Is it unfair that some fighters have a size advantage?

BucktoothBeauty said:
Ya but what about your boy Luke Rockhold who beat him? Looked bigger than Anthony Johnson
Click to expand...
Looks like Rockhold is losing his hair. I've heard that Rogaine can hold water weight. Perhaps that's how he got his advantage...
 
real2124 said:
Casual here,

Any fight where the fighter has an obvious reach advantage (DC-Jones / Hendricks-Wonderboy) I always feel:

1) Shouldn't the taller fighter move up a weight-class? It doesn't seem fair. -example: Aldo-McG

2) The larger or taller fighter has the advantage. It's up to the shorter fighter to apply pressure and close the distance.

Sure, there's been countless times when reach/size has counted for nothing and the other guy won - but overall I think some guys are just too big for their weight class and some fighters gain an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...
Is it unfair that some have a skill advantage?
 
Yes, we should give the smaller fighters guns to even the field.
 
I'd be willing to be Hendricks weighed more before camp than Wonderboy.
 
What exactly isn't fair? Being born with beneficial genetics?? As long as the can make the weight no one should be crying about stuff like this.
 
I love it when people make a thread that gets made several times a day, all year, and still seem to think they're presenting BRAND NEW INFORMATION and food for thought.
 
LukeSkyRutten said:
1.) o_O - What does this have to do with anything sport related?

2.) Impossible to know considering we don't have fight day weigh ins.

3.) PED accusation? Or perhaps they figured they would be nice and fight at 15lb lower than their normal in ring weight. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

1. Most sports don't have weight classes or size divisions. You dance with the body that brung ya. Think it's no fair that you can't be an offensive line man for the Broncos because you're only 165 lbs? Tough cookies. That linebacker is coming. If you can't stand in the way and stop him, you aren't going to make the field. Only fight fans think it's 'unfair' to be bigger than the athletes you compete against.

2. It's around there, though. That's pretty clear. What's not clear is why some fight fans think it's entirely fair that a guy who weighs 157 lbs should be matched up against a guy who weighs 170 lbs, but entirely unfair that a guy who weighs 172 lbs should be matched up against a guy who weighs 170 lbs. The weight cutoffs are arbitrary, but the classes have a range. Fighters aren't meant to be the exact same size. They're meant to be within 15 or 20 lbs of one another (10 lbs at the lighter classes). And that's exactly what happens at least 95% of the time.

3. Not looking for yellow cards, so I won't spell it out to blatantly, but if you think these guys are smaller on fight night because they're fighting 10-15 lbs dehydrated, you may be a little drunk.
 
The shorter people can always cut more and go to smaller weight classes.
 
real2124 said:
Casual here,

Any fight where the fighter has an obvious reach advantage (DC-Jones / Hendricks-Wonderboy) I always feel:

1) Shouldn't the taller fighter move up a weight-class? It doesn't seem fair. -example: Aldo-McG

2) The larger or taller fighter has the advantage. It's up to the shorter fighter to apply pressure and close the distance.

Sure, there's been countless times when reach/size has counted for nothing and the other guy won - but overall I think some guys are just too big for their weight class and some fighters gain an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...

Statistically a substantial reach advantage (4" or more) does mean you win more often. Some mathematically inclined Sherdogger posted it a few years ago, but essentially, by the time you reach an 8" or more (Hi, Jones!) reach advantage you win 66% of the time ignoring all other factors. Starting at 66/34 instead of 50/50 ain't too shabby.
 
jeremyemilio said:
1. Most sports don't have weight classes or size divisions. You dance with the body that brung ya. Think it's no fair that you can't be an offensive line man for the Broncos because you're only 165 lbs? Tough cookies. That linebacker is coming. If you can't stand in the way and stop him, you aren't going to make the field. Only fight fans think it's 'unfair' to be bigger than the athletes you compete against.

2. It's around there, though. That's pretty clear. What's not clear is why some fight fans think it's entirely fair that a guy who weighs 157 lbs should be matched up against a guy who weighs 170 lbs, but entirely unfair that a guy who weighs 172 lbs should be matched up against a guy who weighs 170 lbs. The weight cutoffs are arbitrary, but the classes have a range. Fighters aren't meant to be the exact same size. They're meant to be within 15 or 20 lbs of one another (10 lbs at the lighter classes). And that's exactly what happens at least 95% of the time.

3. Not looking for yellow cards, so I won't spell it out to blatantly, but if you think these guys are smaller on fight night because they're fighting 10-15 lbs dehydrated, you may be a little drunk.
Click to expand...

Of course. Which is why every division outside HW and a few select LHW's are making up the numbers… They aren't really the best fighters in real terms BUT…

…If we are going to have these weight restrictions within the sport to give everyone a 'fair go' the weight restrictions should at least be enforced otherwise there is no point in having them in the first place.
 
Should we sort forum ability by IQ.

Sub 110 can't start threads?????
 
bendo vs thatch. watch carefully then ask us again. or watch early ufc royce fights.
 
Actually OP is onto something.

Reach is one of the biggest advantages in MMA. Age is a close second.
I remember seeing statistics that showed that age was the best variable to predict a win in MMA.
 
Toxxus said:
Statistically a substantial reach advantage (4" or more) does mean you win more often. Some mathematically inclined Sherdogger posted it a few years ago, but essentially, by the time you reach an 8" or more (Hi, Jones!) reach advantage you win 66% of the time ignoring all other factors. Starting at 66/34 instead of 50/50 ain't too shabby.
Click to expand...

I think that was my research.

If so i based it on championship fights only. Well done on remembering the %ages.


mst-dot said:
sub 110?
that would be you and most of this forum
you bum
Click to expand...

No im fine. And yeah a bit over half is the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,109
Messages
55,468,020
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top