Conclusion, I would NOT select winning streaks and title defenses as a measuring stick, because not all fighters get title shots the same way, and fighters with long winning streaks have consistently been beaten by fighters with shorter wining streaks...
Statistically the longer the winning streak the more likely the person ending that streak has a shorter winning streak. Long winning streaks don't make you invincible, especially in MMA, they just show dominance and consistency.
Case in point, you give Silva Weidman first, and there is PROBABLY no winning streak for Silva...He loses that fight 9/10 times...Easily...This has been proven...
It's an unfavorable match-up for Silva, so what ? Here's the thing, no matter how good your record is, and that's not even about winning streaks, if someone's a bad match-up for you, it's a bad match-up but that goes the same for everyone in the UFC except some of the top P4P (like DJ). But that doesn't take anything away from Silva's domination of the division.
Bisping's strength is the exact opposite of Silva's weakness. Bisping is always underestimated, while Silva appears like a beast that needs to be slain to everyone in the division.
The hunger factor in people they fight is not the same and the Rockhold-Bisping fight is a perfect example, he came in hands down over confident and got tagged.
Rockhold is a better fighter than Bisping, it's fairly hard to argue against that and he displayed it perfectly in both their fights. Would you say Rockhold is a better fighter than Silva ? To me it's a tie at best.
(3) Anderson Silva vs Chael Sonnen 1 is the reason why I started watching the UFC, and I fcuks with Silva (he is the reason I started following the UFC)...However, I am not going to let that blind me to his suspect record...
what suspect record ?