Weight cutting double standards.... explain please

The Beast Within

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
6,351
Reaction score
0
so the haters say that Conor was " killing himself" to make 145 and that it was an advantage over his opponents but then people say that Pettis and Rumble weren't at their best when they cut too much weight to be in a lower weight class.... so which is it? is it an advantage or it makes you weaker? you gotta choose one
 
The same people didn't make those individual statements, so there is no double standard
 
Conor probably walks around at 165. That's a 20 pound cut. Rumble walked around heavier then 200 pounds and had to cut to 170 that is a 30+ pound cut. Dont know about Pettis tho.
 
no two athletes are the same. And lots of people said CM was killing himself to make 145, not just haters. Seeing as to how CM never made 145 again and was willing to have the title stripped rather than make that cut again, I'd say your thread is stupid
 
The same people didn't make those individual statements, so there is no double standard
many have but i don't remember the names... so which is it? pettis was clearly weakened by the cut and rumble didn't look as good at WW, imo it isn't an advantage
 
many have but i don't remember the names... so which is it? pettis was clearly weakened by the cut and rumble didn't look as good at WW, imo it isn't an advantage

It's neither. You're trying to attribute a contradictory set of opinions to a group of people that didn't have that set of opinions.
 
The same people didn't make those individual statements, so there is no double standard


Additionally, not everybody is a worse fighter when cutting excessive amounts of weight. A certain subset of this forum constantly cites Gastelum and Rumble as "proof" of their conventional wisdom that cutting is counterproductive while completely ignoring the fact that guys like Maia, Lawler and Larkin improved drastically after dropping weight classes.
 
People are different. Situations are different.

Obviously cutting a lot of weight gives you some advantage (depending on the person), but if you're not good at cutting (or rather your body isn't good at it), you end up weaker.
 
so the haters say that Conor was " killing himself" to make 145 and that it was an advantage over his opponents but then people say that Pettis and Rumble weren't at their best when they cut too much weight to be in a lower weight class.... so which is it? is it an advantage or it makes you weaker? you gotta choose one
Because people watched the fights and paid attention to their performances.

And no, you don't "gotta choose". There is no simple rule regarding optimal weight cutting.
 
So, another thread where a Conor fan is butt hurt about something negative people have said about Conor making a weird obtuse argument about it
 
There's "good" cuts, and "bad" weight cuts. You can't compare the performance of an individual with a good weight cut and one with a bad weight cut.
 
When Connie lost he said it was because Nate was bigger. So he's implying that it really shouldn't count because he was at a size disadvantage.

Funny thing is, all his wins at FW and LW shouldn't really count either, because all those guys (midgets) were at a size disadvantage.
 
so the haters say that Conor was " killing himself" to make 145 and that it was an advantage over his opponents but then people say that Pettis and Rumble weren't at their best when they cut too much weight to be in a lower weight class.... so which is it? is it an advantage or it makes you weaker? you gotta choose one
Why does it have to be one or the other? Conor did cut to FW to have an advantage, he said so himself. He called all of his opponents at FW "Midgets". Conor is a natural LW by todays MMA standards. He did perform at FW which is something Pettis failed to do but that doesn't mean he didn't ahve an advantage. Conor is a LW sized fighter who cut to FW and then fought a LW (Nate Diaz) without cutting and called it a WW fight. Claiming to have moved up two weight classes. Its salesmanship at its best but the fact is Nate and Conor weighed the same in the Octagon as WW's as they would have weighed if it were a LW fight and they then rehydrated. A true WW cuts to 170 for weighins and then rehydrates to 185-190 for the actual fight.
 
You also have to factor in how good they are at recovering from the cut. Conor was walking around fairly lean close to the fights. He wasn't the same size he is now.
 
so the haters say that Conor was " killing himself" to make 145 and that it was an advantage over his opponents but then people say that Pettis and Rumble weren't at their best when they cut too much weight to be in a lower weight class.... so which is it? is it an advantage or it makes you weaker? you gotta choose one

Depends on the cut.

In general you have an advantage the more weight you put back on after weigh ins before the bell rings. Some cuts are brutal and destroy fighters cardio for the fight. It's not a universal thing as some fighters do things their own way and get different results.
 
There's "good" cuts, and "bad" weight cuts. You can't compare the performance of an individual with a good weight cut and one with a bad weight cut.
This. Some are better at cutting weight than others. Also physical attributes can play a role. It depends on how well a body reacts to the cut. Their conditioning can play a role and their body fat, water etc.

For some it works, for others it doesn't. People are making things to easy when they just generalize.

A weight cut is taking a toll on everyone. But some can recover better because of phsyical attributes and most likely because they are just approaching it better. If you do it right you can get quite an advantage. If not you can severely hurt your performance.
 
Rumble has fought at HW. Cutting to WW was fucking insane. He looked like TS's mother could have dropped him with a stone cold stunner.
 
Back
Top