YNWA14
Onbreekbaar
- Dec 29, 2010
- 34,543
- 2,560
Comparing generations ignoring their relative dominance is not really fair, is it? Generally these discussions take into account accomplishments, talent and relative dominance or you could usually just list whoever the best player is in the most current period as they are 99.9% likely to be the best since they have modern advances, natural progression and historical experience as an advantage.But it was easier back then for Hughes to be "much better than his competition during his reign"
So, Hughes isn't as good as Woodley. And Hughes' competition wasn't as tough as what Woodley faces. Yet, Hughes is ranked higher?
I'm not sure that's the best way to be ranking fighters
For example, Wayne Gretzky is widely accepted as the best hockey player ever, but there are many players right now that are better than he was then. Hardly a fair comparison, though.
Matt Hughes was very dominant in his time. Yes, most likely Woodley would wreck him prime for prime.