Putting Pound-for-Pound Rankings in Context

by Cannon Jacques on Nov 30, 2008 2:33 PM EST in News Comment 47 comments

Georges_20st

In response to a Sherdog reader's email concerning Georges St. Pierre's position above Fedor Emelianenko in the site's rankings, Jordan Breen conveys his thoughts on the never ending pound-for-pound debate:

In a time-span in which Emelianenko is 7-0 with victories against Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic, Mark Hunt and Tim Sylvia. St. Pierre is 8-1 win wins over Frank Trigg, Matt Hughes twice, Sean Sherk, B.J. Penn, Josh Koscheck and Jon Fitch. The amount of quality fighters is of a pronounced difference. On top of that, the quality in this case is much deeper on St. Pierre's side. Welterweight is arguably MMA's deepest and most talent-laden weight class, and as a result, the fighters who become elite in the division have amassed a much greater body of work for themselves.

For instance, Fitch was universally considered the second-ranked welterweight fighter in the world when he met St. Pierre, and needed to beat strings of top-notch fighters to achieve that status. Therefore, St. Pierre isn't just beating a greater amount of his best divisional contemporaries, but beating fighters who have defeated a greater body of top fighters themselves. To greater illustrate my point, if we did a pound-for-pound top 100, the number of welterweights on the list would likely considerably surpass the amount of heavyweights. And with good reason, as the greater depth in that division allows more high-quality welterweight fights, introducing a more profound stratification and the emergence of more accomplished fighters.

Hoards of MMA fans howl that Fedor is the best fighter in the world, and he may, in fact, deserve that distinction. The problem with this assertion is obvious, however. Fedor doesn't compete against the top talent in his division with the same regularity as GSP or Anderson Silva. His case for pound-for-pound supremacy is further diminished by the perceived weakness of competition at heavyweight.

While Fedor can't bolster the number of talented heavyweights, he and his management team could choose to take more fights against top quality opponents. If the dominant Russian continues to fight top ranked fighters only on an infrequent basis, a continued slide down the pound-for-pound rankings is inevitable. The importance of rankings is questionable depending on the sport in question. However, the quest to determine a pecking order serves a vital purpose by sparking interest and debate. Just observe BloodyElbow.com's own Meta Rankings and Mike Fagan's FightLines if you don't believe rankings systems contribute to debate.

College football provides a good example. The importance of a rankings system, namely the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), is undeniable. Though many fans detest the significance of rankings and would favor supplanting the current system with a playoff, there is little doubt that the status quo is instrumental in sustaining high levels of interest throughout the entire season, even when marquee matchups are few in number. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the BCS, but I can't ignore the merits of its existence.

Getting back to MMA, rankings in some form will always have a place, whether or not the UFC, or some other promotion, is home to the majority of top fighters. Some individuals will never be able to face off due to size differences, and some won't face each other for reasons more complicated in nature. Rankings attempt to use available information to make an educated guess as to who is the best fighter. Pound-for-pound rankings are extremely tricky because many of their conclusions aren't testable. Without a doubt, great debates (and some not so great) are always products of these attempts to determine the status of the most accomplished athletes. That alone is justification enough for the existence of rankings.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

P4P

does anyone know WHO the term “pound for pound” was coined for? i do, because i’m so smart. :)

by bdw on Nov 30, 2008 3:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I believe that would be Sugar Ray Robinson, but I’m not smart..I have the internet.

by Cannon Jacques on Nov 30, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

YES!. damn wikipedia!. i knew b/c i was a big boxing fan for a long time before i became an even bigger mma fan. i think alot of fans wouldn’t know that. as far as the subject goes, i agree with the fact that gsp and silva have fought higher levels of competition on a more consistent basis, so i dont have any problems with them being ranked higher than fedor at this point, but if fedor goes on to beat arlovski and continues to fight top 10 guys like he says he is going to, i think he he could get his spot back.

by bdw on Nov 30, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I pretty much agree with you in regard to Fedor. If Affliction can survive a while, they can provide Fedor with the opportunity to fight some of the top heavyweights. Otherwise, it’s going to be difficult for him if he doesn’t go to the UFC to maintain his status. The public has a pretty short memory – out of site, out of mind.

I’d heard the Sugar Ray Robinson “pound for pound” thing before. At least, I think I did. I’ve never been a huge boxing fan though I do enjoy some of the matches, past and present.

by Cannon Jacques on Nov 30, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

P4P

i read robinson’s autobiography (a good read) and at one point between 1940 to 1951 his record was 128-1-2 with 84 ko’s (think fedor’s record is impressive?). he was so good, that ring magazines nat fleischer came up with the term p4p just for him. ok, im done talking about boxing.

by bdw on Nov 30, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cool stuff.

by Cannon Jacques on Nov 30, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I definitely see his point and don’t really have a problem with Fedor being dropped – he had reached 4th at his lowest in the Yahoo P4P poll for this reason before Banned.

