The Anatomy of Anti UFC Subversives, Part 2: Edgar Beats Penn Again, Somehow Both Overrated

I was planning on going further into Jonathan Snowden's column archive for this installment, focusing on how someone that accused the WEC of selling fans a fake bill of good with their wildly successful, eminently entertaining, uber-relevant PPV debut and simultaneously advise Strikeforce to highlight their first venture with two pro wrestlers (and I'm talking like last year) fighting each other.  However, events move quickly in the wake of UFC PPVs - the ripples of divisional relevance and top level talent colliding run deep - and I've been forced to abandon that angle (for another day) in the interest of current events.

What did your average MMA fan - defined as someone that, while informed about match ups and such, has no idea that I nor any writer mentioned in this piece exists - think of Frankie Edgar defeating BJ Penn?  Well, let's start with what they expected.  They had heard that BJ Penn was the greatest 155er in the history of the sport.  They were aware of a controversial decision in April because of the commercials, and that many thought BJ was in fact victorious.  They knew that Edgar winning was a huge upset, that BJ was all but undefeated at the weight class, and that most "in the know" writers (including the two that I'm compelled to rebut today) were picking BJ in a rout.

Then, they watched Frankie do it again.  And not just a replay - a better, faster, sharper, quicker version of the same fighter that confounded The Prodigy four months prior.  He took BJ down like GSP.  He outboxed him.  He outfoxed him.  He did everything but finish a guy that has STILL never been finished at 155.  And this time, when Buffer announced a 50-45 scorecard, no one was surprised.

I think the average MMA fan drew the conclusion that Frankie had did what few thought he could, won two straight as an underdog against a legend and claimed the #1, definitively, as his own.  Jonathan Snowden and Kid Nate came to very, very different conclusions.  Below (I understand that some of you probably find this a little tedious), I'll explain what I believe is the ultimate goal of this peculiar line of literature.

The raw numbers stand out like a sore thumb. In title fights, BJ Penn is a pedestrian 5-5-1. For every big fight he wins, he loses one in turn.

Let's start here.  Two of BJ's title losses are in the year 2010 to the same guy.  One of them is to the greatest welterweight in the history of the sport (against whom he holds a 1-1 record and I would pick in a rubber match), one is to the guy poised to take his spot (0-2 against GSP, but the first fight was razor close), and one was eight years ago (another razor close decision).  The destruction of Takanori Gomi was not a title fight, but to count it as a "big fight" would fuck up the "BJ is .500 in big fights" factoid, so it's discarded, as is another defining BJ moment:

With the exception of upsetting Matt Hughes at UFC 46, the defining fights of Penn's career have all been losses. Against St. Pierre twice. Against Hughes in the rematch. And now, when confronted by a fighter not afraid to test his mettle against Penn head to head, two losses against Edgar.

I consider Penn's demolition of Sean Sherk - a monster at lightweight and a fighter with losses to only the very, very best - a "defining fight of Penn's career."  Then again, I'm not trying to cast doubt on Frankie Edgar.

BJ Penn, when it is all said and done, will be considered a disappointment. From the time, before his UFC debut, that Frank Shamrock announced the "Prodigy" would be the greatest fighter of all time until this latest loss to Edgar, Penn has little to show for what should have been a legendary career.

There's nothing worse than subjectively judging an athlete's potential, then placing his accomplishments to your perceived view of him, then declaring him inadequate to your expectations.  BJ's amazing BJJ career and meteoric rise in the UFC weren't indicative of never losing a fight, they were impressive by themselves.  His record in main events isn't what it is because he didn't try hard enough - it's because he worked his ass off, lost two title fights in a weight class just under 10% above his normal fighting weight (and Hughes/GSP are particularly large, wrestling welterweights), and consistently fought in tough fights throughout his legendary UFC career.  Plus, he absolutely smoked the only man that could be argued as his equal at LW at any point during the last decade.

So today, I was ready to put forth my theory - that all of this is a reverberation of Fedor's loss to Werdum.  On that night, I wrote that the MMA landscape was forever changed, as no other fighter would be #1 without holding the appropriate Zuffa title.  Many disagreed with this assessment - Snowden was one of the first comments in the piece, which precipitated a lengthy argument with BE commenter mmalogic - and it appears that those folks have settled on the lightweight division to make their last attempt to steal a #1 ranking from Zuffa's grasps.

I wrote just before UFC 118 that it was the greatest lightweight tournament in MMA history (borne out by Maynard's now-guaranteed shot at Edgar's belt), as four of the top seven lightweights on Earth were competing.  Well, according to the BE Meta-Rankings, the other three - Gilbert Melendez, Eddie Alvarez and Shinya Aoki - are all outside of the UFC, and that's the only weight class with that kind of schism at the top.  I theorized, upon reading Snowden's article, that all of this was a premeditated attempt to discredit Frankie Edgar's win.  Then, I thought, if Maynard beats Edgar again - as I believe he will - then they can say that all Frankie ever did was beat an overrated BJ and a shot Sherk, and that one of the three I mentioned earlier (if it sounds familiar, it's because it's been around for two years, they just had to replace Hellboy after his recent troubles) is the TRUE #1 at lightweight.

Which, of course, would be a reversal of current fortunes, and fracture Zuffa's dominance over the sport.

I bandied this theory about.  Some agreed.  Some thought I was reaching.

Then, I visited Bloody Elbow today.

But the fact that the UFC lightweight title belt is now in the hands of Frankie Edgar, a man who took a one-sided beating at the hands of Gray Maynard, the #1 contender in April, 2008 is making some question who's really on top of the division. ...

Now that Frankie Edgar has definitively shown that's he's got B.J. Penn's number, and yet has not shown that he has the number of Gray Maynard, it's really hard to say that the UFC has the best lightweights in the world. #3 Gilbert Melendez and Alvarez both bring a very similar style of wrestle-boxing to their bouts that Edgar does and are bigger and more powerful. In fact, I'd probably pick either man to beat Edgar.

But then I picked B.J. Penn to beat Frankie Edgar twice so what do I know?

I'm including the last lines of Nate's piece for two reasons.  One, because I admire his taste for fine crow in the wake of picking BJ (kudos, however, for being one of us smart guys that picked Maynard).  Two, because of that last line in the paragraph - "In fact, I'd probably pick either man to beat Edgar."  That's exactly the kind of insidious seed-sowing that sounds like innocent barroom banter.  I grant your premise, Nate - but until either Melendez (whom is without a doubt the best lightweight not in the UFC) or Eddie "My Best Win in the Last Two Years is Josh Neer" Alvarez defeats someone ranked above them, they don't get to take the top spot.

That's how MMA works now - if you want to be the champ, you have to beat the champ, and all the champs in the relevant divisions are in one place.  Frankie Edgar is the #1 lightweight in the world, and whomever beats him first will be the same.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is either a fool or a smart man with an agenda.