No Nick has always been a little bit bigger imo. If he would have packed on muscle and went up in his prime it might have been different. But he didn't do that he just had an easier cut.
Just comes across like Conor fans making excuses when they say he lost to a ww, when Diaz is a career lw fighter and was called away from a vacation to take the fight.
I take Conor completely out of the equation In this
I dont let him influence my opinion either way.
Nick has always been bigger. 100% accurate. And it should be expected, Nate has been in a continuous state of cutting to lightweight throughout his career.
But he has never been small. He has the exact same frame as Nick in terms of height, reach, length.
Its very easy for someone like that to add extra weight if they choose to
There is an interview with Nick where he says that he could fight at 3 weight classes if he chooses to. 155, 170 and 185.
Nick himself has already fought at 160. Are we to assume Nate cant do the exact same In spite of having the same sort of frame?
Nate by his own words was 175 pounds against rory and during his last ww run in his early 10's. He definitely grew. Its very clear that he added some mass and grew Into his frame
But of course, me acknowledging that fact, I must have some agenda.
I'm not the one with the agenda here or a narrative to uphold
Nick is a strong frame of reference for me in this debate.
Even Tony is known to walk at 200 pounds outside of camp and he has a very similar frame to the Diaz bros