I think that some of the ideas here could/should apply to BJ Penn as well (who is typically a top 4 P4P). He has been a generally inactive fighter, his fights in recent memory include losses to GSP, Hughes, and wins over Pulver, Stevenson and Sherk.

However, even considering a somewhat weakened status for BJ/Fedor, I would not have either slip out of the top 5, fitting Miguel Torres in there somewhere (I have had a problem with him being ranked below Faber in the past, but that seems to have worked itself out).

I don’t agree with Breen putting GSP above Anderson (ignoring the Serra loss). Both fighters are dominating, but the difference for me is GSP’s average chin and inability to finish. This unfortunately always leaves him at risk of losing a fight he is winning – we saw a battered Fitch battling back and threatening GSP many times even while on his way to a unanimous decision loss.

Nog is a fighter I feel is on the downside of his career and isn’t deserving/will slip from his spot soon, but I am glad to see Alves make the top 10 as I feel he has the potential to beat both GSP and BJ.

If things play out how I think they will over the next 6 months (from the matches we have booked/can easily predict), I see the top 10 fighters being:

Anderson, Fedor, Thiago, GSP, Torres, BJ, Rashad, Lesnar, Rampage, Alvarez

Rampage is a big wild card for me, depending on whether his head is on straight so I’ll go with Rashad for now.

by bigweeze on Nov 30, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

“I don’t agree with Breen putting GSP above Anderson (ignoring the Serra loss). Both fighters are dominating, but the difference for me is GSP’s average chin and inability to finish. This unfortunately always leaves him at risk of losing a fight he is winning – we saw a battered Fitch battling back and threatening GSP many times even while on his way to a unanimous decision loss.”

I think this is where most people get rankings, particularly pound-for-pound ones, wrong. Ranking guys shouldn’t be about their skill sets or talent levels or their potential. It’s all about what you’ve actually accomplished. Specifically in regards to the pound-for-pound lists, it’s about your level of domination over a division(s) compared to others.

by Mike Fagan on Nov 30, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose you’re right. The question asking which fighter is better is (to me) more interesting than who has been more successful within his own division. As the second question is actually more about his opponents than the fighter in question.

It is hard to argue that any fighter has been more dominant in his own weight class than Silva since he joined the UFC.

by bigweeze on Nov 30, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tend to disagree...

Skill set and talent levels are entirely relevant, though I agree, potential isn’t. Pound-for-pound is used as a measure of a fighter’s quality, regardless of weight class… not as a measure of his resume alone, though that does come into play when evaluating the fighter’s quality.

“it’s about your level of domination over a division(s) compared to others.”

Are fighters winning and dominating fights using luck? No, they’re using their individual talent levels within their respective skill sets, in combination with their abilities to game plan and execute. It’s those skills, talents, and execution that you’re evaluating when considering a fighter’s quality, not their applied outcome, which is only a result of the fighter’s attributes. When I’m looking at who deserves to be on a pound-for-pound list, its their quality that I’m evaluating. The Sherdog article grazes over the idea without articulating it. The debate comes when you try to evaluate relative skill and talent levels between a fighter whose dominated lesser opponents, and a fighter whose beaten, but not necessarily dominated opponents of higher quality. It’s not easy to determine which fighter is better without any real direct comparisons, since those fights between weight classes will never happen.

by Meeaaat on Nov 30, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

P4P rankings in MMA are not very relevant

Fedor is the undisputed #1 heavyweight fighter in the world, thats all that really matters

by smoogy on Nov 30, 2008 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Long as he continues to prove it.

by iiowyn on Nov 30, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think without him losing...

…there isn’t anyone who can really have much of a claim to the title of #1 heavyweight fighter over him.

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Nov 30, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tend to look more at a person’s recent accomplishments rather than his total resume of work. That is just my personal opinion, this sport is changing very rapidly compared to most others because it is still pretty damn new.

by iiowyn on Dec 1, 2008 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t mind people putting GSP, Anderson, Penn, or even Torres before Fedor simply because of his inactivity of fighting against top 10 guys. However, this same thing doesn’t apply to Penn for some odd reason. (as previously stated)

in the last 2+ years, penns only fights have been loses to GSP, Hughes, and wins against pulver, stevenson, and sherk. So he has beaten what… 1 top ten fighter in 2+ years (sherk and some people don’t even have them in the LW top ten).

