Ronda Rousey "most dominant athlete in the world"?

[Jeremie Boop]

I'd put Rory & Floyd Mayweather ahead of her (don't like either one but they are both great). 48-0 in boxing is more impressive than 11-0 in women's MMA IMO. I don't think I need to list off Rory's achievements on here.

You could make an argument for Mayweather based on his record for sure, but people have a problem with the caliber of some of his opponents. I don't know that Rory is anywhere near what I would consider "dominant".

[Jakester23]

You could make an argument for Mayweather based on his record for sure, but people have a problem with the caliber of some of his opponents. I don't know that Rory is anywhere near what I would consider "dominant".

Questionable caliber of opponents compared to 11 women MMA fighters seriously?

[Jeremie Boop]

Questionable caliber of opponents compared to 11 women MMA fighters seriously?

*shrug* Just saying that's what they'd say because they already question his record now over it. Also because he doesn't always dominate the scorecard when he wins. I'd say he should be on the list but I'd still put Jon Jones and Serena ahead of him also.

[Jakester23]

*shrug* Just saying that's what they'd say because they already question his record now over it. Also because he doesn't always dominate the scorecard when he wins. I'd say he should be on the list but I'd still put Jon Jones and Serena ahead of him also.

If you don't watch boxing much then your kinda talking out of turn he does dominate most of his opponents. Serena I could see ahead of Ronda and whoever Jones is since again it's such a small pool of talent. But she's isn't ahead of Floyd IMO.

[GolfLug]

If it means most dominant in HER sport than any other athlete in their particular sport, then yes. Quality of opposition should not matter. Nothing she can do about that.

[Golfingdad]

I'd put Rory & Floyd Mayweather ahead of her (don't like either one but they are both great). 48-0 in boxing is more impressive than 11-0 in women's MMA IMO. I don't think I need to list off Rory's achievements on here.

You could make an argument for Mayweather based on his record for sure, but people have a problem with the caliber of some of his opponents. I don't know that Rory is anywhere near what I would consider "dominant".

The problem is, like @jamo already mentioned (EDIT: and @GolfLug ), is that you are setting your own definitions for what dominant means.  Heck, for the Business Insider piece, their definition is written right into the article:

“No athlete is the best in their sport by a wider margin than Rousey”

That's how they define dominant, and that's how I think many others would as well.  Regardless of how her competition stacks up against the competition in the other sports, all that matters here is how the competition stacks up against her.  And based on the info in wikipedia, she is the epitome of dominant.  An Olympic Medal in Judo in 2008, then started MMA in 2011 and has been undefeated since.  I skimmed the entry but it appears as though an opponent has never even made it out of the first round.  And I know the latest two fights lasted a combined 30 seconds or so.

That's pretty freaking dominant.

[Jakester23]

If it means most dominant in HER sport than any other athlete in their particular sport, then yes. Quality of opposition should not matter. Nothing she can do about that.

IMO most dominate athlete means you have to take competition into the equation. 48-0 >11-0, 11-0 is more impressive but a much much smaller sample size vs lesser competition. Rory 2 majors back to back, 2 wgc wins, he was what T-4 at the masters, number 1 player in world, race to Dhabi winne (I'm sure I'm missing more of his wins in the last year as well). More impressive vs top competition than 11-0 women's MMA.

[Jeremie Boop]

The problem is, like @jamo already mentioned (EDIT: and @GolfLug), is that you are setting your own definitions for what dominant means.  Heck, for the Business Insider piece, their definition is written right into the article:

“No athlete is the best in their sport by a wider margin than Rousey”

That's how they define dominant, and that's how I think many others would as well.  Regardless of how her competition stacks up against the competition in the other sports, all that matters here is how the competition stacks up against her.  And based on the info in wikipedia, she is the epitome of dominant.  An Olympic Medal in Judo in 2008, then started MMA in 2011 and has been undefeated since.  I skimmed the entry but it appears as though an opponent has never even made it out of the first round.  And I know the latest two fights lasted a combined 30 seconds or so.

That's pretty freaking dominant.

