Classifying fighters

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
Why is that a guy like Chris Leben, who is 15-2 and lost only to Anderson Silva and Joe Doerksoen, is now considered a can, but a guy like Carlos Newton, who is 12-10, is still considered a great fighter?

Newton has lost to Matt Hughes (twice), Sakuraba, David Menne - who just lost to Josh Koscheck, of all people; Anderson Silva, and Ryo Chonan, among others.

I doubt you would find one fan of mixed martial arts who would say Koscheck is better than Newton.

Kevin Randleman is considered a good fighter. Hell, he's even KO'd Cro-Cop! But he has a record of 16-11, and has lost to a lot of great fighters like Emilianenko, Couture, Liddell, Jackson, Sakuraba, Cro-Cop, and Rutten. Where does he rank?

How important do you think a fighter's record is in determining whether they are a top-tier fighter in mixed martial arts? It is obviously much less important than in boxing, where even one loss on your record diminishes your value and esteem as a fighter. But in MMA? Why all the hate for guys like Leben who are 15-2? If this were like boxing, Leben's record would equate to, say 19-0, and he'd be the next best prospect for a title shot. But in MMA now he is a can because he lost to a great fighter.

Why is there so much difference in the way people view boxers as fighters and mixed martial artists as fighters?
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
It should depend on the quality of your opponent. But loosing to Anderson Silva is no shame.
 
Top