Where do you personally draw the line between "good" and great?

BigMuffler

Loli is love loli is life!
@Steel
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
27,170
Reaction score
9
In another thread earlier a poster said that he only considered Overeem good, but not great. One could see an argument either way, on one hand Overeem's skills seem "great" and capable of beating anybody on a given night, on the other hand he is fairly inconsistent with notable weaknesses. What do you view as the difference between a good fighter and a great one? For example do you think a fighter who has really good skills but also a glaring weakness (eg. Overeem, Pettis, Condit) can be considered great, or only good?
 
The fighters you mentioned and in your examples are all great to me, but none are arguably the greatest ever in their weight class like GSP, Anderson Silva, Jones, or Fedor. They still are much better than average and top tier
 
Honestly, it's all just in the results. Anderson had a glaring weakness with his TDD but despite that still had a great reign as champ and is considered a GOAT.
 
Last edited:
Amount of sherdoggers that agree with me
 
I think the rubric for it is changing as the sport progresses. Later fighters will have to do more to earn the esteem that guys from 2006 have. It's also subjective so no one will agree. For me personally, I think someone like Martin Kampmann was "good" and Carlos Condit is on the other side of that cusp. Martin had a lot of opportunites and a lot of talent but he never held a belt.I consider Condits WEC title and an interim title (title shot) in the UFC enough accolade for him to be a great UFC fighter. It's not just about belts though.
 
For each weight class, pick a "good" gatekeeper, and see who gets in.
 
The difference between good and great is how they perform against elite competition. Good fighters beat mid- and low-level competition but lose to the elite competitors.

Good = sustained success against mid- and low-level competition
Great = sustained success against elite competition
GOAT = long-reigning champion
 
Out of the three you listed i'd say Overeem is/was great where as Pettis & Condit are/were good.
 
Fedor, Cro Cop = Great
Roy Nelson, Ben Rothwell = Good
 
Good Q TS

Being that this isn't a team sport and each man/woman doesn't have to rely on teammates to achieve greatness, greatness can be defined by championships, title defenses, and the list of other talented fighters one has defeated..... However this is all subjective and anyone can make an argument on who is great and who is not great......I do feel that a fighter fighting past his prime and taking brutal losses in their career can definitely affect their overall legacy......Many will say Nogueria is the #2 HW of all time....Yet what I remember most about him is him getting beaten badly by Mir 2x and Cain and Werdum finishing him relatively easily....

So........


TLDR

Greatness can be defined by championships and the list of highly skilled opponents you have beaten
 
Back
Top