Making the Cut: The 100 Greatest Mixed Martial Artists of All-Time

It’s hard to believe that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as we know it today didn’t exist until 1993. The legendary fighters—and fights—who have materialized in such a short timeframe reflect a history that feels a century old, which is a testament to MMA’s all-action, all-the-time format. There’s no regular season, no playoffs; it’s just a never-ending parade of fight cards, week after week, month after month. Ratings don’t lie, and in this case, they confirm our love affair with MMA. According to Nielsen Sports DNA, it is the 3rd most popular sport in the world. While MMA is thriving in the here and now, its relative youth means we don’t have decades of history providing a template for what an elite career looks like. Fighter-resumes come in all shapes and sizes. Some pile up over 100 career fights, while others don’t make it to 20. Relying on total career fights to reveal anything substantive is troublesome in its own right since opponents can range from a newcomer without a Wikipedia page to a world-class champion and anyone in between. Sure, Jon Jones, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Anderson Silva, and Georges St. Pierre have resumes that would stand the test of time even if MMA dated back a thousand years. They are the exceptions rather than the rule. Much more common is a resume like that of Donald “Cowboy” Cerrone. Cowboy piled up an impressive collection of victories and losses, leaving us to wonder whether he was a great fighter or merely an average one. 

If we asked 100 MMA fans to rank the 100 greatest MMA fighters of all-time, we’d get 100 very different lists because—in a sport with little schedule uniformity and few peak vs peak confrontations—no consensus has emerged over what “greatest” actually means. Some choose to emphasize entertainment value, fight style, and perseverance. While these characteristics are articles one, two, and three on developing a strong fanbase, they don’t identify the fighters who have accomplished the most. Otherwise, Nate Diaz would be front and center in the GOAT discussion. Others choose to highlight career-peak and championships, but too much of an emphasis there gets us BJ Penn as a viable contender for GOAT. 

If we want to separate the average from the good and the good from the great, we need a more nuanced approach that emphasizes results and the conditions under which those results occur. Resume evaluation needs to go deeper than simply concluding that Fighter A is superior to Fighter C because Fighter A beat Fighter B and Fighter B beat Fighter C. The transitive property can be an intoxicating mistress in the world of subjectivity. However, when it yields Roy Nelson and Dennis Hallman as all-time greats, its limitations become evident in a hurry. MMA resumes are littered with red herrings and logic traps that give us a license to conclude almost anything we want. We need to avoid these gambits and decode the data into a single, logically-supported narrative. To do this, we can lean on the following questions:

Who did the fighter beat?

We have to start here because winning percentage and career victories are meaningless measures without context. A win over an elite opponent is the currency of the MMA GOAT conversation. It is how fighters stand out from each other… or don’t. Takanori Gomi amassed an impressive 35-9 record before dropping six of his last seven fights. Of those 35 wins, none were against anyone in the top-100 or anyone even close to the top-100. Similarly, Yushin Okami amassed a 35-11 record before losing three of his last four fights. Of those 35 wins, one was against a fighter in the top-100 (DQ win over A. Silva not included) without any other wins being over anyone close to the top-100. Mark Coleman, on the other hand, posted a 16-10 career record but compiled four wins against the top-100. Despite having a worse winning percentage and fewer overall fights, Coleman’s elite victories make for a more impressive resume.

How did the fighter win?

All wins are good wins, but some are more revealing than others. Routinely winning fights via stoppage is the sign of a dominant fighter, and it should be a deciding factor when scrutinizing two elite resumes. Anderson Silva and Georges St. Pierre (GSP) are, without question, two of the greatest of all-time. Separating their resumes on merit is no easy task. However, when comparing Silva’s 76% finish-rate in victories to GSP’s 54% rate, it is clear that Silva won his fights much more convincingly. Cain Velasquez totaled an astounding 12 finishes in just 17 career fights. Frankie Edgar, on the other hand, won via stoppage in only 11 of 34 career fights. When comparing Edgar and Velasquez, who both have equally impressive resumes from very different weight classes, it is clear that Velasquez was the more dominant fighter. Just like winning via stoppage is superior to winning by decision, winning by unanimous decision is far more impressive than winning by a split decision unless, of course, Chris Lee is scoring the fight in which case they are the same.

When did the fight take place?

Quinton “Rampage” Jackson was a devastating fighter who knocked out Chuck Liddell twice, slammed Ricardo Arona through the floor, and turned Wanderlei Silva into a Slinky. When Wanderlei finished a 25-year-old Rampage who was entering his prime in 2003, it was an elite win. In 2008, when Forrest Griffin shocked Rampage, who had just unified the UFC/Pride 205-lb belts for the first time in history, it was an elite win. The same cannot be said for Chael Sonnen’s win over a bloated 39-year old Rampage in 2018 in a sad heavyweight affair. The same rule applies in the opposite direction. Conor McGregor’s victory over a green 21-year-old Max Holloway is not as meaningful as Alexander Volkanovski’s two victories (or 1.5?) over a 28-year-old Holloway firmly entrenched in his prime.  

What weight class did the fight take place in?

Max “Blessed” Holloway stepped out of his natural weight class to unsuccessfully challenge Dustin Poirier for the interim UFC Lightweight Championship in 2019. Any win over Blessed is impressive, but weight classes exist for a reason. Poirier’s best weight class is lightweight, while Blessed’s is featherweight. Similarly, Antonio Rogerio Nogueira and Shogun Rua both defeated Alistair Overeem twice at light heavyweight. Overeem was a decent fighter at light heavyweight but became an elite fighter when he transitioned to PEDs heavyweight. Nogueira and Shogun’s victories can’t be confused with wins over Overeem at his best weight-class. Additionally, in the early days of the sport, Royce Gracie—a natural welterweight/middleweight—spent his career fighting much larger fighters. It’s not a stretch to say he would’ve feasted on a schedule that exclusively featured welterweight fighters.

Who did the fighter lose to?

