Do today's deep weight cuts impact fight quality?

[MikeMcMann]

Let me ask you this: does anybody actually believe that if fighter A was told "you don't have to cut weight for this fight, but your opponent does" fighter A would choose to cut weight anyway? No? Good, then we agree that there's no performance advantage to weight cutting. Extending that a bit to say "going through a difficult, draining, and traumatic event like weight cutting just days before a fight can only harm performance" is not only eminently reasonable, but seems to be strongly supported by anecdotal evidence.

Also, much like getting punched in the head, the damaging effects of severe weight cutting are cumulative. I honestly think this is what happened to Hendricks, and is a big part of the reason why Conor couldn't stay at 145.

Yup but you are being reasonable and smart which is something many shertards cannot be on this topic.

Imagine if Rockhold was told he had to cut to 185lbs but could enter the cage on fight day up to 210lbs but no heavier.

Then imagine Weidman was told he did not have to cut but did have to enter the cage no more than 210lbs.

Like you say, does anyone, ANYONE think Weidman would cut anyway as if he gains something and does not lose something going thru the debilitating cut process? No. Fuck no.

 

[TrueFightFan]

This is a what if thread and the question is on weight cuts.

For the sake of this thread we are only addressing the hypothetical of fighters being able to fight the same opponents they currently now fight for title runs but without any of them needing to weight cut and instead being able to fight at their more natural size.

To keep it simple think of this way. Rockhold and Weidman can fight at their naturally trained weight of around 210lbs instead of cutting all the way down to 185lbs before going back up to 210lb on fight night.

So the question is would they be in better shape and should that correlate to a better fight for fans if the weight cut was taken out?

This is a question about the basic principle of 'do deep weight cuts generally impact training and fight quality due to the deleterious effects of a deep cut?'

this may sound like a crazy question (as it does to me) but there are a large number of sherdog posters who argue their is no proof that deep weight cuts impact training or fight quality (@MonstaAJ , @Irishwhiskey119 ) which is based on the fact that you would need to see them first fight after a deep cut, then reverse through time and do the same fight again with them not cutting and compare results to PROVE that it impacted the fight and if you cannot do that then you never have proof and therefore cannot say the cut impacted the fight.


Cliffs

- does the deep weight cut process that most fighters engage in now impact fight quality
- if it was possible to have the same people still matching up and fighting without a weight cut would those fights be better then they are when both cut
- (this is not about whether you can make it work or if someone would still cheat the system)

I think everyone would perform better if they didn't have to dehydrate themselves into oblivion days before a fight. If they made up more weight classes and put on stricter weight cut rules, like the fight night weight being similar to the weigh-in results, then more fighters would fight at their natural weights and perform much better. You might, also, see fewer knockouts as no one would be fighting with "dehydrated heads". Safer for the fighters and better for the fans.

 

[jeremyemilio]

That's the thing though there doesn't need to be a strategy to eliminate it.

It just needs to be done safely.

You only know your own body and YOU were weaker after the cut and probably were not doing it as healthy/safely as you could have.

I didn't say it needed changing. It is what it is. If you have weight classes, you're going to have weight cutting.

But look, trying to have a discussion with someone who is simply obtuse is a futile exercise. Trying to have a discussion with someone who is intentionally obtuse, is irritating. And trying to have a discussion with someone who tries to pass being obtuse off as wisdom? That's a whole new level of inanity, right there.

Dehydration is bad for the human body. Not MY human body because I'm doing it wrong. THE human body, because the body is at its best when it is hydrated. Malnutrition is, likewise, bad for the human body. And, likewise, we don't need to test each and every human body individually to see if malnutrition is bad for that particular human body. That's not how empiricism works. That's how people with low levels of understanding THINK empiricism works.

You might as well argue that just because I am a slower runner with my shoes tied together doesn't mean Usain Bolt is a slower runner with his shoes tied together because, hey, maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

If that's what passes off as intelligent, thoughtful analysis where you're from, fill your boots. Just don't expect anyone else to pat you on the back for it.

 

[BigMuffler]

Wow, Irishwhiskey getting owned lol.

 

[Miq]

 

[MikeMcMann]

I didn't say it needed changing. It is what it is. If you have weight classes, you're going to have weight cutting.

But look, trying to have a discussion with someone who is simply obtuse is a futile exercise. Trying to have a discussion with someone who is intentionally obtuse, is irritating. And trying to have a discussion with someone who tries to pass being obtuse off as wisdom? That's a whole new level of inanity, right there.

Dehydration is bad for the human body. Not MY human body because I'm doing it wrong. THE human body, because the body is at its best when it is hydrated. Malnutrition is, likewise, bad for the human body. And, likewise, we don't need to test each and every human body individually to see if malnutrition is bad for that particular human body. That's not how empiricism works. That's how people with low levels of understanding THINK empiricism works.

You might as well argue that just because I am a slower runner with my shoes tied together doesn't mean Usain Bolt is a slower runner with his shoes tied together because, hey, maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

If that's what passes off as intelligent, thoughtful analysis where you're from, fill your boots. Just don't expect anyone else to pat you on the back for it.

Dude, that type of common sense and application of scientific proof will never suffice for someone like him. Sorry. the only proof he will accept, as you point out is to actually see it happen (you and Bolt racing) and in this case if he does not see the same two fighters first fight after a deep weight cut and then reverse time and fight again without a cut and he sees the difference he will stick to his claim that is just speculation and not proven that they would be better without the deep cut, because his brain cannot accept proof that his eyes do not see.