By consistency I mean you credit fighters for nothing and discredit them for other things.
How is owning one fighter better than beating a number of fighters? That makes no sense. We've never seen Brown against stiffer competition than Yves Edwards. Leonard Garcia is not stiff competition. He, much like Brown, losses to most decent fighters he fights (Huerta, Cole Miller), his only noteable win is against Jens Pulver, who is pretty overrated at this point of his career anyways. Same goes for Curran. Brown obviously owns Faber, hes bigger in stature and is a nasty fighter. But come on.. of all fighters in the world this guy is in the top 10 p4p? Really? And you're discrediting Machida and giving this guy credit just cause he can beat Faber?
I'm not discrediting Machida, he is of course in the top p4p talk, but so is Brown, I dont really see what your getting at, but when you break down Machidas opppnents they are not that great, machida is still great, but his resume isnt worldy
Owning Faber twice is as good of not better than Tito and Rashad, just like Fedor beating Nog twice, same concept, not hard to understand, of course has more great wins, but those 2 Nog wins are huge, Nog was the king of the heavys just like Faber was
Garica losses were at 155 and Curran he is good comp and is comparable to Bonnar or someone like that
Yves > Sok and White easily, Vernon isnt even a 500 fighter
Thiago has zero good wins, so we cant take much from him, still a wild card
All of Browns losses except 1 were at a higher weight and against quality guys, Genki and Hermes were fighting for the 155 belt in the UFC and Joe Lauzon is also a good fighter
Brown is a beast at 145 and if you cant see that I dont know what to tell you