It’s easy to view all losses the same, but there is a distinct difference between losing to an elite fighter and losing to a mediocre one. To revisit the Gomi/Coleman comparison above, of Gomi’s 16 career defeats, only three came against fighters inside the top-100, including zero against the top-50. Conversely, Coleman had ten career losses, including seven against the top-100 and six against the top-50. Coleman regularly challenged elite opponents, Gomi did not. Additionally, while Vitor Belfort had 14 career losses, all 14 came against the top-100. That not only speaks to Belfort’s ability to win the fights he was supposed to win but also his incredible strength-of-schedule. 

What was the fighter’s strength of schedule?

Vitor Belfort fought 41 times in his professional career on his way to a 26-15 record. A staggering 22 of those contests came against fighters in the top-100. Belfort’s 8-14 record in those 22 fights might not look impressive on paper, but it turns out that it puts him in some pretty good company. 

Although we only have one generation of fighters to analyze, it appears that just a ~40% winning percentage in elite fights is enough to keep getting elite fights, which is the key to putting together a top-100 resume. 

On the other end of the spectrum is a fighter like Ben Askren, who fought just three top-100 opponents with zero coming against the top-75. Even giving credit to Askren for those fights is generous considering the average age of his three opponents was 37. Although Askren’s 19-2-1 record appears impressive at first glance, his schedule strength is at the extreme of the spectrum, and not in a good way.  Fighters with a weak strength of schedule need to take advantage of their limited opportunities. Matt Hughes did not have the most stellar collection of opponents over his career. However, he won the fights he was supposed to win while picking up huge wins over GSP, BJ Penn, and Royce Gracie. He made the most of the schedule he was dealt securing his place in history. 

More from the Cage

The Wall is inevitable but irrelevant. 

Even the most dominant fighters can only handle so much wear-and-tear before losses start piling up at an increasing rate. We can call this The Wall. Some recognize it and retire in time to avoid tanking their winning percentage. Unfortunately, that’s the exception rather than the rule. GSP is an example of a fighter whose timely exit rewarded him with a well-preserved resume. His underwhelming performance in a controversial win over Johny Hendricks was enough to convince him to walk away from the sport relatively unscathed. For every GSP, numerous fighters hang around searching for skills and reflexes that have long since eroded. This list includes Anderson Silva, Jose Aldo, Shogun Rua, Chuck Liddell, Tito Ortiz, Chris Weidman, BJ Penn, Rashad Evans, Frank Mir, Carlos Condit, Johny Hendricks, Renan Barao, Nate Marquardt, Big Nog, and Lil Nog. 

The Wall sucks. The abruptness in which it arrives is cruel for both fighters and fans. Finding The Wall on a resume is as easy as scrolling to the section where the losses start piling up and then initiating sad-face. The Wall marks the definitive end to anything resembling peak ability. We have the power to ignore this section of a fighter’s career, and we should. We don’t penalize Jerry Rice for the final eight seasons of his career that he spent as a shell of his former self because they are useless data points. Performance after hitting The Wall is no different; it is a useless data point. 

Ken Shamrock fought a remarkable 11 fights after hitting The Wall. Hanging on too long tanked both his winning percentage and his legacy. We can’t do much about the former, but we have control over the latter. Had he retired after finishing Kimo Leopoldo in 2004, his career record would’ve been an impressive 26-8-2. Instead, he pushed forward in the face of diminishing skills and paid for it with a 2-9 stretch to close out his career. Since Shamrock was well past his prime and the cake was already baked on his Hall-of-Fame career, those final 11 fights should be irrelevant when evaluating his resume. The same goes for late-career money grabs like Liddell-Ortiz III. There was nothing that could’ve happened in that fight to change the narrative for either fighter. Legacies should be defined by what happens before The Wall.

The Dreaded Wall (Anderson Silva/wiki)

Career Arc

There are three distinct phases to an MMA career: green, prime, and twilight. While virtually all fighters go through these phases, the amount of time they spend in each varies significantly. Some take years to marinate before becoming elite (Stipe Miocic), while others are ready to compete right out of the gate (Vitor Belfort). Some fighters remain competitive against elite opponents into their 40s (Dan Henderson, Randy Couture), while others hit The Wall in their early 30s (Shogun Rua, Jose Aldo). The timeframe in which a fighter compiles elite wins is inconsequential as long as the body-of-work is there. It doesn’t matter if it all takes place over a dominant 3-year stretch or it’s sprinkled unevenly over a decade; the name of the game is winning and competing impressively against as many elite opponents as possible.

Champ-Champs and the Like

There is no doubt that a fighter who can compete at the highest level in multiple weight-classes is a rare breed. When putting together the list of top-100 fighters of all-time, we need to credit fighters who manage to accomplish this feat. Fighters who get a boost for posting big wins and/or title reigns in multiple weight classes include; Daniel Cormier, Dan Henderson, BJ Penn, Randy Couture, Conor McGregor, Henry Cejudo, Royce Gracie, Frank Shamrock, and Ryan Bader.

Title Defenses

Winning the belt is the goal for any MMA fighter, but even more impressive than winning it is keeping it. MMA has had its share of fluky champs who connected with the right strike at the right time. Matt Serra scored the biggest upset in UFC history by shocking Georges St. Pierre but didn’t log even one successful defense before losing it back to GSP. Junior Dos Santos connected with a first-round shot that ended Cain Velasquez’s title reign but subsequently lost ten consecutive rounds to Velasquez in two brutally one-sided rematches. Michael Bisping was a massive +525 underdog at UFC 199 when he scored a first-round upset over Luke Rockhold. Bisping was disposed of two fights later by a temporarily unretired GSP, who was fighting in a weight class he’d never fought in before. While Serra, JDS, and Bisping deserve kudos for pulling the upsets, a resume does not solidify in one night. MMA has also had its share of vacated belts resulting in fighters winning a title without having to defeat the previous champion. 

