MMA isn’t as bad as boxing in terms of how a record is compiled and perceived, but it still has its problems. What I mean is that in boxing, a typical fighter will have many amateur fights, turn pro and get slowly built-up (against increasingly tough but beatable opponents), and then, with a 20-0 record, fight for one of the hundred or so belts that’s up for grabs. If and when a boxer is in trouble in a fight, his corner or the ref is more likely to stop the fight early, to save the fighter from himself. If he loses a fight, he’ll get 1-2 rebound fights to build himself back up. If and when he loses a few fights, and has a 24-3 record, he’s considered washed up and the audience /pundits /promoters move on. In MMA, where there isn’t a well-develooed amateur circuit, many fighters turn pro with little or no amateur experience. While many do have the chance to be brought along slowly on the regional scene, far too often they have to take what they can get - meaning short-notice fights, including a call-up to the big leagues. Before long, the young MMA fighters are thrust into a sport where there is a culture of no rebound fights, no “throwing in the towel”, and where negotiating for a better deal / more favorable match-up is seen as cowardly rather than strategic. Fans can overlook a big number of losses as long as a fighter seems willing to fight anyone / anywhere - like Matt Brown, Donald Cerrone, etc. However, many of the more casual fans will overlook the substance of a career and focus only on the results. I’m not saying that everyone should watch every fight out there, but if you only go by results, then you would think Henderson-Shogun was just another fight. The point of my (very long) post is that I agree with the OP - while results are a very real metric by which to measure a career, they only tell a part of the story. To dismiss the whole story is as disrespectful as calling a fighter a “can” - it’s lazy, mindless, and dishonorable.