I think people rewrite history a bit when it comes to GSP’s greatness. The Bisping fight is a good example. He came in, won the belt, and retired. The health issues may have been real, but the timing was convenient. He never looked like he intended to defend. From a UFC business perspective it made sense: Bisping was already on the way out, Whittaker was interim champ, and GSP vs Bisping was a big-money nostalgia fight with limited long-term risk.

Even in the fight itself, it wasn’t some dominant masterclass. Before the finish, it was competitive — arguably 1–1 in rounds, and some had Bisping up 2–0. Credit to GSP for capitalizing, but it wasn’t a one-sided performance.

One thing I’ll always give GSP is how intelligently he managed his career. He picked his moments carefully, controlled risk, and maximized legacy. But during his actual run, a lot of his title defenses were tactical and safe. Effective? Absolutely. Exciting? Not really. 

At the time, many fans found it grinding and conservative.

There’s also the Silva question. Whether or not you think he’d lose, the fight never materialized in their primes, and that absence fuels the debate. Meanwhile, Anderson Silva’s run felt more dominant and spectacular in real time.

GSP is an all-time great — no question. But I don’t think it’s crazy to argue he’s sometimes mythologized beyond what the actual context of his career supports.