Belts can be won in all sorts of ways—some impressive, some not so much. Defending the belt, on the other hand, has no such variance. Champions are routinely fed the top contender making every successful title defense increasingly more impressive. In terms of fighter legacy, think of each title defense as having an accelerated multiplier attached to it. Jon Jones is the greatest MMA fighter of all-time because he defended the belt 11 times in the treacherous light heavyweight division. For comparison, Khabib Nurmagomedov—as dominant as he was—owns just three successful title defenses. For the same reason Jones is the GOAT, Anderson Silva is the GOAT runner-up. Silva’s 10-consecutive title defenses are second all-time to Demetrius Johnson (11) and seven more than any other middleweight in UFC history, which is why… 

Anderson Silva did not ruin his legacy by hanging on too long. 

It wasn’t too long ago that Anderson Silva was universally considered the greatest MMA fighter of all-time. Jon Jones has since eclipsed him, which should’ve dropped him to the second position, but something interesting has happened. It has become cliché to espouse the idea that Silva tarnished his legacy by sticking around too long. Gegard Mousasi said those words verbatim, and a quick Google search of “Anderson Silva tarnished legacy” reveals a cavalcade of similar sentiments. There is an argument to be made that Silva did tarnish his legacy, but that would be related to failed drug tests, not his performance in the octagon. 

The idea that an MMA fighter can tarnish or ruin a legacy by hanging on too long is a misguided notion. Michael Jordan won six NBA Finals MVPs and was universally regarded as the greatest basketball player of all-time when he retired for the second time in 1998. Three years later, he returned to play two seasons for the Washington Wizards in which he was, unsurprisingly, a shell of his younger self. His points-per-game, field-goal percentage, and player efficiency rating (PER) all plummeted from his previous output, and the Wizards failed to make the playoffs both seasons. Despite his lackluster performance, when Jordan retired for the final time, his status as the GOAT was as strong as it had ever been. Superstar athletes are typically afforded the luxury of growing old, but there seems to be a double-standard when it comes to MMA fighters. This double-standard is a disservice to both the sport and its athletes. Despite the diminishing returns, Anderson Silva continued to fight after his prime because he liked the challenge. Jordan came back at 38 for the same reason. 

Silva knew better than anyone that his skills had diminished, but he was under no obligation to anyone—not fans, critics, or historians—to retire for the sake of posterity. By continuing to fight, there wasn’t anything he could’ve done to undo what he had already done—and what he had already done was an unprecedented assault on the history books. His 16-fight winning streak is, by far, the longest in UFC history. He held the middleweight belt for 2,457 consecutive days, which is, by far, the most for any weight-class in UFC history. He had a 14-fight winning streak as champion, which is the most in UFC history. He had a 13-fight winning streak at middleweight, which is the most for any division in UFC history. He had nine finishes and seven knockouts in title bouts, both being the most in UFC history. He has the highest significant strike percentage in UFC history (min. 1,000 attempts). He’s second all-time in career UFC knockouts, third all-time in career UFC finishes, and has headlined the second most PPV main events in UFC history. That he still enjoyed competing after his prime doesn’t undo any of that. 

Weight Classes

Media coverage in the MMA industry has historically favored lighter fighters. In March 2015, ESPN’s pound-for-pound rankings featured three welterweights, two bantamweights, a flyweight, and a featherweight in its top-10. In June 2018, five of the six lightest weight classes were represented in the top-10. The lightweight division alone had three representatives. Daniel Cormier and Stipe Miocic—two of the greatest fighters in MMA history—didn’t show up until #7 and #8, respectively. In October of 2020, nine of the 15 fighters who received votes in ESPN’s rankings weighed 155lbs or less. This trend has been pretty consistent ever since lighter divisions started to materialize in the early 2000s. 

The problem with favoring the lighter divisions is that it is progressively more difficult to succeed—and dominate—the heavier the weight class. According to fightmatrix.com, 46.3% of all MMA heavyweight fights have ended in TKO. That number drops with each weight class, bottoming out at just 27.9% in the flyweight division. In contrast, only 16.8% of all heavyweight fights have ended in a decision. That number rises with each weight class, topping out at 36.7% in the flyweight division. The one-punch knockout threat of MMA’s heaviest and most dangerous divisions prevents long winning streaks and successful title defenses, making what Jon Jones, Daniel Cormier, and Stipe Miocic have accomplished all the more impressive.

Surviving at heavyweight—and doing so fight-after-fight—is the most arduous task in the sports. Like the first 90 seconds vs. Iron Mike in Mike Tyson’s Punch-out!!!, the threat of a knockout is palpable in every big-boy fight. Routinely avoiding the KO requires elite conditioning, outstanding work in the clinch, effective top control, and elite takedown defense. Those skills are transferable to all weight classes, but they take on a whole new level of importance in the heavyweight division. Francis Ngannou—as explosive and impressive as he has been—was exposed by Stipe for not having these skills. Cormier amassed a 22-3 career-record in MMA’s two most dangerous weight classes by excelling in them.

Additionally, light heavyweight is the equivalent of two weight classes (205 and 195) and heavyweight is the equivalent of six weight classes (265, 255, 245, 235, 225, and 215), making the talent pool much deeper than what exists in the lighter weight classes. Jon Jones has defeated 11 probable future Hall-of-Famers, while Stipe is at eight and counting. In stark contrast, Demetrius Johnson and Henry Cejudo are stuck at three. Given there is a larger talent pool in the heavier divisions and it’s harder to consistently win, we need to buck the trend of giving favor to the lightest divisions and start giving the heaviest weight classes a degree-of-difficulty bump. 

“Who would win?” is not the question.

“Who would win in a fight?” has been the intro to many animated conversations since cavemen were eating forbidden fruit and running from the dinosaurs . While that question is always a gateway to compelling banter, this list does not directly address that query. Instead, it is a ranking of the greatest fighters in MMA history judged by strength-of-resume. The distinction might seem nuanced, but one is hypothetical about a future event, and the other is about what has already happened. 