But, when people talk about GSP, they never talk about the fact he was KTFO by serra pretty damn recently.

This is a tricky debate… everyone has there pluses and minuses. That is what makes it fun to debate about i guess.

bigweeze… why isn’t nog deserving of his top 10 p4p spot? how could you logically argue that at this point??? in the last 2+ years he has beaten werdum, barnett, herring, and sylvia and only losing a split decision to barnett in that same time frame. Thats 3 top 10 HW’s he has beaten. And barentt and Sylvia have been ranked in the top 5.

by dbcb on Nov 30, 2008 5:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I guess it’s just my mentality. When I think of a fighter, I think of his standing in my mind, not his results-based ranking. A good comparison to this is the standings for any sports league. I only have a mild interest in standings as it relates to playoffs (title fights in MMA’s case), my real interest is how good each team (fighter) actually is and what they are capable of.

This is because records in sports are deceiving. And while I acknowledge Nog is 2-0 in the UFC, this overstates his relatively poor performance in each fight and doesn’t begin to explain how close he was to losing either match. You have to give him credit for winning, but I’m not confident that he’ll be successful for very much longer.

I guess I’ve realized I shouldn’t pay any attention to the P4P rankings since they don’t tell me who the best fighters are, they instead attempt to simulate standings across weight classes. But when two fighters fight each other, it isn’t their P4P ranks that matter, it’s their abilities. So to waste time arguing about P4P is really rather worthless because it’s not about what will happen, it’s about what has already happened. And seeing how the list is full of title-belt holders in different classes the difference in #2 or #3 is really not worth losing sleep over. What team is better, the Phillies or the New York Giants? Does anyone care?

by bigweeze on Nov 30, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are few things more frustrating than MMA fans perpetuating the idea that Nog performed poorly in the Herring fight. He dominated the fight for 14/15 minutes.

by Mike Fagan on Nov 30, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello again,

Nog was extremely close to being finished and should have been finished. He dodged a bullet like it or not (this gets back to my earlier point about fighters needing to finish their fights), and while he did beat Herring (by decision), did not look significantly better than him considering their respective places in the minds of MMA fans. Not exactly the type of performance you’d expect from a champion.

Conversely, Lesnar broke HH’s orbital bone in the first 10 seconds, controlled him and landed some devastating knees in a much more impressive victory. And this was a much better conditioned Herring than Nog faced.

My other comment on Nog is that his boxing is overrated as it’s just not damaging. Lesnar’s striking is not particularly great, but it is quick, he has reach and power.

Nog is slowing down, and his chin is leaving him. It would be great if he fought more often so we could see where he’s at. It’s tough to draw much from a fighter who has fought only TWICE in the past TWO years. And if Fedor is being pushed down the P4P charts, then Nog definitely should be for inactivity.

I don’t know that Mir is a high enough quality fighter to dominate Nog, but I feel as though Nog could be put down by any of the big boys with power in their hands (Gonzaga, Carwin, Lesnar, etc.).

by bigweeze on Nov 30, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, to be fair I guess we can call that 3 fights in 2 years.

by bigweeze on Nov 30, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nog has only fought 2x in the UFC because of the UFC. He isn’t dodging organizations or fighting freak shows, it is Zuffa and things out of his control that are causing it.

He came in and fought herring. Was supposed to get a title shot but couture decided to go nutso. Then sylvia had back surgery. Then he fought sylvia. Then, bc of more Couture nutso shit, he was put on TUF with Mir, once again making it so he can’t fight for a long period of time.

You say Lesnar controlled herring ofr 15 mins. ok. Nog controlled Herring for 14 minutes, all except for a single kick. this “nog should have been finished” shit is pure fantasy. Look at the gif…

]http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z304/natas317/thnogm.gif

Herring did not hesitate. HE jumped on him, tried to finish him… BUT NOG RECOVERED LIKE HE ALWAYS DOES, and herring backed up bc it didn’t want to get subbed. Instead he got out boxed for the remaining of the fight.

And how do you know herring was more conditioned in this fight? He was never in the fight… all he did was turtle the whole fight because of a freak punch in the first 10 seconds that knocked him cooky the whole fight. And what does it say that lesnar broke his orbital bone… but couldn’t finish him??? (nog has finished herring before in pride.. he subbed him)

And, nog MAY be slowing down, but when has their been any evidence of his chin leaving him? When he took a flush head kick from herring and NEVER went out even after getting pounced on? Or when he took a beating for Sylvia… and turned around and subbed him the minute the fight hit the mat?

by dbcb on Nov 30, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But yeah, Nog didn’t beat Herring the fuck up…

by Mike Fagan on Nov 30, 2008 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently not bad enough to finish him, this being a weaker version than the HH Lesnar faced.

