Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Who is the greatest of all time? This age old question appears in every competitive arena that demands skill, discipline, and elite performance. Sports fans in particular are obsessed with ranking legends, whether it is Jordan versus LeBron in basketball or Messi versus Ronaldo in football. The desire to crown a single undisputed greatest athlete is understandable, but not every sport allows for such a clean comparison.
Mixed martial arts, and specifically the UFC, is one of the clearest examples where the debate simply does not hold up under scrutiny. Fans constantly argue about whether Jon Jones, George St-Pierre, or even current champions deserve the title of GOAT. These debates often mirror the certainty people place in statistics elsewhere, similar to how some analyse Premier League odds as if numbers alone can determine outcomes. In reality, MMA is far too complex and variable to produce one definitive greatest fighter of all time.
One of the biggest flaws in the GOAT debate is that MMA is fundamentally a weight-class sport. It seems silly to compare a flyweight to a heavyweight, as there is a ginormous size difference between the two weight classes. Both divisions excel in different areas; for example, flyweight tends to be more technical, whereas heavyweight has more knockouts. You could place the world champion of the flyweight division in the cage with a below average heavyweight and the size difference will almost certainly show.
Therefore, comparing fighters in different weight divisions is pointless, because yes, if you put John Jones in an octagon with Islam Mahachev of course jones is going to win because of the immense physical differences. However, this does not mean Jones is a better Fighter than Mahachev as many regard him the greatest overall fighter the UFC has seen. Essentially, MMA isn’t designed to produce a single “best fighter ever” in the way basketball or chess might. Any GOAT argument must therefore specify a weight class.
The sport of MMA is not static, and comparing fighters across eras is nearly impossible. Rules, regulations, and techniques evolve constantly. In the early days of the UFC, the majority of fighters were specialists in one discipline and lacked the skills in other areas of MMA. For example, Royce Gracie was a magician on the ground, but his striking was not even close to the level of his grappling.
In the modern era of MMA, the athletes are so much more polished and well rounded as the sport has adapted and moved past signal discipline specialists. This is important to note as it shows that the average fighter's game has become way more versatile and well-rounded than in previous eras. Coupling this with the fact that modern science means they heal faster and have longer careers makes comparisons totally unfair.
The aspect that makes MMA the ultimate combat sport is the mix of disciplines and styles at the highest level. However, this mix of styles is what leads some fans to have agendas against certain fighters. Some fighters, like pure wrestlers, might dominate everyone they face but appear less exciting to casual viewers. Others, like knockout artists or flashy strikers, may lose occasionally but captivate audiences with memorable finishes. This is where bias comes into it, as fans put fighters over one another based on their entertainment value rather than their actual skill. Fans who only want to see striking call those fighters with a grappling heavy style boring and push it aside.
Therefore, the GOAT debate often confuses popularity or aesthetic appeal with skill or effectiveness. Moreover, style matchups in MMA are a huge variable. A fighter’s record can be inflated by stylistically favourable opponents, while losses can come from a single bad matchup rather than a true deficiency. A dominant grappler may look unstoppable against strikers but struggle against elite jiu-jitsu specialists. Meanwhile, a knockout striker may never deal with elite wrestling until later in their career, giving the illusion of dominance.
Finally, there’s no consensus on what makes a fighter the GOAT. Some prioritise longevity: who stayed elite the longest. Others emphasise peak dominance: who was unbeatable at their best. Resume strength, quality of opponents, titles, and performances is another approach. Some even consider cultural impact or popularity. Each criterion can lead to a different answer.
Additionally, criteria are often applied inconsistently. Some fans criticise certain modern fighters for “not facing legends,” but will make excuses for the early fighters because the sport was underdeveloped compared to the modern day. This cherry-picking makes the debate subjective by design. Without shared metrics, there is no way to objectively crown a GOAT. There’s no universal standard, just personal preference filtered through a mix of bias and incomplete information. Because of this, any attempt to declare a single GOAT is flawed. Even the most rigorous statistical or historical analyses can only tell us who was dominant in specific contexts, not across the entirety of MMA history. The debate is endless because the question itself is unanswerable.
In the end, the UFC GOAT debate is less about objective truth and more about perspective and personal preference. Differences in weight classes, eras, opponents, styles, randomness, and criteria make any universal ranking impossible. Instead of seeking one fighter to call the greatest, we should acknowledge the glaring differences between weight classes and only compare fighters within their divisions.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
