Alpha Mail

Jeff Sherwood/Sherdog.com

Is Fedor Emelianenko MMA's
pound-for-pound greatest?

Frank Mir (Pictures) put it best when he said the pound-for-pound argument comes down to shrinking everyone down to the same size and asking who would win. I agree with that, and if that is truly the case, it is still hard to argue that Fedor is not the pound-for-pound king. Let’s be honest. If all these guys were 175 pounds, how do any of the other three beat Fedor? He is the only one of this group, technically, who is undefeated, and your argument is the same as Dana White’s, which, to be honest, is laughable.

Don’t get me wrong. I love all the guys you mention and think they are great, but Fedor is on another level. If a small Fedor fought Anderson Silva (Pictures), Silva would have a striking advantage, like “Cro Cop,” but he would probably get submitted rather quickly, don’t you think? GSP has all the tools, just like Fedor, but I am not sold on his overall toughness. I want to see him come back from major adversity and win a fight before I give him the crown of pound-for-pound king. Right now, I think you have to go with Fedor until proven otherwise.
-- Mark Abbott

I’d consider Penn breaking GSP’s face in the first round “major adversity,” and St. Pierre went on to win the bout.

I also can’t wrap my brain around fighters “shrinking” in size and still retaining their attributes. Fedor is Fedor because he has terrific agility for a bigger man and a lot of power. If we “shrink” him to 170, does he retain the power of a heavyweight? How do we make his skills relative to his size?

This is batty stuff. I look at pound-for-pound contention as who presents themselves as the best relative to their weight class, and who has displayed the most multi-faceted expression of mixed martial arts. Saying GSP is a better fighter than Emelianenko doesn’t presume he could beat a 170-pound Emelianenko because there really can’t be any such thing.

I read your pound-for-pound debate and I just had a question. I was always under the impression that the P4P question was one of “who would beat everyone else if they weighed the same?” Is that correct? I see it often that fighters lose points for lacking some particular aspect of their arsenal. Their wrestling is not up to par, as you mentioned, or the striking is not the best around, or whatever. My argument has been that even if you only did one thing really well, but you always won every time out doing that one thing, wouldn’t that make you the P4P best?
-- Jeff Schager

I think we’re beyond guys whose one dimension can keep them balanced on top of the ladder. Anderson Silva (Pictures) is a feared striker, but it’s his jiu-jitsu that won him fights with Dan Henderson (Pictures) and Nate Marquardt; guys who place an emphasis on one strength -- Liddell, Ortiz -- have had mixed success as of late.

What current UFC champion relies on only one offensive trait?

I just read your article about Roy Nelson (Pictures) and weight issues. Good read. When you came to the defense of the UFC, you mentioned it wanted him slimmer because of how outsiders view the sport. While I agree with that, as the UFC wants its fighters viewed as athletes and not bar fighters as you mentioned, I was wondering why you didn’t take a moment to bring up the point that if you’re not in good shape, then you’re not going to be able to provide the paying fans with an entertaining fight that goes past the first round?
-- Danny Cameron

I don’t think anyone is arguing that Nelson isn’t in good shape: he’s got wind for days. I also don’t think it’s in dispute that he’d be a more effective fighter with 30 pounds shaved off of him.

I don’t consider it discrimination. An accounting firm is probably not going to hire someone with a tattoo etched across their forehead. There’s a difference between personal expression and adversely affecting the public perception of a business.

Your article on K.J. Noons’ situation with EliteXC seemed biased and uninformed. Your title, “Avoiding Conflict,” and the article’s opening lines, “K.J. may not be a coward ...,” were extremely unprofessional cheap shots at a professional athlete, which I highly doubt you would be comfortable saying to him in person. I hope you have the guts to retract this article and publicly apologize.

Regarding the substance of your article, of which there wasn’t much, you completely failed to discuss the issue of compensation. Do you really think that Noons should take this fight, regardless of the pay? Do you not agree that Eddie Alvarez (Pictures), ranked No. 3 in the world, is a more qualified contender for the belt? Why should K.J. fight Diaz, whom he already destroyed and who is ranked below him, for terrible pay?

I give Noons credit for being one of a few fighters who is not doing whatever he is told like some kind of mindless puppet. He is negotiating and standing his ground, which is ultimately better for all fighters wanting better pay. Furthermore, Mark Dion, is doing his job by acting in K.J.’s best interest and asking for better pay and better opponents. K.J. is being asked to fight for very low pay, while Diaz is making $60,000 and “Kimbo Slice” over $100,000 per fight. -- Reed Shelger

The Noons piece was an editorial, not a news item. Editorials are biased by nature. (Sherdog really needs an op-ed page.)

Noons signed a contract that outlined his pay scale. If he wasn’t satisfied with it, he shouldn’t have committed to it. Does Diaz make more? Sure. Diaz also has 25 fights to Noons’ nine. Does Kimbo make more? Sure. Does he bring 10 times the attention to Pro Elite than Noons does? Uh-huh.

I don’t get the Alvarez talk. It’s up to Pro Elite to decide who contenders are, not fighters. You really want a system where champions get to cherry-pick their opposition?

Noons and Dion are trying to mimeograph the practice in other sports of re-negotiating over-performing athletes. The problem is, those guys are able to sit down with monoliths like the NBA or NFL. Pro Elite has a negative cash flow. Two different worlds.

Ask Chuck Liddell (Pictures) how much money he made in his first nine fights. I doubt it was much more than Noons has, and Noons has a bagful of network sponsorship cash on which to recline. I can’t sympathize with him here. Do the money match while it’s hot and collect what you can. In the process, you strengthen Pro Elite’s stature and get a step closer to fulfilling your contractual obligations. You’ve got to walk before you can run.

Long story short: my wife has an MMA documentary that just got on Netflix last week -- “Under Pressure: Diary of a Cagefighter’s Wife.” Sherdog writes articles about “Never Back Down” and “Redbelt,” stating that these movies have really missed the mark. Oh where, oh where, could a really hard-hitting, honest, intense film about MMA be hiding?
-- Todd Sturgis

I detect sarcasm, sir.

Being a glutton for all things MMA -- I once watched a “Nash Bridges” episode because of a Dan Severn (Pictures) appearance -- I ’Flixed “Under Pressure,” watched it and am happy to report your wife’s film is a provocative piece on the domestic side of MMA competition. Watching a 10-second knockout is fun. Going home and nursing the loser’s broken orbital bone, not so much.

Then again, I enjoyed “Judge Dredd,” so your mileage may vary.

For comments, email jrossen@sherdog.com.