The best or the bigger fighter?

[thobra]

I think everyone can agree that there needs to be some changes in terms of weightcutting.
I have some experience in weightcutting for junior amateur boxing and kickboxing, and I know that even 2-5 kilos makes a huge difference (same day weigh ins). You were just not competitive at all vs a guy a weightclass up (10 lbs up). In MMA I would think it means much more.

So to the case: I will use two examples. Keep in mind that these probably are two of the most extreme weight cutters in mma..

- Max looked to be at least a weightclass bigger than Aldo, and we know he is a huge cutter.
- DC claims to weigh about 240 when he steps in the cage at LHW. Big John backs up the claim.

- So, is Max a better fighter than Aldo, or is it just because of the weight? What would happen if they weighed the same?
- Would DC beat Anderson if it wasn't for a 40 lb size advantage?
- In terms of p4p.. Does big guys like Khabib or Jones deserve to be there, when when they are so much bigger than most of their opponents?

I think everyone that did some sort of competitive martial art will see it the same way I do.

 

[yekmurat]

Being heavier/bigger is ofcourse an advantage but not everything dont you realize that?

 

[Sansnom]

I think it depends on the fighter.

Guys like Jon Jones really benefit from the size advantage. In his case, his height and reach advatage are a major part of his game. He uses his arms often to measure the distance.

Conor had a similar technique when he fought at FW. His height/reach advantage were a major part of his game.

But you have other guys who are very successful regardless of their size, like Frankie Edgar or Cormier at HW.

 

[Pain4Pain]

I think it benefits the grappling more than striking, which is why a lot or wrestlers/grapplers need a strength advantage in order to be competitive with the best.

 

[Sansnom]

When you think about it, there are a lot of cases where the bigger fighter is more successful.

Max Holloway is one of the biggest FWs, Khabib is a big LW, Jones is a big LHW...

 

[NoSmilez]

Anderson was a rather large MW during his time. I am assuming he is weighing less since he is old now.

 

[Gamer007]

Size plays a gigantic factor, doesn't mean the smaller guy can't win obviously.

 

[Mike K.O]

Toughness>size

 

[Rum]

I'm not a fan of it at all and always root for guys like Rob Whittaker who reject the idea of cutting the maximal amount of weight and go up a division, but as long as it's done legally weight cutting is just as much a legit aspect of being a "better fighter" as any training or fighting technique or strategy.

The goal is to enter the cage with as much of an advantage over your opponent as possible. Everything you work on prior to entering the cage - as long as it's legal - is in order to try to gain that advantage.

When it comes to deciding who is the "better fighter", being better at cutting weight is no different from throwing a more effective left hook or shooting a more effective double leg.

 

[Teddy Brukshot]

It really depends on your fighting style, being a wrestler based style being heavier than your opponent can be really useful likewise if you have a striker based style then length can be really useful.

 

[the white beast]

- Would DC beat Anderson if it wasn't for a 40 lb size advantage?.

the size of DC is a huge advantage. take that away and they fight at 185 and DC most likely
gets kod

 

[boxingskills]

Size all day

 

[youllneverwalkalone]

Being the bigger fighter is not everything but is a huge advantage, not a trivial one.

However, it's the promotion who sets the rules and the fighters need to navigate through them. Some do that more effectively than others.

You could also argue that weight-cutting is a skill in and of itself, so "bigger" and "better" aren't necessarily antonyms.

 

[Dana's Moonface]

When you think about it, there are a lot of cases where the bigger fighter is more successful.

Max Holloway is one of the biggest FWs, Khabib is a big LW, Jones is a big LHW...

They always say when skill is close, size really matters.

Good big man normally beats good little man, if the skill level is near equal.

 

[thobra]

Being heavier/bigger is ofcourse an advantage but not everything dont you realize that?

Of course, but I really feel that the average guy doesn’t consider this at all, And even mma media doesn’t consider it in their p4p rankings.

I think this has always been seen different by hardcore kickboxing fans.
I remember a time when zambidis was considered no 1 p4p for beating heavier guys, even if he wasn’t no 1 in his org.

And Beating someone like Semmy or Choi was considered a bigger acomplishment than knocking out higher ranked guys, even if they fought in the same weightclass.

 

[doubleg]

I think everyone can agree that there needs to be some changes in terms of weightcutting.
I have some experience in weightcutting for junior amateur boxing and kickboxing, and I know that even 2-5 kilos makes a huge difference (same day weigh ins). You were just not competitive at all vs a guy a weightclass up (10 lbs up). In MMA I would think it means much more.

So to the case: I will use two examples. Keep in mind that these probably are two of the most extreme weight cutters in mma..

- Max looked to be at least a weightclass bigger than Aldo, and we know he is a huge cutter.
- DC claims to weigh about 240 when he steps in the cage at LHW. Big John backs up the claim.

- So, is Max a better fighter than Aldo, or is it just because of the weight? What would happen if they weighed the same?
- Would DC beat Anderson if it wasn't for a 40 lb size advantage?
- In terms of p4p.. Does big guys like Khabib or Jones deserve to be there, when when they are so much bigger than most of their opponents?

I think everyone that did some sort of competitive martial art will see it the same way I do.

Maybe should be based on bmi

 

[thobra]

Being the bigger fighter is not everything but is a huge advantage, not a trivial one.

However, it's the promotion who sets the rules and the fighters need to navigate through them. Some do that more effectively than others.

You could also argue that weight-cutting is a skill in and of itself, so "bigger" and "better" aren't necessarily antonyms.

I guess it is a skill today, but I think if s guy loses 3 in a row to 15 lb heavier guys (in the same weightclass), it is not as bad, as it should almost be expected that they lose. I don’t think people realise the huge diffrrence it makes.

 

[thobra]

I'm not a fan of it at all and always root for guys like Rob Whittaker who reject the idea of cutting the maximal amount of weight and go up a division, but as long as it's done legally weight cutting is just as much a legit aspect of being a "better fighter" as any training or fighting technique or strategy.

The goal is to enter the cage with as much of an advantage over your opponent as possible. Everything you work on prior to entering the cage - as long as it's legal - is in order to try to gain that advantage.

When it comes to deciding who is the "better fighter", being better at cutting weight is no different from throwing a more effective left hook or shooting a more effective double leg.

Weightcutting is a skill, sure, but it is a fact (at least it is in amateur boxing and kickboxing) that the bigger man will win if the skilllevel is somewhat similar. Even if a fighter is a better boxer and a better grappler with a small margin, he will lose to a guy that has 10 lbs on him.

I don't like the development where we see that in a great majority of UFC fights, the guy that is best at cutting weight will win the fight. Not the guy with the best technique. Not the guy with the best all over skills.