Instigator / Pro
0
1711
rating
34
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#1253
Jose Aldo should rank higher than Max Holloway if we were making a list of the best featherweights in MMA.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 3,500
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1485
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Description
BOP shared equally.
Round 1
Glad to see fans of MMA (# - #)=Fighter record.
Max Holloway isn't better than Jose Aldo.
Legacy
Jose Aldo won the WEC championship as well as the UFC champion. He won the WEC championship against a young skilled Mike Brown. Right away he defended his title against the UFC hall of famer Urijah Faber. Aldo beat great fighters.
Jose has 7 title defenses while Max only has 2, I’d say were cheering too quickly by saying Max better than Jose. Also
But Max beat him
Max did beat Jose, but does that really prove he's better. If whoever beats the greatest, or anyone, makes you better than them, then you must concede the following.
Is Chris Weidman(14-4) better than Anderson Silva(34-10). Anderson Silva had 10 title defenses, but Weidman only had 3.
Is Jose Caceres(14-8) better than the current welterweight champion Kamaru Usman(15-1), Jose Caceres has never held a UFC title, Kamaru just beat the former UFC welterweight champion Tyron Woodley.
Connor McGregor who only has a handful of fights at feather weight and never defended his featherweight title beat both Max and Jose, so is Connor greater than these two legends just because he beat them?
Who beat better opponents
The main reason we perceive Jose to have beat worse opponents is because Jose's rein took place at a time where featherweight was less popular.
these are Max's last ten unique wins and their records. "Unique wins" gets rid of multiple victories, for example Jose beat Frankie Edgar twice in his last ten fights, but I only counted 1 of those wins.
Frankie Edgar(23-7)
Brian Ortega(14-1)
Jose Aldo(28-5)
Anthony petis(22-8)
Ricardo Lamas(19-8)
Jeremy Stephens(28-16)
Charles Oliveira(27-8)
Cub Swanson(25-11)
Cole Miller(21-11)
Akira Corassani(12-6)
Wins-219 Loses-81
Now Here are Jose's last ten unique wins.
Renato Carneiro(13-3)
Jeremy Stephens(28-16)
Frankie Edgar(23-7)
Chad Mendes(18-5)
Ricardo Lamas(19-8)
Chan Sung Jun(15-5)
Kenny Florian(14-6)
Mark Hominick(20-12)
Manny Gamburyan(15-10)
Urijah Faber(35-10)
Wins-200 Loses-82
So slightly tilting toward Max, but neither records are padded nor is there a significant difference, I',m not trying to make an argument, just debunking a point I've heard a lot.
In-fight stats
When it comes to Max's stats compared to Jose's stats.
Jose has a much better takedown defense, and a much better takedown average. Also, Jose takes less strikes per minute on average, Jose is better at dodging and blocking strikes as well.
Some stats where Max beats Jose are misleading. Max has landed the most significant strikes of all active fighters, this indicates how he lacks that 1 strike KO that
Jose has. 1 example was his flying knee knockout of Chad Mendes in the first round. Jose has won 61% of his fights by KO/TKO, but Holloway has only won 48% by KO/TKO.
As Pro admits, Max Holloway has landed the most significant strikes landed among all active fighters. But this fact alone doesn't even inform one of the best part about this. Holloway has 1937 SSL while Aldo only has 641 if you add the SSL up from Aldo's UFC fights (it ends at Hominick). That means that Holloway averages roughly 77 significant strikes in his average UFC fight, while Aldo only averages approximately 45 in his average UFC fight.
Definition: "Significant strikes refer to all strikes at distance and power strikes in the clinch and on the ground. It does not include small, short strikes in the clinch and on the ground."
Significant strikes are essential for winning any fight, as obviously, punching an opponent with minimal effort will not add up to favorable results. Holloway is the undisputed current leader in the category of SSL, while Aldo doesn't even appear in the top 10 of Pro's link.
Dodging and blocking strikes are also crucial to winning any fight, but one has to consider this, why hasn't Max Holloway been knocked out?
To not be knocked out in any of his 20 UFC fights is phenomenal, especially when you consider that Jose Aldo, an indubitably great fighter, has been knocked out 3 times.
Pro concedes another point that gives Holloway the advantage, which is that he has been victorious against people with consistently better records than Aldo has in both of their last 10 unique wins. Even if the edge is small, this still shows that Max can avoid knockouts while on average facing fighters with higher records. Meanwhile, Aldo couldn't survive 13 seconds against McGregor in the octagon.
