACT..LMAO. It's all good, sports and MMA get everyone's emotions heightened.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Has anybody ever had an exemption for drostanolone? :confused02:
> Because I think we are discussing "cheating" subject. Can you compare a strawberry with an watermelon? Well, both are fruits...


Is drostanolone used in every fight..


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

John8204 said:


> Does the cut man apply drostanolone to every fighter before they get into the cage?
> 
> fighters are required to have Vaseline on them, to say that a cutman's fingers went to a bad place is in the same league, nation, world as taking a steringe as steroids and shooting yourself in the ass is insanity.


Funny that you say "I can not believe that any adult would compare vaseline with injecting drostanolone" but you are the only one doing this here, really.

People were talking about overall cheating and who is the ultimately responsible for cheating acts, but you are bringing this crazy direct comparison subject. Perhaps you are not an adult, then?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Kickass32 said:


> ......and what's with all the member bashing....can't there be a legitimate debate without trashing each other???


No. Welcome to the Internetz :thumbsup:


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> No. Welcome to the Internetz :thumbsup:


This is why i like talking with you... we seem to disagree on nearly everything, but it never goes any further than the topic at hand. We both debate the issue, give our own opinions, consider the others opinions... then agree to disagree or even appreciate the alternate perspective the other has given, coming around to there point of view. 

Its refreshing.


----------



## Kickass32 (Mar 10, 2016)

Voiceless said:


> No. Welcome to the Internetz :thumbsup:


Yeah, true enough I suppose


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Joabbuac said:


> This is why i like talking with you... we seem to disagree on nearly everything, but it never goes any further than the topic at hand. We both debate the issue, give our own opinions, consider the others opinions... then agree to disagree or even appreciate the alternate perspective the other has given, coming around to there point of view.
> 
> Its refreshing.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

AmdM said:


>


I often do....


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Kickass32 said:


> The only thing I'll say, and it might not even be relevant.....but, for the most part, the only reason many fighters need the TRT was because of past PED abuse, I think that's why TRT got bashed so much before becoming illegal....at least that's why I hated it


I did not approve TRT myself because it made legal one to achieve higher T numbers than a normal person, but I approved even less some fighters being granted TUEs while others were not, regardless of their reasons. 
I thought either you allowed everyone to use it or banned it's use at once. It's better now and I also praise the move of a fighter to keep going without TRT once it was taken away.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Joabbuac said:


> This is why i like talking with you... we seem to disagree on nearly everything, but it never goes any further than the topic at hand. We both debate the issue, give our own opinions, consider the others opinions... then agree to disagree or even appreciate the alternate perspective the other has given, coming around to there point of view.
> 
> Its refreshing.


I disagree with everything you say there!



:thumb02:


----------



## Beeg (Nov 19, 2006)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I really can't tell if youre being sarcastic or not? :confused02:


The NSAC grease rule is the same for MMA fighters as it is for boxers. That rule states:

_NAC 467.598 – #2. The excessive use of grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face or body of an unarmed combatant. The referees or the Commission’s representative in charge shall cause any excessive grease or foreign substance to be removed._

The key word was "excessive"… however, just like boxers, grease was allowed to be applied anywhere to the body. You weren't allowed to have a half inch of the stuff all over you, but you could have grease anywhere. This is why GSP was never sanctioned, he was never fined, and the fight was never overturned. Because no one did anything illegal. 

The NSAC couldn't amend the rule in a way that would hurt boxers (they need grease on their backs and arms as protection from abrasion burns from the ropes). So the UFC altered their rules so that only their man could apply the grease to the fighters. No more cornermen applying grease. 

That's it. GSP did nothing wrong at the time, nothing illegal, hence there was no cheating.


----------



## allstarteeth (Dec 30, 2017)

totally agree.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

GSP = undisputed GOAT

Silva couldn't even win against a piñata these days; GSP comes back to higher weight class & wins 2nd belt after a glorious finish - against a guy that beat Silva, even.

:laugh::thumb01:


----------