We’ll take a look back on this in a few months and see who was right about what. Nog has not hit his decline quite like Couture yet, but he is close.

by bigweeze on Nov 30, 2008 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said Nogueira hasn’t declined from his peak.

by Mike Fagan on Dec 1, 2008 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you are either a lesnar lover, a nog hater, or just stupid

How do you now the HH version Lesnar faced was any better? in the first 10 seconds he got his freaking eye socket broke and was turtled up the rest of the fight.

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WAS BETTER? BECAUSE HE SAID HE WAS? HE WAS NEVER IN THE FIGHT?

I dont’ care about nogs hypothetical decline that may or may not happen. Could very well… he has taken a beating thoughout his career. I am only saying he deserves his top ten p4p spot AS OF RIGHT NOW due to his accomplishments.

by dbcb on Dec 1, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where do you think Nog fits in the top 10? Don’t you think Fitch is a much more appropriate choice?

If Nog belonged, Randy belonged (until UFC 91). Beating Sylvia (when he was ranked more highly) and Gonzaga (coming off a Cro-Cop destruction) is a bigger accomplishment than beating Sylvia (recently beaten by Couture) and Herring (recently beaten by Jake O’Brien). Randy was booted from lists for reaching 12 months of inactivity but 11 months is essentially the same to me – we’re judging them based on fights, not intention to fight.

And regarding Herring, he was in tremendous shape (for him) going into UFC 87. It’s shame he hasn’t had a chance to show us anything since but I imagine he’s on suspension or just gotten off of it.

by bigweeze on Dec 1, 2008 3:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re cherry picking.

Couture in the last three years:

L – Liddell, W – Sylvia, W – Gonzaga

Nogueira in the last three years:

W – Tamura, W – Zuluzinho, W – Werdum, L – Barnett, W – Barnett, W – Herring, W – Sylvia

by Mike Fagan on Dec 1, 2008 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did consider using the last 3 years, but it begs the question – how many years of recent competition is really relevant in MMA? It’s a what have you done for me lately sport, and I figured cutting it off at the end of Pride was a good spot (which is also fair considering the lack of drug testing).

And does 1-1 vs. Barnett swing either way? I thought that complicated things and it would be best to leave it out.

by bigweeze on Dec 1, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

any win over a top 5 HW (some say #3) should be counted (esp if you consider the time nog lost it was a split decision, and the one he won was a UD)

you can’t just discount wins because you feel like it lol

by dbcb on Dec 1, 2008 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a win and a loss, Fagan’s Fightlines has the same problem in making sense of the situation.

Who is to say that the judging was accurate (this is Pride we’re talking about) or that one fighter’s win was worth more than his loss?

by bigweeze on Dec 1, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey look, I can do the same thing you did with randy’s opponents…

Gonzaga… greatly overrated, won on a flash KO vs a cro cop who wasn’t the same cro cop in pride

Sylvia… he needed back surgery, and randy didn’t even finish him (something you rate highly)

And as mentioned earlier, in the last three years, couture beat sylvia (UD), beat gonzaga (tko), and got ktfo by Lesnar.

Nog the last three years… Tamura (subbed), Martins (sub), werdum (UD), barnett (split decision loss), barnett (UD), herring (UD, has subbed in the past), Sylvia (subbed)

And if you look at the overall body of work… Nog as beaten a who’s who’s list of HW’s, while only losing to Fedor 2x (UD, #1 hw), barnett (split D, top 5#, avenged this loss with a UD), and Henderson (split D, avenged this loss via sub)

I think nog is right where he belongs in the p4p rankings… in the top 10 but not in the top 5.

And you are joking about fitch right?

last 2+ years… W- alves, hirnoka, fiorvanti, carneiro, sanchez, wilson, L- GSP

How many of his wins were in the top 10? sanchez, at the time alves was not i do believe. impressive win streak, not so impressive people on this win streak.

by dbcb on Dec 1, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So I take it you were against Fitch getting a title shot? And where do you feel Fitch ranks at WW and why?

by bigweeze on Dec 1, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He deserved his title shot, gsp had beaten anyone else you could even think of putting above fitch.

He was #2 WW, now he is #3 IMO behind alves

i dont see what this has to do with the fact you don’t like nog?

by dbcb on Dec 1, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That face doesn’t look good, but you don’t feel that a #2ish fighter (and legend) should finish off a #15-20 fighter?

by bigweeze on Dec 1, 2008 3:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

… and in the Sylvia fight… wasn`t he alarmingly easy to hit? How many jabs from Sylvia did he take to the face? A hundred?

by BlueberryMuffin on Dec 1, 2008 5:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

1) No, fighter X shouldn’t finish fighter Y just because he is ranked higher. That’s not the point of rankings, plus styles make fights.

