Anderson Silva, the man that Americans are quickly starting to recognize as the most dominant force in the western hemisphere, was listed as number three, while Fedor was listed at 8.
Now, I like Fedor and Anderson, and I'm glad that we had 2 guys in the top ten. But when I first heard about this, I posted this short response on MMA forum. (and, yes, for me this is a short response):
I'm not sure that I understand the justification for putting Anderson higher than Fedor.
Has Anderson spent more time dominating the sport than Fedor?
Has Anderson been in more wars than Fedor?
Has Anderson beaten fighters from every generation and style of the sport?
I think that the answer to all three of those questions is no.
Fedor's beaten two K-1 champions, UFC champions, Pride champions and fighters from every stylistic component of the sport, and he beat most of them where they are good. (he beat Coleman off his back, he beat CroCop standing up, he beat Nog from inside the guard)
I think Anderson is a great fighter, but I do think that he's very much a man of the moment. I'm not questioning his legitimacy as a fighter, but I do think that he's been pushed very hard by the mainstream media while Fedor, who has been around alot longer and hasn't burst into the American scene since it's been huge, hasn't.
Just look at Fedor's record and look at Anderson's record.
There are a half dozen guys on Fedor's record who were top 10 when he fought them, and his fights with Nogueira, CroCop and most of his breakthrough fights weren't really originally thought to be in his favor. There are only two guys (maybe three, but I don't really count Marquardt) on Anderson's record that I looked at right before the matchup and thought was a toss up (Henderson and the first Franklin fight), and that includes the fights that Anderson dropped to Chonan and Takase. He should have dominated those two guys.
This really doesn't make sense to me, but given SI's long history of MMA-illiteracy, I'm not shocked.
No comments:
Post a Comment