Let’s use Brock Lesnar and Frank Mir to highlight the distinction between what this list is and isn’t. If MMA fans were asked to predict the winner of a Lesnar/Mir fight to take place next week, Lesnar would win in a landslide. The oddsmakers in Vegas would undoubtedly agree. As we know, Lesnar and Mir did fight, twice actually. The first fight was Lesnar’s first action against an experienced UFC heavyweight—and it was against a former champion, no less. Lesnar dominated the opening 90 seconds until he got caught with a savvy kneebar by a reeling Mir. The rematch would see Lesnar cruise to victory. Mir was fortunate to come away with a win in the first fight and, after the second fight, it was clear that Lesnar was the superior fighter. 

So, who would win between Lesnar and Mir? Well, that’s an easy one; the answer is Lesnar. Who has the better MMA resume and should be ranked higher on the all-time list? That’s an easy one, too; it’s Mir. Mir’s 16 wins in the UFC heavyweight division are second-most all-time. Lesnar recorded just four wins in the UFC, including one with a 45-lb weight advantage against a 43-year old Randy Couture. In Lesnar’s brief eight-fight career, he was finished in the first round against his two most difficult opponents (Velasquez and Overeem) and should’ve been finished in the first round against Shane Carwin in what is arguably the most lopsided round in MMA history. 

The absolute best thing that we can say about Lesnar’s resume is that he has a victory over Mir. On the other hand, Mir has better things on his resume than his victory over Lesnar. While Lesnar might be the better fighter, Mir had a better career. 

Khabib

Khabib Nurmagomedov is likely the most dominant fighter in MMA history. Not only did he win all 29 of his professional fights, he never came close to losing. In 60-career rounds, he lost just two—one to Justin Gaethje which was dubious at best, and one to Conor McGregor. Jon Jones, on the other hand, lost two rounds in three different fights. Of Khabib’s 60 career rounds inside the cage, 19 resulted in a finish for an astounding 32% round-finish rate. By comparison, Jon Jones finished an opponent in 17 of 82 career rounds for a 21% round-finish rate. Khabib-fights were different than those of other elite fighters in the sense that we knew Khabib’s opponent had no chance. Even in a sport where everyone has expertise in self-defense, his assaults bordered on bullying. 

So, it is a bit disappointing that he doesn’t lay claim to the title of GOAT. As dominant as Khabib was, his fight-frequency was frustratingly low and that, unfortunately, precludes him from GOAT status. In nine years in the UFC, Khabib fought just 13 times. In Jones’s first 12 years in the UFC, he managed to fight 22 times despite repeated interruptions from suspensions and legal trouble. 

The unfortunate byproduct of not fighting often is a correspondingly low number of fights against marquee opponents. In 29 career fights, Khabib fought just three fighters in the top-100. Jones is at 12 and counting; Anderson Silva and GSP are at 16 and 9, respectively. In a comparison between dominant fighters, the nod has to go to those who fought more often and did so against a considerably more impressive collection of opponents. To the chagrin of MMA aficionados everywhere, Khabib simply didn’t fight enough. 

Givens

Like a sudoku puzzle, there are some clues locked in place before we even begin to compare resumes. Here are some examples:

Wanderlei Silva > Sakuraba (3 fights, 3 wins for Wanderlei)

Cain Velasquez > JDS (11 total rounds, Cain dominated for 10)

Rampage > Liddell (2 fights, 2 finishes for Rampage)

Liddell > Tito (2 fights in prime, 2 finishes for Liddell)

Frankie Edgar > BJ Penn (3 fights, 3 wins for Edgar)

Jose Aldo > Frankie Edgar (2 fights, 2 similarly decisive wins for Aldo)

Tito > Ken Shamrock (3 fights, 3 finishes for Tito)

Jeremy Horn > Chael Sonnen (3 fights, 3 finishes for Horn)

Renan Barao > Faber (2 fights, 2 wins for Barao including finish and 50-45)

TJ Dillashaw > Renan Barao (2 fights, 2 finishes for Dillashaw)

TJ Dillashaw > Cody Garbrandt (2 fights, 2 finishes for Dillashaw)

Cro Cop > Josh Barnett (3 fights, 3 wins for Cro Cop)

Retro Draws

MMA has been plagued by controversial judging decisions since its inception. The all-too-familiar 30-27, 30-27, 27-30 split-decision is real, and it’s not spectacular. Even Paul Felder—who stood to gain from judging malfeasance—rolled his eyes when the result of his lopsided split-decision loss to Rafael dos Anjos was announced. Fortunately for dos Anjos, the other two judges saw the fight for what it was, and he was able to walk away with a well-earned victory. Other fighters haven’t been as lucky. Much more common than total judging malpractice is a razor-close split-decision that leaves the MMA community divided. As much as we want it to be—and try to make it be—MMA is not a zero-sum sport. Some fights have clear winners and losers; others don’t. Fortunately, all fights give us information. Going the distance with an elite opponent without definitively losing enhances a resume regardless of the scorecards. In controversial or razor-close decisions, the loser on the scorecards should receive more credit than simply a loss, while the winner on the scorecards should receive less credit than a win. This isn’t practical in actual MMA judging, but we can make these adjustments when evaluating careers. Fights that make more sense scored closer to a draw than the initial result include: 

Royce Gracie- Sakuraba 2 (win for Gracie)

GSP-Hendricks (win for GSP)

Machida-P. Davis (loss for Machida)

Machida-Rampage (loss for Machida)

Machida-Rua (win for Machida)

Almost all Benson Henderson fights

Lawler-Condit (win for Lawler)

Machida-Shogun 1 (win for Machida)

Dillashaw-Cruz (win for Cruz)

BJ Penn-GSP 1 (win for GSP)

BJ Penn-Edgar 1 (win for Edgar)

Big Nog-Ricco Rodriguez (win for Big Nog)

Randleman-Rutten (win for Rutten)

Couture-Rizzo 1 (win for Couture)

Holloway-Volkanovski 2 (win for Volkanovski)

Jon Jones-Gustafsson 1 (win for Jones)

Cormier-Gustafsson (win for Cormier)

Wonderboy-Till (win for Till)

Couture-Vera (win for Couture)

Rampage-Murilo Rua (win for Rampage)