Aldo having a higher KO rate in his entire MMA career shouldn't mean that Aldo is a greater fighter, as you have to weigh in the difficulty he faces depending on the opponent. The UFC, whether independent of the WEC or merged with it, has more talented fighters than the WEC, or fighters that began to struggle as they transferred from the WEC to the UFC. Fighters like Brian Stann and Brandon Vera have had a more difficult time fighting in the UFC than in the WEC. Stann's UFC record after 5 WEC wins was 5-3 in the UFC, and Vera went 4-5 in the UFC.
Aldo has 4 KO/TKO's in his UFC career, which would mean he does so on 29% of UFC fights. Max has 7 KO/TKOS in his, which means he does so on 37% of UFC fights. Aldo does not KO/TKO considerably challenging opponents as consistently.
Finally, the UFC title ranking system is flawed. Max has been shown to win most of his fights and had a 13 win-streak against mostly good fighters, and yet, he has had few opportunities at the championship. Typically, in a sport, championships are earned when a contestant must overtake several tough opponents in the format of playoffs. The UFC, on the other hand, was panned for putting Brock Lesnar in his first championship, mostly due to popularity that carried from his WWE career. Max, I will repeat, has consistently outdone those with records similar to or better than Jose's opponents, and even won against the same fighters that Jose fought. The fact of the matter, is that a fighter does not get stronger during a championship, so whether or not they were beaten for a title or not shouldn't matter. Max Holloway should be ranked higher for having beaten better/similar fighters.
Overall, Max has superior numbers in stats, won against tougher opponents and fought better against them, and UFC titles are flawed metrics for deciding greatness.
Round 2
You state how Max having landed more significant strikes. This shows a difference in style. Holloway does land a lot of significant strikes, but isn't it telling that Jose KO/TKOs his opponent 13% more than Holloway.
I do say Holloway has fought slightly harder opponents, but this is moot in my opinion, there are multiple factors that could account for this. Aldo fought a few legends like Kenny Florian(14-6) who doesn't have the best record, but he suffered 3 of his 6 loses to champions. The method I used is pretty good overall, but the disparity isn't statistically significant because of the numerous extraneous factors. If the cumulative wins of Jose's opponents was 150 for example, then you could say he's fought worse opponents.
Your point about the WEC is inaccurate in my opinion. Look at the talent that the WEC had. Guys like Cowboy Cerrone, the former UFC lightweight champion Anthony Pettis, and the former UFC bantamweight champion Dominick Cruz, many even went on to become hall of famers like Urijah Faber, a guy Jose beat.
Also, I'll say that I agree that titles shouldn't be everything. But, shouldn't we count it for something, not only this but isn't defending that title 7 times, the most in the division's history important, legacy is a giant factor in determining how great a fighter is.
Finally, the UFC title ranking system is flawed. Max has been shown to win most of his fights and had a 13 win-streak against mostly good fighters, and yet, he has had few opportunities at the championship. Typically, in a sport, championships are earned when a contestant must overtake several tough opponents in the format of playoffs. The UFC, on the other hand, was panned for putting Brock Lesnar in his first championship, mostly due to popularity that carried from his WWE career. Max, I will repeat, has consistently outdone those with records similar to or better than Jose's opponents, and even won against the same fighters that Jose fought. The fact of the matter, is that a fighter does not get stronger during a championship, so whether or not they were beaten for a title or not shouldn't matter. Max Holloway should be ranked higher for having beaten better/similar fighters.
For one, Brock Lesnar was a good fighter, probably because of steroids, but he did beat great fighters like Shane Carwin and Frank Mir, I know it's not important but I just wanted to bring that up. You kind of hurt your point by saying a champion doesn't get better the longer they have there championship, couldn't that explain Aldo losing to a guy like McGregor or Holloway, defending a UFC title 7 times is very difficult. Only 4 other fighters in UFC history have gotten 7 or more title defences.
In summary, Aldo has a far more extensive resume, and hasn't beaten worse opponents, to claim Holloway beating Aldo makes him greater is inaccurate as you then have to say a guy like Weidman is better than Anderson Silva, or Usman is worse than Jose Caceres.
I hope you've found this debate productive.
You state how Max having landed more significant strikes. This shows a difference in style.