I understand how they defined it. This is a discussion based on opinions generated from the declaration by the article and the SI cover. In MMA a lot of fights are over very quickly when opponents are unevenly matched. Yes, she won a gold medal in the olympics in judo, which is why I said she's dedicated her life to fighting whereas a majority of female fighters haven't. I'm sure that's changing and it should make things much more interesting. It's just my opinion that to be considered "the most dominant athlete in the world" more needs to be taken into account. I don't necessarily expect people to agree with me, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and viewpoints of people who disagree with me here. People are making good points, no doubt, however it hasn't swayed my position.

[Jakester23]

The problem is, like @jamo already mentioned (EDIT: and @GolfLug ), is that you are setting your own definitions for what dominant means.  Heck, for the Business Insider piece, their definition is written right into the article: “No athlete is the best in their sport by a wider margin than Rousey” That's how they define dominant, and that's how I think many others would as well.  Regardless of how her competition stacks up against the competition in the other sports, all that matters here is how the competition stacks up against her.  And based on the info in wikipedia, she is the epitome of dominant.  An Olympic Medal in Judo in 2008, then started MMA in 2011 and has been undefeated since.  I skimmed the entry but it appears as though an opponent has never even made it out of the first round.  And I know the latest two fights lasted a combined 30 seconds or so. That's pretty freaking dominant.

So by that logic Mayweather should fight some dudes at the local YMCA for his next 2 fights, knock them out in 30 seconds so he's considered more dominant.

[Golfingdad]

I understand how they defined it. This is a discussion based on opinions generated from the declaration by the article and the SI cover. In MMA a lot of fights are over very quickly when opponents are unevenly matched. Yes, she won a gold medal in the olympics in judo, which is why I said she's dedicated her life to fighting whereas a majority of female fighters haven't. I'm sure that's changing and it should make things much more interesting. It's just my opinion that to be considered "the most dominant athlete in the world" more needs to be taken into account. I don't necessarily expect people to agree with me, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and viewpoints of people who disagree with me here. People are making good points, no doubt, however it hasn't swayed my position.

I think it was only a Bronze medal.

So by that logic Mayweather should fight some dudes at the local YMCA for his next 2 fights, knock them out in 30 seconds so he's considered more dominant.

That's a silly way to interpret that logic.  She is fighting the BEST competition available to her.  If Mayweather fought guys at the local YMCA then nobody would consider that dominant because there is much better competition out there and everybody knows it.

Mayweathers sport is World Championship boxing, not YMCA goofing off.

[Jeremie Boop]

I think it was only a Bronze medal.

Whoops, I knew she won a medal just forgot what one it was. Her judo is so lauded in UFC that I guess I bumped it up to Gold rofl. Thanks for correcting me.

[Golfingdad]

Whoops, I knew she won a medal just forgot what one it was. Her judo is so lauded in UFC that I guess I bumped it up to Gold rofl. Thanks for correcting me.

I almost did the same thing!  I wrote "gold medal" in my first post while I was rattling off her accomplishments and barely noticed right before I submitted.

[Jakester23]

I think it was only a Bronze medal. :-P That's a silly way to interpret that logic.  She is fighting the BEST competition available to her.  If Mayweather fought guys at the local YMCA then nobody would consider that dominant because there is much better competition out there and everybody knows it. Mayweathers sport is World Championship boxing, not YMCA goofing off.

The best competition is non existent though. If there's some men's undefeated Foosball team in Europe that hasn't lost in 25 years would they be near the top of this list? Heck no because they are dominating at something that doesn't get top athletes participation. Do the best women athletes in the world fight in MMA or play soccer, tennis, ect.... It's harder to dominate when there actual competition.

[Golfingdad]

The best competition is non existent though. If there's some men's undefeated Foosball team in Europe that hasn't lost in 25 years would they be near the top of this list? Heck no because they are dominating at something that doesn't get top athletes participation. Do the best women athletes in the world fight in MMA or play soccer, tennis, ect.... It's harder to dominate when there actual competition.

Well, do we know that to be true?  I mean, its a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy on her part, right?

If she won all of her fights but some of them were closer and she got bloodied up, it would give the appearance that she had tougher competition, but in reality it could be just that she wasn't training as hard as she was capable of.  Meaning, it's not the competition that is better, it is she that was "worse."