Nick Diaz-Carlos Condit (win for Condit)

Shields-Woodley (win for Shields)

Lawler-Hendricks 2 (win for Lawler)

Whittaker-Romero 2 (win for Whittaker)

Bader-P. Davis 1 (win for Bader)

Bader-P. Davis 2 (win for Bader)

Making the Cut: The 100 Greatest Football Players of All-Time

Let’s start this off with a radical statement: being one of the top-100 football players of all-time is not an easy accomplishment. Shocking, I know. That declaration, however, is not meant to be limited to the literal sense. Considering just .08% of high school football players make it to the NFL, it’s pretty evident how hard it is just to get to the NFL, let alone excel. What might not be as evident is how hard it is to perform at a top-100 level in the relative sense. The NBA/ABA has had just under 5,000 players in its history. Putting together the top-100 players in professional basketball history requires selecting the top 2% of all the players who ever played. The NFL, on the other hand, has had just under 27,000 players in its history. The top 2% of players in NFL history would result in 540 players. In other words, being one of the top-540 players in NFL history is equivalent to being one of the top-100 players in NBA history. Think about how unlikely it is that a player entering the NBA will end up being one of the top-100 basketball players of all-time. Well, it’s 5.4 times more difficult than that for an NFL player to achieve the same status in football. Since nobody (including me) sets out to identify the top-540 players in any sport, it just means that a massive list of deserving players needs to be whittled down to 100. Given the relative unfairness of the football top-100 list compared to other sports, it is imperative that it is put together as judiciously as possible while fully acknowledging the many superlative football players among the omissions. Below are some of the factors and parameters that I leaned on to get to the fairest list possible.

Position Distribution

It would be pretty easy to toss 40 QBs into the top-100, pull 60 from other positions, and call it a wrap. QBs get the most accolades and deservedly so. They have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of games and should have a disproportionate presence in the top-100. However, there are at least 13 different positions in non-special teams play. It’s important to the integrity of the list that it not be skewed too heavily towards offense or defense, and that the distribution of positions is commensurate to the relative value of each position. Specific quotas were not used, but I did make it a point to start with a similarly-sized pool of players from each position group to guarantee certain position groups weren’t handicapped before the process even started. I also made it a point to specifically scrutinize the quarterback and skill positions to avoid too heavy and too light an emphasis due to the tendency for those positions to receive the most publicity.  Although I won’t be adhering to a positional quota as the list evolves, here is the very first iteration of the top 100 (released in January, 2021) just to give an example of what a positional breakdown might look like:

Offense (51)       Defense (49)

QB 14                    DE 10    

RB 10                    OLB 9

WR 8                      CB 9

OT 8                       MLB 8

G 7                         DT 8                      

TE 3                        S 5

C 1

Five-year Requirement

In order to qualify for the top-100, a player needs five years of service. There have been too many great players in NFL history for a player to reach the top-100 in just four years. The five-year mark is pushing it too, but I think there are rare exceptions who have accomplished enough by the five-year mark. This is especially true at running back given the average shelf life of the position. Earl Campbell was awarded the AP Offensive Player of the Year his first three years in the league (tied with Marshall Faulk for most all-time) and the 1979 MVP while leading the league in rushing three times and touchdowns twice. By his fourth season, Campbell had amassed 6,457 career yards and 55 touchdowns. Considering his hardware and the number of times leading the league in yards and touchdowns, it doesn’t take much of an effort to justify Campbell’s inclusion in the top-100 after just five seasons. The five-year requirement will also act as an artificial check on overreacting to the next big thing.

Special Teams

Kickers, punters, and returners are pivotal to team success and they have provided some of the most exciting moments in NFL history. However, while the units themselves are important, special teams players participate in a disproportionately small number of plays in a given game. For example, Ray Guy—one of the great punters in NFL history—played roughly 1,049 snaps over his 14-year career. Randall McDaniel—one of the great guards in NFL history—played approximately 14,300 snaps over his 14-year career.  Over the same career length, McDaniel played roughly 14 times the number of snaps as Guy. There’s simply too much of a discrepancy in playing time for any special teams player to break the top-100 over an every-down player. If I had 540 spots to fill, then Devin Hester, Adam Vinatieri, and Ray Guy would undoubtedly have a home.

Regular Season vs. Playoffs

As we established above, the top-100 players in the NBA are equivalent to the top-540 players in the NFL when adjusted for player population. Trying to squeeze 540 players into 100 spots creates a traffic jam every bit as gridlocked as the Dan Ryan Expressway with the added pleasure of a horse galloping in the right lane. Differentiating between nearly identical resumes quickly devolves into a game of picking the most dapper Oompa-Loompa (spoiler: they all look the same). So, it is important to identify distinguishing characteristics to help establish a hierarchy among equally deserving players. To fairly compare two elite players to each other, we first need to consider the entire resume.  While regular-season success gives the best apples-to-apples comparison, it’s often necessary to lean on playoff success to provide the differentiator. The two most prominent examples of this are comparisons of Tom Brady to Peyton Manning and Emmitt Smith to Barry Sanders. The four engaged in epic regular-season duels, Brady and Manning battling back and forth for league MVP for 15 years, and Emmitt and Barry engaging in a 9-year war for the regular season rushing crown. All four are safely among the top-25 players in NFL history on regular-season accolades alone. In both instances, however, one player has a massive advantage over the other in playoff performance. There is no doubt that access to the playoffs is largely dependent on what franchise a player has had the (mis)fortune of playing for which is why “playoff success” needs to be narrowly defined. For the purposes of player comparisons, “playoff success” references individual performance, not simply just playing on a good team. Tom Brady has been to nine Super Bowls and won six of them. He wasn’t just along for the ride; he was the ride. His four Super Bowl MVPs are the most in NFL history—only four others have won it more than once—and he’s the all-time playoff and Super Bowl leader in passing yards and passing touchdowns. It’s true that he played for a great organization, but Brady played the quarterback position in the playoffs against the most difficult competition in the league better than any quarterback in history. It’s a similar story for Emmitt Smith. He was the workhorse who powered the Dallas Cowboys dynasty to three Super Bowl championships. He is the all-time playoff leader in rushing yards and rushing touchdowns. E. Smith didn’t just get the opportunity to play in the playoffs, he performed better at his position than any player in playoff history. It’s true that Brady and E. Smith played for better teams but it’s not the opportunities that get them rated so highly; rather, it’s what they did with those opportunities on the biggest stage against the most difficult competition.     

