[trollkin]

Can a fighter be ranked above a fighter who he lost too. Im not talking the typical MMA Maths Lambert > Babalu > Shogun > Rampage > Chuck etc. etc etc.

Im talking a fighter such as Randy, can he ever be regarded as a legend, a true hall of famer when he lost twice to Chuck. Wouldn't you always have to rate Chuck above Randy, even in another 10 years when looking back. Im not saying Chuck is not a legend or hall of famer BUT i think Randy would always be regarded as a better fighter but still lost to Chuck twice ???

So my question, who will be regarded as the better mma star in 10 years, Chuck or Randy. This question can be for any fighter. i.e BJ v Hughes, CC v Gonzaga, Wand v Rampage, Shogun v Babalu.

[mullcap]

randy is just regarded so high because of his character and heart. hes not the best but gets more props because of his heart and love for the sport. skillwise and careerwise he should never be a legend but it is his timing that makes him one much like coleman and kerr. they were never champions like the modernday champs we've seen today but like all sports times change. lebron would drop 100 pts a game during pistol petes age. bonds and pujols would bat 750 w/ 90 homers in ruths day. like all sports athletes evolve. randy is one from the stoneage era. haters hate but you know hes not in the league with the new breed of fighers.

[Rbagu3]

first, i think CHuck is awesome, and ust has randys number now, randy is too old for the LHW divison i think because they are too quick for him. But i do think he can be a legend without ever beating chuck.

[E-MAC]

Um, well rankings are really useless in MMA it's all subjective. Now Chuck is a MMA Legend and future UFC hall of famer, but whether he is ranked above Randy or below it doesn't really matter since both are Icons in the sport.

[trollkin]

ttt