For the case of Max and Aldo, both sites (if you scroll down to their last fights) show that they are strikers, and thus, they don't have a significant difference in style. Max Holloway fights more effectively as a striker than Jose Aldo.
Holloway still had a higher rate in the UFC, which has indisputably better fighters.
Aldo fought a few legends like Kenny Florian(14-6) who doesn't have the best record, but he suffered 3 of his 6 loses to champions.
Losing to champions doesn't make you inherently great, as I'm sure both of us could lose to champions. You haven't also proved that Florian is better than any of Max's opponents, and even then, Max KO'd Aldo twice. I won't lie and assert that Aldo is a bad fighter, in fact, it is quite the opposite, but to lose twice to someone who has fought similar/slightly better opponents than you is truly telling about who performs better in the octagon.
but the disparity isn't statistically significant because of the numerous extraneous factors.
I brought up the records to essentially complement another point that Max Holloway can fight opponents of similar prowess in the sport while also being able to avoid getting KO'd and land more significant strikes in a fight. I agree that records alone don't tell the whole story, but being able to fight more effectively against fighters with a slightly better average record indicates that Holloway is a better fighter.
Your point about the WEC is inaccurate in my opinion. Look at the talent that the WEC had. Guys like Cowboy Cerrone, the former UFC lightweight champion Anthony Pettis, and the former UFC bantamweight champion Dominick Cruz, many even went on to become hall of famerslike Urijah Faber, a guy Jose beat.
Interesting point, but these were fighters who, as the site mentions, transferred from the WEC to the UFC. I never said that WEC fighters didn't have potential, but that in general, they are less skilled than already proven UFC fighters, and I have proven with some examples that various fighters tend to struggle in the UFC after leaving the WEC. A comparison might be helpful here. Some college football players are NFL capable, but that doesn't make the whole NCAAF league of players NFL ready. Same with the WEC. Some are UFC ready, but many aren't, and fighting people in the WEC as shown in my last argument, is easier to do.
You kind of hurt your point by saying a champion doesn't get better the longer they have there championship,
I essentially meant this: Just because Aldo won against fighters in a championship doesn't mean mean his opponents are better than Holloway's. Holloway has beaten people with slightly better records and could do the same.
to claim Holloway beating Aldo makes him greater is inaccurate as you then have to say a guy like Weidman is better than Anderson Silva, or Usman is worse than Jose Caceres.
The difference is that Holloway and Aldo are debatable because of similar records, Max having superior stats, and beating Jose twice.
For one, Brock Lesnar was a good fighter, probably because of steroids, but he did beat great fighters like Shane Carwin and Frank Mir
The article explains that he loses to Frank Mir, beats one guy, and then gets the championship.
Round 3
They're both strikers- Well, just because they are both strikers doesn't mean they have the same style. Holloway is undeniably a volume striker, that's why he has so many significant strikes. while Jose is more able to pick his spots and explode, look back to Jose vs Mendes.
WEC-In an all time sense, should contribute to greatness, establishing himself in 2 organizations that both have talented fighters, the WEC may not be quite as strong as UFC fighters, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be counted into greatness. I hope we can agree on this.
Kenny Florian- To clarify, I agree, losing to champions doesn't make you great, unless that works in conjunction with also beating goods opponents. Guys like Clay Guida, Takonori Gomi, and Joe Stevenson are great fighters, his record isn't padded that's for sure.
You haven't also proved that Florian is better than any of Max's opponents, and even then, Max KO'd Aldo twice.
Cub Swanson-(25-11)
Renato Carneiro-(13-3)
Clay Guida(35-19)
Diego Brandao(24-14)
W-120 L-54 or 222% more wins
Now here's Florian's. last five unique wins.
Diego Nunes-(23-8
Takanori Gomi(36-15)
Clay Guida(35-19
Joe Stevenson(33-16)
Roger Huerta-(24-11)
W-161 L-69 or 233% more wins.
So Yes there are extraneous factors, and the difference in competition isn't statistically significant.
Max KO'd Aldo twice.
True, but again are you ready to say Weidman is better than Silva. Weidman beat Silva twice, both fighters had a similar win percentage sitting at 78% for Weidman(14-4) and 77% for Silva(34-10). So is the Champion with 10 title defences, the second most in UFC history, worse than the guy who lost his title after only 3 defences to Luke Rockhold.It's not the be all end all. Both Weidman and Holloway were much younger than their opponent. Aldo is 5 years older than Holloway for example.