League Size

Jim Brown and Don Hutson are universally considered two of the greatest players in NFL history. Brown led the NFL in rushing yards eight times and rushing touchdowns five times. Hutson led the NFL in receiving yards seven times and receiving touchdowns nine times. Those are eye-popping accomplishments to be sure, but there’s a reason we’ve never seen anything like that since and probably won’t see anything like that ever again. Hutson and Brown entered the NFL when there were just 10 and 12 teams, respectively. There are currently 32 teams in the NFL. Using “number of times leading the league” as a metric to rate Brown and Hutson against modern players is not helpful unless it is put into the proper context. For instance, Emmitt Smith led the NFL in rushing yards four times and rushing touchdowns three times in a league that had anywhere from 28-30 teams depending on the year. Since the NFL/AFL merger in 1970, no player has led the league in rushing yards or rushing touchdowns more often than E. Smith. Is that more impressive than what Jim Brown did in a 12-team league? Statistically speaking, it might be. E. Smith’s league-leading marks actually outpace Brown’s when adjusted for league size. Randy Moss led the NFL in receiving touchdowns five times. Since the NFL/AFL merger, Jerry Rice is the only other player to lead the league more than three times. Are Moss’s accomplishments more impressive than what Hutson did in a 10-team league? The math certainly seems to indicate that it is. Moss played in a league that had three times the number of players making it three times harder to lead the league in touchdowns. Adjusted for league size, Moss’s league-leading touchdown count far exceeds Hutson’s.     

A similar dance plays out when comparing Johnny Unitas to Brett Favre. Unitas won the NFL MVP three times. The number of teams in the league when he won each MVP, respectively, was 12, 14, and 16. Favre also won the NFL MVP three times. There were 30 teams in the NFL when Favre won his MVPs. Being voted the best in a league with 1,380 active players is a much more impressive feat than being voted the best in a league with 640 active players. Similarly, both players led the NFL in passing touchdowns four times. Favre had to throw more touchdown passes than 29 other starting quarterbacks each season to accomplish this feat. Unitas had to beat out anywhere from 11-15 depending on the year. In a comparison between Favre and Unitas where both have similar career accomplishments, it would be a disservice to Favre not to factor in the heightened degree-of-difficulty under which he carved out his resume.

 

Composition of the League

Let’s stick with the Unitas/Favre comparison. In 1964, when Unitas won his first NFL MVP, there were two major professional football leagues: the NFL and the AFL. The NFL had 560 active players in 1964. The AFL—a league that would prove its mettle by winning four of the first eight Super Bowls—had 272 active players. Of the 832 active-roster professional football players in 1964, Unitas played in a league with 67% of them. Additionally, NFL teams had quotas on the number of black players that could be on their rosters, significantly reducing the talent level leaguewide. Brett Favre had no such luxury. By the time Favre won his first MVP in 1995, the NFL and AFL had long since consolidated, and the shameful quotas on black players had been lifted, resulting in 100% of the best professional football players making their home in the NFL. While both Unitas and Favre each won three MVPs, a deeper look reveals that Favre’s were considerably more difficult to achieve. Unitas isn’t the only Hall-of-Fame player who benefited from a watered-down league prior to the merger. Other great players from the 60s who played in the NFL when it had only 67% of the available talent pool and restrictive quotas on black players include Jim Brown, Gino Marchetti, Bob Lilly, Deacon Jones, Ray Nitschke, Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg, and Merlin Olsen.   

Versatility

Mastering one position in the NFL is hard enough; doing it at 3+ positions is indicative of a truly special football player. The rare player who excels at multiple positions is incredibly valuable and that value is reflected in the top-100. Rod Woodson was selected as a 1st-team All-Pro at an NFL record three different positions (CB, S, KR). He was also an above-average punt-returner making him a four-position contributor. Deion Sanders was selected as a 1st-team All-Pro at two different positions (CB, KR) while also being one of the best punt-returners in the game. Sanders was so versatile that he scored 22 career touchdowns in six different ways (rushing, receiving, punt return, kick return, fumble return, and interception return) which is unheard of for a defensive player. Bruce Matthews played at least 16 games at all five positions on the offensive line making him the most versatile—and perhaps greatest—offensive lineman of all-time. Like R. Woodson, he was selected as a 1st-team All-Pro at three different positions (LG, RG, C).  R. Woodson, D. Sanders, and B. Matthews are universally considered all-time greats at their primary positions but it’s their versatility that gets them into the top-25. Other players whose versatility bolstered their resumes include Ronnie Lott, Charles Woodson, Antonio Brown, Sammy Baugh, and Chuck Bednarik.

Hardware

In the NFL, hardware isn’t just bling; it’s your ticket to the Hall of Fame and status as one of the greatest players to ever play. There are certain achievements that pretty much guarantee a player’s place among the top-100. Since the AP MVP Award was first given out in 1958, there have been nine players who have won multiple AP NFL MVP Awards; eight are in the top-100. Of that group, only Kurt Warner misses out. The AP Defensive Player of the Year Award has been given out 49 times since its inception in 1971; 33 of the 49 recipients are in the top-100. There have been eight players who have won multiple AP Defensive Player of the Year Awards; not only are all eight in the top 100 but they’re all in the top-30. Ten players have won an AP NFL MVP and a Super Bowl MVP; eight are in the top-100 and a ninth—Patrick Mahomes—is all but assured a spot in the future. Again, only Kurt Warner misses out on the top-100 which brings us to…