2) Herring is tough to finish. Of his 14 losses, 8 are decisions. Of the remaining 6, 1 is due to a knee injury and 2 are due to cuts.

by Mike Fagan on Dec 1, 2008 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and one due to a nog sub

by dbcb on Dec 1, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know why everyone is shitting on Fedor for fighting below his level when GSP is about to fight a lightweight who went 0-2 at 170 while a legit welterweight contender on a 7 win streak waits in the wings.

by George Lucas on Nov 30, 2008 8:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You can debabt about how good Penn is, but he shows up on many P4P rankings in the top 10. Personally, I think he’s deserving when you consider who he has fought and the improvements he’s made in his game in recent matches. GSP will fight Alves just like he’s fought Fitch, Hughes, and Koscheck. I really don’t see how you can compare this list of guys to Hong Man Choi and a middleweight in Matt Lindland. Fedor destroyed Sylvia. I’ll give him credit for a quality win there though it’s debatable as to where Sylvia currently ranks among top heavyweights.

I’m certainly not “shitting on Fedor.” He’s done more than enough to lay claim as the top heavyweight. I just don’t see his list of combatants over the last couple years to be as impressive as St. Pierre’s or Silva’s. And the debate rages on…

by Cannon Jacques on Nov 30, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The BCS is used as an example...

Ok Anderson Silva has 4 losses GSP has 2 BJ loses everytime you turn around

Fedor has 1 – on a strike that was illegal so it should be 0 but it was a blown call

Fedor is so far and away on top of this MMA BCS because of that fact alone that the debate is stupid

28W -1L better than anything anybody else has to offer

by skwirrl on Dec 1, 2008 12:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Except you’re forgetting that the effects of a loss diminish as time goes by, and eventually have no bearing on present-day rankings.

by Mike Fagan on Dec 1, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

EXACTLY

these are not all time p4p rankings. These are present day, what have you done lately, rankings.

If it were all time rankings, not doubt fedor would be #1 without any question. But they are not, and recently, due to who fedor has fought (and not fought) and do to others (gsp, silva) have fought, it can be debated and debated quite well.

by dbcb on Dec 1, 2008 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And the always important strength of schedule adjustment.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Dec 1, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t really feel like GSP has trouble finishing fights more than anyone else. He finished Hughes and Serra, he didn’t finish Fitch or Kos, but those two are damned hard to finish as they have proven (has anyone finished those two?). Fedor I’ll grant is a deluxe finisher, but even he doesn’t finish ALL his fights. Anderson is amazing, but he’s ranked higher than GSP and his division is weaker (probably).

I think that P4P rankings are fine, as long as they aren’t taken too seriously. There’s no possible way they can be seen as official, they’re nebulous by nature. The only reason it sparks so much debate is that it is impossible to close any arguments, there’s always a way to debate placing anyone anywhere on that list.

Also, I sort of wish that GSP could face Alves and Penn could face Kenny before they face each other. Each of these dudes are so deserving of a title shot.

by Dooda on Dec 1, 2008 2:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

there were one or two moments in the fight against Fitch were a (over?)zealous referee might actually have stopped the fight. Fitch took a beating.

by BlueberryMuffin on Dec 1, 2008 5:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Silva #1

GSP got beat badly too recently. Silva’s only recent loses were a DQ and some BJJ escaping death magic by Ryo. Also no one in the UFC has given Silva a fight like Fitch gave GSP.

by EazyEismydad on Dec 1, 2008 3:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is that because there aren’t any other great contenders at 185?

Come to think of it, part of the problem with the middleweight division is that it’s wedged between two divisions with better fighters and bigger paydays. Guys towards the small end are going to cut to 170 to take on the greats like GSP or Hughes (in the past), and guys towards the big end are going to bulk up to go for that sweet sweet cash.

Holy shit, Middleweight is for chumps!

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Dec 1, 2008 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My favorite recent Fedor-ism: calling out a judoka with no professional fights, let alone any MMA experience. What’s next, calling out the first chair violinist at the local high school? If you want to challenge the judo player, challenge him to a judo match.

I’m going to sound like a Dana-lover here, but if Fedor wants to be the top dog, he needs to fight in the UFC. They aren’t going to pay him the ridiculous money he wants, but he’ll face a large pool of talent in a reputable organization. That’s how you cement a legacy.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Dec 1, 2008 10:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs