MMA Top 10 Light Heavyweights: Lyoto Machida Tops Them All

1. Rashad Evans
2. Quinton "Rampage" Jackson
3. Lyoto Machida

Reply

Mine

Rashad Evans
Lyoto Machida
Quinton “Rampage” Jackson
Forrest Griffin
Keith Jardine
Chuck Liddell
Rich Franklin
Antonio Rogerio Noguera
Thiago Silva
Renato Sobral

Reply

i like machida at #1 you should check out his knock out over rich franklin its brutal.

Reply

I like your placement of Machida at #1, but with back-to-back KO wins over top 5 LHWs how is Rashad not #1?

Who do I think would win in a "Machida vs Evans" matchup? Machida ... but we can't rate fighters based on predictions, can we?

Reply

I've never seen Rampage look so good as he did in his last fight.

It it wasn't for that, this would look a little different, but because of that performance

rampage
machida
evans

Reply

MACHIDA IS CERTAINLY GONNA GIVE ANY OF THE "TOP 10" FIGHTERS HUGE PROBLEMS.

WHILE I CERTAINLY WOULD GIVE THE EDGE TO MACHIDA OVER EVANS IN A MATCHUP, HE SHOULDN'T BE GIVEN A TITLE SHOT OR A #1 RANKING BECAUSE OF WHAT ANY OF US THINK HE'LL DO AGAINST AN OPPONENT.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS HE HASN'T FOUGHT AND BEATEN A "TOP 5" CONTENDER IN THE DIVISION. AT THE TIME, THIAGO SILVA WAS RANKED AT NUMBER 9, BUT HE HASN'T FOUGHT ANYONE EITHER. THEY'VE ONLY FOUGHT EACH OTHER AND MYSTERIOUSLY, MACHIDA GETS THE #1 RANKING? PLEASE?! IT'S NOT JUST YOUR OPPONENT, BUT YOUR OPPONENTS OPPONENTS. I'M NOT SAYING THEY HAD CAKE WALKS, BUT CERTAINLY NOT THE CALIBER FIGHTS THAT THE PROVEN ELITE HAS HAD. MACHIDA IS NO DOUBT TALENTED AND POSSIBLY A FUTURE CHAMPION, BUT I TRULY THINK HE HAS TO FIGHT AT LEAST "1" "TOP 5" CONTENDER TO EARN A TITLE SHOT. BUT GIVING HIM A TITLE SHOT AND/OR THE #1 RANKING IS QUITE FOOLISH WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE TO FIGHT TO DESERVE IT. I'M THINKING FORREST GRIFFIN WOULD BE THE PERFECT MATCHUP WITH HIM.

RANKINGS ARE AND SHOULD BE BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, NOT WHAT SOMEONE THINKS YOUR GONNA DO ONLY, ALTHOUGH THAT DOES PLAY A ROLE IN IT. I THINK RAMPAGE WILL BEAT EVANS, BUT EVANS BEAT FORREST WHO (BARELY) BEAT RAMPAGE. THEREFORE:

1. EVANS
2. RAMPAGE
3. GRIFFIN
4. RUA
5. MACHIDA
6. LIDDELL
7. HENDERSON
8. W. SILVA
9. NOGUEIRA
10. JARDINE

Reply

This article made me think of one burning question I have about the LHWs: Why does it seem so hard to have groundwork and especially submission specialists top this weight class?

BJ, GSP, Anderson Silva, Fedor, Mir, Noguiera, almost ad infinitum--whatever their great striking they're TOPS in grappling too, and often have to show it. In the other weight classes the "mixed" in MMA is front and center but not this one. (With only very rare counterpoints like Babalu, the kind of exception that's hardly dominant, or Rampage, who still has slammed anyone or taken them down so little lately.)

Is there something inherent w/ this weight class that almost every fight looks like kickboxing w/ open-finger gloves, or is this just a phase?

Reply

Thanks, Eric. But I have to disagree a bit with you; I think at the elite level we see that either a knockout or submission can end the fight in an instant--even coming from a fighter that supposedly has been "getting beaten" completely up to that point.

And this brings up my issues with the point system. I think it has totally skewed everything toward the stand up game. Think about it, a fighter pounds his opponent mercilessly for three rounds--but can't knock him out. Yet will be rewarded for the pounding on points. On the contrary, a fighter that nearly gets submission after submission is usually looked down on by the judges for not quite finishing his guy off.

Either case of dominance is only a crude indicator in a sport as dynamic as MMA, where things can turn around in an instant.

My solution is one we'll probably never see, but hear me out. Revamp MMA so that the only way to win is decisively. If you have not finished off your man in three rounds (or five for a championship bout), you don't tie either--you lose, period. (And of course if he didn't finish you, he registers a loss too.)

In a double loss, the challenger certainly doesn't win the belt--but the champion loses it and it goes vacant. (Hey, this isn't boxing, with the onus just on the challenger to prove he should be champ--but every bout for the champ the onus is on him to show he deserves to stay champ!)

It's a radical shift in MMA philosophy, and I'm sure a million two-bit arguments (none of which hold up) abour "safety" or "fairness" or whatever, yada yada yada, will ensue. But I'd like to see the change.

(And yes, though I was still impressed with Machida's latest fight, still count me a skeptic: in my book he's still only 6-8. ;-))

Reply

Actually, Eric, I do. And let me address a couple of your arguments, which are what I meant by what sounds good at first, but I don't think holds up under closer examination.

(Kind of like comparing boxing to MMA. Despite the blood and cuts being more prevalent in MMA, which sport is really shown itself far safer? Boxing aficianados kept saying MMA shouldn't exist because it's too violent and less strategic--but what's the truth? The opposite!)

W/o scoring fighters will be more violent and less tactical? I don't think so. This is still MMA, and the fighters are already being as violent as they can, albeit intelligently, as the goal is still finishing their opponent if they can!

In fact, as I suggested, I think they are being LESS tactical because even a failed standup game impresses the judges far more than a failed grappling game, not to mention playing into more fans' expectations.

And again, this is MMA, and it's unique; while we see major comebacks in many sports, they are very, very rare--not in MMA. Spike isn't running a looooong "Greatest UFC Comebacks" program for nothing!

What if the Nogueria-Silvia fight had been a three-rounder, for instance? Do I think a fight "as one-sided" as that should have gone to Silvia. Hardly. And don't forget that people still gush that Brock "dominated" Mir--yet who lost???

NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF A POUNDING A MAN TAKES, MMA SHOWS THAT IF HE IS NOT OUT HE CAN TURN IT AROUND. This is one of the sports greatest unsung appeals, I think. And while with the current scoring most of us give a nod to this reality, and so things are OK, I still think eliminating scoring altogether would be a vast improvement.

Reply