Kurt Warner

Kurt Warner is the most difficult omission for me which is counterintuitive considering there are other players who didn’t make the list who would be added before Warner. What makes Warner’s omission uneasy is the elite company he keeps. As I mentioned above, there have been nine players who have won multiple AP MVP Awards and Warner is the only one who didn’t make the top-100. Similarly, there have been ten players who won an AP NFL MVP and a Super Bowl MVP and Warner is the only player of that group who won’t end up on the list. Perhaps most difficult to overlook is the fact that Warner is one of only seven players in history to have multiple AP NFL MVPs and a Super Bowl MVP. The other six to accomplish that feat aren’t just in the top-100, they’re in the top 50. So, why isn’t Warner in the top 100? First, there’s no doubt that Warner would make a list of, say, the top-200, which is no small feat in a league that has played home to 27,000 players. The factor that keeps Warner out of the top-100 is simply longevity. Warner only started 116 games in his career while winning just 58% of them (no modern quarterback in the top-100 has a winning percentage below 60%). Warner not becoming a starter until he was 28 played a role in limiting his career but he was also plagued by injuries as evidenced by the fact that he started 12+ games in a season just four times. In fact, he only put together four seasons that can even be considered above-average. There are simply too many great players who performed at an elite level over a much longer period of time to include Warner in the top-100. Steve Young only started 143 games and—like Warner—doesn’t have the career counting stats to measure up against the other great quarterbacks on the list. However, what gets Young on the list is what he did with his relatively short time in the league. Young led the league in QB rating six times, completion percentage five times, yards per attempt five times and touchdown passes four times. He is 2nd all-time in rushing touchdowns by a QB and won 66% of his games as a starter while also duplicating Warner’s two MVPs and a Super Bowl MVP.

Terry Bradshaw

It might be becoming cliché to keep Bradshaw off top-100 lists—so cliché, in fact, that I considered the possibility before ultimately deciding at the 2-minute warning that his hardware collection is still top-100 worthy. Although there were contemporary quarterbacks who statistically outperformed Bradshaw in the regular season who aren’t in the top-100, including Dave Anderson, Bradshaw was pretty successful in the regular season in his own right, winning an AP MVP and leading the league in touchdown passes twice. While that certainly doesn’t hurt Bradshaw’s profile, it’s what he did in the post-season that still stands the test of time. Bradshaw won four Super Bowls (behind only Tom Brady in NFL history) and is one of only five players to win multiple Super Bowl MVPs. Only Bradshaw, Brady, and Joe Montana won at least four Super Bowls, at least two Super Bowl MVPs, and at least one AP NFL MVP. Additionally, Bradshaw has the highest winning percentage in postseason history among quarterbacks who have played at least 10 playoff games. Although Bradshaw’s residency in the top-100 will come to an end sooner than later, he still has a few years before his lease is up.

Steve Van Buren vs. Terrell Davis

Walking through this player comparison will help illuminate how using sound logic and reasoning help avoid making the same mistakes that led to the NFL’s 100th Anniversary All-Time Team being so overrepresented by players who debuted prior to NFL/AFL merger in 1970. To reiterate, only 33% of all the players in NFL history played before the merger, yet 49% of the players included on the NFL’s own top-100 list played prior to 1970. This era featured small leagues, rival leagues, and a ban/quota on black players, making this the easiest era to succeed the NFL has ever seen. We need to make sure to factor this in. Now, let’s get started with the comp…

First, it’s important to establish that Terrell Davis is not a top-100 player. He was an absolute beast of a running back who may have had the highest three-year peak of all-time, but he simply did not stay healthy for long enough to sneak into the top-100. Although T. Davis is not a top-100 player, he can be very useful as a gatekeeper of sorts for running backs looking to break into the top-100. In the simplest terms, if a running back can’t beat T. Davis, then the top-100 is out of reach. Steve Van Buren has universally been included on top-100 lists for the last 60 years. He was undoubtedly one of the NFL’s biggest stars before the merger. He was named to the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s 1940s All-Decade Team and enshrined in Canton in 1965. However, when we adjust his career for league size and demographic factors, it becomes obvious that his resume falls short of T. Davis’s, let alone the top-100.

Van Buren led the NFL in rushing yards four times, touchdowns four times, and total yards from scrimmage twice. He did this in a 10-team league. T. Davis led the league in touchdowns twice, yards from scrimmage twice, and rushing yards once. He also finished second in rushing yards twice. He did this in a 30-team league. In a league with three times the players, it is three times as difficult to lead the league in statistical categories making each of Davis’s second-place finishes in rushing yardage more impressive than Van Buren’s 1st place finishes. Adjusted for league size, Davis was statistically more impressive in the regular season including what is arguably the greatest season by a running back in NFL history when he became the first and only running back to rush for 2,000 yards and 20 touchdowns in the same season. He was named the NFL MVP in 1998 and the NFL Offensive Player of the Year in 1996 and 1998. Van Buren did not win an MVP award and would’ve needed to win three MVPs and six Offensive Player of the Year awards just to keep pace. Davis even played more regular-season games than Van Buren which is ironic considering Van Buren’s longevity doesn’t seem to be questioned while everyone agrees that Davis’s candidacy for the top-100 is torpedoed by career length. Then there’s the postseason…

T. Davis has arguably the most impressive per-game postseason statistics of any player in NFL history. In eight career playoff games, Davis ran for 12 touchdowns and averaged 142.5 yards-per-game at a 5.59 yards-per-carry clip. The Broncos rode Davis to seven consecutive playoff wins, resulting in back-to-back Super Bowl victories. He took home one Super Bowl MVP and would’ve won a second behind a 162-yard effort in Super Bowl XXXIII had Howard Griffith–his teammate–not “vultured” two 1-yard touchdowns. Van Buren, for his part, rushed for two touchdowns and averaged 91.3 yards-per-game at a 3.92 yards-per-carry clip in four playoff games including back-to-back NFL Championship Game victories.

While Van Buren is almost universally considered a top-100 player in NFL history, Terrell Davis is not. Although there isn’t a justification for those opinions to exist in tandem, it is conventional wisdom nonetheless. This is just one example that reveals how badly the methods we have historically used to compile the all-time greats are in need of recalibration.

