classed as a great but losing to the same person twice?

A fighter can be great without being the greatest.

In the case of Hughes/Hallman, Hallman was the better fighter over Hughes despite Hughes accomplishing more. He beat him. Twice.
 
Silva losing twice to Weidman would probably be the best example.

Liddel Rampage

Rampage Wandy

Bas Rutten losing twice to Ken Shamrock (Still can't figure this one out...)

Hughes to speedo boy

Shogun losing twice to Hendo

Frank Shamrock to Bas Rutten

Franklin to Anderson Silva

Barnett to Crocrop

Big Nog to Fedor
 
You talking about McGregors 2 losses to Nate the gatekeeper?
 
Toner said:
Jose Aldo dominated all time P4P well rounded greats Frankie Edgar 2X and Chad Mendes 2X.

Aldo is the GOAT.
Click to expand...
Didn’t ‘dominate’ Mendes the second fight, and got slept by two younger, better fighters and would again in a rematch.
 
not an all time great (yet) but rory losing to lawler twice.
 
There are a few examples of mma fighters getting beat twice by the same opponent and then beating them the third time, or getting beat the first fight and winning the next two fights between them. It's a fight and skillsets get better or stay stagnant. On the flip side, just because someone lost to another, even more then once, doesn't mean that Victor is a better fighter overall or in career importance.. just means that fighter has the skill set to beat that other fighter. One has to train, compete, etc.. to truly grasp what I mean.
 
So my point is .... is Matt Hughes better than Dennis Hallman? The answer has to be no ?
 
depends on the situation. you'd be hard pressed to call hallman a better all around fighter than hughes. but in the case of say franklin / silva, there's really no debate there.

and then there's the weird situation with cain / JDS, where one guy is clearly the better fighter and yet they both have wins over each other.
 
Greatest doesn’t mean undefeated. Greatest doesn’t mean perfect. Greatest doesn’t mean untouchable. Greatest means better than the competition.

Does this need to be broken down?? Hughes accomplished much more.
 
Defeat Unknown said:
A fighter can be great without being the greatest.

In the case of Hughes/Hallman, Hallman was the better fighter over Hughes despite Hughes accomplishing more. He beat him. Twice.
Click to expand...

Hallman lost to Frank Trigg twice. By that logic Frank is better than Hallman, who is better than Hughes. But that doesnt work, since Trigg lost twice to hughes.

you get Trigg>Hallman>Hughes>Trigg. it doesnt work.
 
Hughes is actually the perfect example. You brought up the Hallman losses, but he also lost to both GSP and BJ twice.


Anderson lost to Weidman twice and he's the best MW ever.
 
trollkin said:
Can you be classed as a great if you lost to the same person twice ? I’m thinking Matt Hughes being a great but lost twice to Dennis Hallman? JDS losing to Cain twice, Overeem losing to shogun twice ?

If asked would you say that Matt Hughes was better than Dennis Hallman, because MMA not being a team sport the answer has to be no as they fought twice and he lost twice?
Click to expand...
Anderson Silva is not great, using that logic.
 
trollkin said:
So my point is .... is Matt Hughes better than Dennis Hallman? The answer has to be no ?
Click to expand...
In what way?

Skill wise you'd still have to say no, hallman put in 2 of his best performances and got the W both times, he really do anything else after that.

It's not like nog/mir where both had great careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,621
Messages
55,431,010
Members
174,776
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top