It's kind of ironic that she can lose points (with some people) towards her dominance BECAUSE of her dominance.

[Jakester23]

Well, do we know that to be true?  I mean, its a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy on her part, right? If she won all of her fights but some of them were closer and she got bloodied up, it would give the appearance that she had tougher competition, but in reality it could be just that she wasn't training as hard as she was capable of.  Meaning, it's not the competition that is better, it is she that was "worse." It's kind of ironic that she can lose points (with some people) towards her dominance BECAUSE of her dominance.

I'm not saying she's not dominant she is. I'm saying I don't feel like the most dominant athlete in the world is (or could be) an MMA fighter male or female. MMA feels manufactured to me.

[Jeremie Boop]

Well, do we know that to be true?  I mean, its a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy on her part, right?

If she won all of her fights but some of them were closer and she got bloodied up, it would give the appearance that she had tougher competition, but in reality it could be just that she wasn't training as hard as she was capable of.  Meaning, it's not the competition that is better, it is she that was "worse."

It's kind of ironic that she can lose points (with some people) towards her dominance BECAUSE of her dominance.

As far as I'm aware, it's a given that the competition in women's MMA is lacking still because it's relatively new. It took awhile before men's MMA really took off to the point where there were deep fields of strong competitors. During that time there were men who stood out in a similar fashion as Ronda does now. I hope things get better for women's MMA because otherwise it's going to go the way of the WNBA. One example I can remember was Rich Franklin, he was so good he regularly made his opponents look bad by comparison. Then he fought Anderson Silva, who made him look so bad it was crazy. Everyone thought it was a fluke and that Franklin just didn't prepare for the fight. The second fight was no better and Franklin got a pretty severe beating if I remember right. Silva held that title for quite awhile and he basically made just about every opponent look like an amateur regardless of how good they were. During that time, I would have said he was the most dominant athlete in the world without hesitation or reservation because he made the BEST fighters look bad. I will admit, perhaps Rousey really is that good and the women she's fighting are great, but I've yet to see any women's fights that were impressive. Perhaps it's hard for me to judge because I'm so accustomed to the way men fight that it's hard to appreciate the abilities of the females.

I'm not saying she's not dominant she is. I'm saying I don't feel like the most dominant athlete in the world is (or could be) an MMA fighter male or female. MMA feels manufactured to me.

MMA feels manufactured? Interesting, most of the fights are so dynamic that I never get that feeling. Now some of the fights where a wrestler type, who holds people down "lay and pray" or where it's all grappling can get very boring to watch for sure.

[newtogolf]

Rousey is a dominant fighter but I am not sure she can be "most" dominant until she beats Cris Cyborg.  Cyborg beat all the top female MMA fighters at the time, including Gina Carano.  Currently Cyborg fights at 1 or 2 weight classes heavier but is willing to cut down to Rousey's weight class since Rousey won't meet her at a mid-point.  Cyborg has also failed PED's tests in the past but supposedly is clean now.

[GolfLug]

So by that logic Mayweather should fight some dudes at the local YMCA for his next 2 fights, knock them out in 30 seconds so he's considered more dominant.

If they are qualified opponents.

The problem is, like @jamo already mentioned (EDIT: and @GolfLug), is that you are setting your own definitions for what dominant means.  Heck, for the Business Insider piece, their definition is written right into the article:

“No athlete is the best in their sport by a wider margin than Rousey”

That's how they define dominant, and that's how I think many others would as well.  Regardless of how her competition stacks up against the competition in the other sports, all that matters here is how the competition stacks up against her.  And based on the info in wikipedia, she is the epitome of dominant.  An Olympic Medal in Judo in 2008, then started MMA in 2011 and has been undefeated since.  I skimmed the entry but it appears as though an opponent has never even made it out of the first round.  And I know the latest two fights lasted a combined 30 seconds or so.

That's pretty freaking dominant.

Si.

Additionally 'dominant' in my ultra super duper personal secret book of definitions that I keep locked up is that it implies that it is almost a foregone conclusion that she will win well before entering the ring.