O-Line

If we were to put together a list of the top-100 offensive linemen in NFL history, the 100th player on that list would be a really good player. Frustratingly, there’s only room for a fraction of that number. Making matters more difficult is that a metric to judge the historical significance of offensive linemen has been the “white rabbit” of NFL statistics for as long as the league has existed. While the technical ability that is required to excel on the offensive line in the NFL is arguably the most difficult to master in football, it is also the least statistically quantifiable making the three spots on the line the most difficult to rank of all NFL positions. With the addition of Pro Football Focus to the landscape, there is hope that differentiating between two great offensive linemen will be easier in the future. In the meantime, ranking offensive linemen pretty much boils down to the inexact science of finding the players who have the greatest combination of honors and longevity, while also accounting for playoff success, sacks allowed, and historic production in the running game. The average profile of the offensive linemen in the top-100 who debuted after the merger in 1970 is 202 games started, 10 Pro Bowls, and seven 1st team All-Pro selections. Future players who manage to achieve a similar profile will likely find a path into the top-100.  

Playoff Format

Prior to Super Bowl I in 1967, winning the NFL Championship required winning one playoff game. Otto Graham won seven championships and it took him just seven games to do it (not counting tiebreakers). Tom Brady won six Super Bowls and it took him 18 games to do it. Quarterbacks pre-1970 had a considerably easier route to winning a championship than the quarterbacks who followed. As a result, you will find quarterbacks pre-merger rated lower than might be expected based on their championships—or in some cases—not rated at all.

The Clarification

In The Recalibration, we established that degree-of-difficulty is a vital element to inter-era player comparisons. If we ignore this component, our ability to thread an accurate narrative of the greatest players throughout history is DOA. That might sound a bit dramatic, but we don’t have to use hypotheticals to imagine the ramifications of forging ahead without accounting for competition level. We only need to look to the NFL’s 100th Anniversary All-Time Team (49 of top-100 debuted before 1970) or the Sporting News’s list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players (entire top-25 debuted before 1968) to see that ignoring degree-of-difficulty results in a list dominated by players who played during the weakest eras in history. Although adjusting for league strength is imperative, we need to clarify what we mean—and don’t mean—by league strength. 

If Babe Ruth were teleported from 1921 to the present, he would probably be drunk. After sobering up, he would quickly find that he became a crummy baseball player overnight. Player development has advanced far beyond anything anyone from Ruth’s era ever could’ve imagined. Pitchers throw harder and have better control than a century ago. They master more offerings, sequence better, and rarely tip pitches. Due to the significant increase in average pitcher height, they throw on a more exaggerated downhill plane and release the ball closer to the plate than ever before. Since starting pitchers throw so much harder, they also don’t stick around for hitters to see them a 3rd, 4th, and 5th time through the lineup to offer up the tasty meatballs that Ruth undoubtedly feasted on. 

Modern hitters have evolved in several ways to combat these pitching advances. They are bigger, stronger, and have better hand-eye coordination leading to steeper launch angles and higher exit velocities. While Ruth had prodigious power, there is little chance he had the quick-twitch reflexes necessary to make use of it in today’s highly-specialized game. It would be hard to imagine Ruth outhitting even the worst hitter in MLB today today. His base-running and defense would be so poor that there’s a decent chance he would be escorted off the field before even getting a chance to swing a bat. Unfortunately for The Bambino, since teleporting doesn’t include evolution by osmosis, he would need to try his hand at another skill like competitive eating if he’s planning on sticking around. While this is a fun thought-experiment, this is not our definition of degree-of-difficulty. Ruth’s greatness should not be determined by the teleportation test.  

Now that we’ve defined what degree-of-difficulty isn’t, let’s define what it is. For the purposes of inter-era player comparisons, it will reflect the following:  

  1. The overall number of opponents that a player competes against to lead the league in statistical categories and win awards.
  2. The number of games required to win a championship.
  3. The percentage of the best available talent present in the league.
  4. The size of the global pool populating the league.

The first part of our definition is the easiest to quantify. MLB today is close to twice the size as it was when Ruth played, meaning he only had to outperform half the players to lead the league in statistical categories compared to modern players. In other words, it’s easier to hit more home runs than 225 people than it is to hit more home runs than 450. Similarly, Ruth’s Yankees only needed to win four games to win the World Series, while the Dodgers had to win 13 games in 2020 to take home the championship. It’s not a coincidence that dynasties—in all sports—simply don’t exist the way they used to when there were fewer teams to beat and fewer games to win.

The third part of our definition is, thankfully, an artifact of the past. While current major leaguers compete against all the best baseball players in the sport, the same cannot be said for Ruth. MLB’s ban on black and Latino players watered down the overall quality of play during his career. To get an idea of what was missing, consider that in the 33 years following Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in 1947, black players won 30 league MVPs. There is no question that Ruth benefited from not having to compete against Josh Gibson, Turkey Stearnes, and Oscar Charleston, all prolific home run hitters active during his career. 

Lastly, we need to account for MLB’s shift from a national organization to a global one. There were more international players on MLB rosters in 2020 than total players in the American League in 1921. Baseball’s popularity has exploded around the globe, making it harder than ever to reach the majors. This is the classic big fish in a little pond vs. big fish in a big pond scenario. There’s a reason why the smart money is almost always on the latter.

As we conduct inter-era player comparisons in baseball going back to the 1890s, we will notice that degree-of-difficulty becomes less of a factor with each passing generation, and it mostly stopped being a factor altogether by the mid-1990s. The number of teams in MLB has held steady since 1998. Despite constant tinkering, the number of games required to win a championship has remained mostly consistent since the wild card was first used in 1995; and most importantly, MLB has been a global enterprise welcome to all players for decades. Unless MLB chooses to undergo a significant expansion in the future, we should be able to rely on performance relative to peers as our sole method for comparing any two players who played after 1994. For all other comparisons, we’ll need to account for degree-of-difficulty according to our stated definition. Happy scrolling!