Don't get me wrong, the guy's a great fighter, but I've been tired of seeing him hyped for awhile now: http://www.mmamania.com/2010/1/21/1263626/latest-issue-of-ufc-magazine-with#comments
They're calling him "The Greatest Fighter In History".
I could see if they said "Greatest Striker In MMA History", or a bunch of other superlatives.
But how can a guy with the obvious holes in his game, most notably pretty sub-par takedown defense (TDD) and wrestling, be the best fighter in history?
I'd put GSP, BJ Penn, and maybe even Fedor ahead of him in that category.
A couple yrs ago, Dana White arbitrarily announced Silva was the best p4p fighter, and people have been jumping on that bandwagon ever since.
There's no doubt Anderson's a tremendous fighter.
He's a PHENOMENAL striker, has very good jiu-jitsu, and an excellent chin.
But sooner or later, the right opponent should be able to expose his aforementioned weaknesses.
No one in the UFC's been able to do that enough to beat him yet, but the weaknesses ARE there, and MMA is a jungle; someone will take advantage of them one of these days.
In short, you should probably be a more complete fighter to be considered "The Greatest Ever"
On the positive side, I love his fashionable pose, not to use a pun, but it's "Kick Ass" :)
Till next time!...E