best fighter ever

I suppose the argument would be in this case, who has the better skill set.

Skill and win record. Size has nothing to do with comparing whos a better fighter.

Nah.

So by your theory Tim Silva and Hong Man Choi should have stomped Fedor because they tower over him. Size matters!

That's not what I said and it doesn't fit within my "theory" either.

Also, size does matter.

You think that size makes a better fighter.

Penn is the smaller fighter but has more skill you said. You said Brock is the better fighter because of the size.

=

Fedor smaller but has better skill than Tim Silva and Hong Man Choi should lose.

Thus they should win by your logic.

You restated the same thing in a more elaborate fashion my good sir.

It still isn't congruent with what I said.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Skill and win record. Size has nothing to do with comparing whos a better fighter.

That'd be a little unfair for Brock, who's only had...what, 6 fights in the UFC to show what he can do? According to your terms he's still wet behind the ears.

But IMO it should be argued that its all depends on each weight class and not whos the best fighter ever.

Originally posted by DarkC
That really depends on the performance we've seen in sanctioned bouts.

That'd be a little unfair for Brock, who's only had...what, 6 fights in the UFC to show what he can do? According to your terms he's still wet behind the ears.

Brock is still a rookie, YES he is. Once fists start flying at him and landing he gets shy really quick. Hes good on the ground only. Penn is good everwhere in the cage.

Does a Jedi count?

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'd have to disagree. The better fighter is usually the one who wins the fight. The more skilled fighter is something different.

That's not the same thing and you know it. If they both used baseball bats, it'd be a different story.

Actually, it's exactly the same thing. If you can't see the similarities, then I'll just end it here, my friend. 🙂

If you want to end it, fine. I don't believe it's the same thing though.

Yes it is.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I don't believe it's not the same thing though.

Me too. 313

Lmao! I just owned myself. 🙁

Originally posted by The Nuul
Yes it is.

I actually feel I know where you, and batdude123, were going with that; however, we'll see.

Nuul, I was actually genuinely curious of your view here. I'm usually open to considering a new viewpoint.

It's obvious the bat represents some "unfair" advantage between fighters, like size. The logic doesn't feel proper to me in this situation. Why is skill not a "bat"? Would speed be a "bat"? How about talent, athleticism, flexibility or the numerous other factors in a fight?

If we just equalize everything, the entire premise is irrelevant.

Where would you draw the line?

I'm not really into this subject but from what I've heard Bruce Lee participated in the toughest world championships of his time and won them all with relative ease. His had such strength that he could do push-ups with one finger on one hand and killed a few people by accident, his speed was so great that from having his arms in a relaxed position he could snatch a coin from a person's open palm and replace it with a nut before the person could close his hand, and his reflexes were so acute that he could catch grains of rice in mid-air with chopsticks. These qualities ought to be great advantages regardless of what martial art you're practicing. If he was allowed to use his full knowledge and technique, I believe Bruce could beat anyone in history, but I'd love to see him in a fight where he's limited to certain fighting styles, like boxing, and face him up against the best boxers in the world. For example, how would he fare in a pure fist fight against Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson? An even more interesting match-up would be Muhammad Ali vs. Mike Tyson. I'm rooting for Muhammad because of the reflexes he supposedly had (and the fact that I don't like Mike Tyson) but Mike's ability to take huge amounts of punishment could possibly give him the victory. If Muhammad has the speed and reflex advantage and Mike has the durability advantage, it's basically the matter of unstoppable force vs. immovable object.

Originally posted by CantSpellMyName
I'm not really into this subject but from what I've heard Bruce Lee participated in the toughest world championships of his time and won them all with relative ease. His had such strength that he could do push-ups with one finger on one hand and killed a few people by accident, his speed was so great that from having his arms in a relaxed position he could snatch a coin from a person's open palm and replace it with a nut before the person could close his hand, and his reflexes were so acute that he could catch grains of rice in mid-air with chopsticks. These qualities ought to be great advantages regardless of what martial art you're practicing. If he was allowed to use his full knowledge and technique, I believe Bruce could beat anyone in history, but I'd love to see him in a fight where he's limited to certain fighting styles, like boxing, and face him up against the best boxers in the world. For example, how would he fare in a pure fist fight against Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson? An even more interesting match-up would be Muhammad Ali vs. Mike Tyson. I'm rooting for Muhammad because of the reflexes he supposedly had (and the fact that I don't like Mike Tyson) but Mike's ability to take huge amounts of punishment could possibly give him the victory. If Muhammad has the speed and reflex advantage and Mike has the durability advantage, it's basically the matter of unstoppable force vs. immovable object.

Wut?