- Joined
- Jan 11, 2019
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 3,529
Lol, sample size matters.5-4 bud, and it took Stipe 2 title reigns to get that far. Sorry!
Lol common opponents is one of the most important? <45>
I couldn’t even comment on how that “metric” looks for my favorite fighters, because it’s totally meaningless and not something I would ever care to look at. But hey, let’s look at how super importantly awesome it is.
—Nate Diaz got 50-45ed (and 50-43ed) by Benson Henderson, whereas Anthony Pettis beat Benson twice, including once by finish. Guess Pettis is “better” than Nate. Derp. Of course that’s not what happened when they fought at all, Nate beat Pettis up and 30-27ed him. Would I rank Pettis higher all time? Of course, but it’s because of what he’s accomplished on my metrics. Yours are meaningless here, it’s not an accurate predictor of who’s “better” at all.
—Brian Ebersole finished Hallman in the first round, while Matt Hughes lost to Hallman twice. So, Ebersole over Hughes all time? Lol no.
—Overeem finished Stefan Struve, and Struve finished Stipe, so I guess that means Overeem is better and we should rank him higher? Of course, Stipe beat Overeem, and no one ranks Overeem higher. In fact, no one would rank Overeem higher even if they didn’t go H2H, and that’s the point.
—Amanda Nunes has losses to 3 different fighters that Ronda destroyed. Guess Ronda is better and we should rank her higher. In fact, since Holly KOed Ronda and Miesha finished Holly, I guess that makes Miesha the GOAT! Fucking hell.
You use common opponents as a metric to compare fighters who never went head to head, and as I’ve just demonstrated, it’s not a reliable predictor. It doesn’t account for:
—bad style matchups
—fluke wins/losses
—cage or ring
—various rulesets
—-ages of fighters
—injuries they may have suffered
Additionally, if you are trying to compare fighters fighting in the same division and same era for a long enough time, they’ll just have alternating wins and losses to common opponents, like the Rose-Joanna example I gave you awhile back.
Do I need to go on? Trying to determine who is better using common opponents is a child’s way of thinking. Actually, that’s probably an insult to children, I’m sure there are some smart ones who would see how illogical it is.
Let’s take Aldo.
Aldo’s best wins- Mendes, Frankie, KZ, Lamas, Cub all got starched by fighters like Max, Volk, Conor and even Ortega.
Max also beat Aldo twice and schooled Ortega.
Volk beat Max whooping 3 times, beat Aldo and also beat Ortega.
It’s clear as a day that Volk is better than Aldo, you can’t argue against that. Volk has better cardio, wrestling, fight IQ, movement and probably also his overall striking is better than Aldo’s. Aldo might’ve been more explosive and that’s it.
There are levels to this game.