I essentially meant this: Just because Aldo won against fighters in a championship doesn't mean his opponents are better than Holloway's. Holloway has beaten people with slightly better records and could do the same.
Well there are extraneous factors, I've already proven that Kenny Florian, a guy with a 70% win rating is better(arguably) than a guy with a 93% win percentage. It doesn't completely delegitimize my method, but it proves there are other factors that make the difference not statistically significant.
The difference is that Holloway and Aldo are debatable because of similar records, Max having superior stats, and beating Jose twice.
Already addressed with my Silva and Weidman analogy.
The article explains that he loses to Frank Mir, beats one guy, and then gets the championship.
I know it's a small point but Mir fought Brock twice.
In Short, Aldo beat opponents who are just as good, has more than 200% more title defences, has been the champ in 2 organizations, despite one being slightly worse, not significantly worse. Again, just because Holloway beat Aldo twice doesn't close off the debate, legacy is more important, if it wasn't than we'd be seeing Weidman as the greatest middleweight instead of Anderson Silva.
For the sake of following debate etiquette, I cannot respond to the last round.
Con has proven that Max Holloway has better stats than Jose Aldo because he has a higher Significant Strikes Landed percentage and has never been KO/TKO'd in his UFC career.
Con also has shown that when you use statistics from the UFC, the organization with superior fighters, that Aldo does not have a higher KO/TKO percentage where it matters most.
If Pro asks you to weigh in championships, even though they are flawed in representing the best fighters and I argue that they are not an accurate representation of the best fighters, then Con asks voters to weigh the UFC more into the arguments than the WEC as those are more significant fights. I am not conceding that championships matter, but rather that this means that if you weigh those in, one should also weigh in crucial fights such as the regular matches jn the UFC.
Con has proven that several great WEC fighters have struggled profusely in the UFC. This is sufficient to show that the UFC has better fighters.
Championships, as proven, do not always represent the best fighters, as Brock Lesnar lost to Frank Mir, won one more fight and then was put in the championship. Also, a championship belt shouldn't matter if both fighters fight opponents with similar records. A championship doesn't make opponents automatically better, or in other words, can be actually easier to win than a regular fight against a better opponent. So winning a championship shouldn't make you automatically the best fighter.
Insofar as championships do not make fighters better, then you must look at Max's fights against great fighters and imagine that those were championships, as his opponents were certainly capable of being part of them. Max Holloway would reasonably be able to win 7 titles 7 of his fights were titles. Once again, I am not conceding that titles matter, but rather arguing that Holloway should be able to make the same accomplishments given that he beat Aldo himself as well as many other opponents with high prowess in the sport.
Aldo and Holloway have very similar records, but Holloway KO/TKO'd Aldo twice. If opponents have similar records when fighting similarly great fighters, then there shouldn't be a substantial difference in their ability to defeat great fighters, and thus, Aldo at BEST can only be slightly worse than Holloway. When you factor in the stats, such as Holloway not getting knocked out in the UFC, then Holloway is a considerably better fighter.
Overall, Holloway has better stats when you weigh in the metrics from a superior organization, the championship titles are flawed and shouldn't matter for a fighters legacy, and when you consider that they have similar records, and have beaten similar opponents, one must admit that they have similar prowess. Even if beating your opponent doesn't make you better alone, if records and stats indicate they are comparable, then beating an opponent twice should weigh significantly into the debate. The selling point is not that he beat Aldo, but that Holloway can beat amazing fighters like Aldo and many others, as well as land more significant strikes and avoid getting knocked out.
I would like to thank Pro for making this debate.
Too bad nobody voted, fun debate anyway.
pls vote
Vote?
Bump for potential voters
Agreed, I still stand by my stance, but I certainly understand the opposing side much better.
This was pretty challenging but fun.
your're up
Also since the description doesn't specify rounds, I will post more arguments on the next round due to the character limit being sort of small.
I almost forgot about this lol. Was up at night for a little bit.
Possible kritik that Max is already ranked higher, since he is champion.
Glad to see you debate!
Like always an appeal to voters. If the voters don't agree with your position you lost.
I think the subjectivity of the superior metrics will be at play here.
Depends on the metric.
Wins as a champion Aldo.
Best wins I think would go to Max.
You a fan of the sport
Ah, why not? I will take this.