Current MMA Champions by age

[Fioretti]

He was on a mish. If he beats Jiri and then rematches and beats Jan thats pretty incredible. Glad to see the Pit get another champ

If he beats Jiri, that alone would be pretty fuckin crazy. I don't think Jan should get a rematch too soon. He defended once, yeah, but got done up pretty thoroughly by Glover. Rakic and Ankalaev would be my preference for the next few contenders, especially if one of them beats Jan next.

this sport is old. anyone who say 30 years old + still is his prime is out of hins mind

30+ is barely touching prime. 31-33 is absolute peak for MMA fighters.

 

[Shaddows]

27-35 is prime, with 31-33 being peak.

I kind of disagree.
This highly depends on all other factors.

Fighters who start younger, will peak earlier and leave their prime earlier.
But that's also not all. It highly depends on their style, how many wars, how "heavy" they go on trainings, etc.

Take AKA for example.
There was a time they had 4 champions (Cain, DC, Luke and Khabib - though I suspect Khabib became champion later).
The one thing I recall hearing was how brutal was their training... it made them champs, but all of them had short reign, and I highly suspect that the training took their tool on their bodies.

So all in all, I think that while this age is the obvious rule, it predicates on most fighters nowadays starting about the same age, training and fighting about the same average as the others; but change a couple of things, and you have the exceptions (like Glover being champ so late in life)

 

[TR1]

this sport is old. anyone who say 30 years old + still is his prime is out of hins mind

A lot of posters are under the impression there has never been a champ under 30, and that most competitive sports have their athletes peak in their 20s.

Also a lot of brilliant minds here seem to think dozens of fights have no effect on the body, and injuries don't exist.

Lot of low IQ arguments here to be honest.

 

[Fioretti]

this sport is old. anyone who say 30 years old + still is his prime is out of hins mind

I kind of disagree.
This highly depends on all other factors.

Fighters who start younger, will peak earlier and leave their prime earlier.
But that's also not all. It highly depends on their style, how many wars, how "heavy" they go on trainings, etc.

Take AKA for example.
There was a time they had 4 champions (Cain, DC, Luke and Khabib - though I suspect Khabib became champion later).
The one thing I recall hearing was how brutal was their training... it made them champs, but all of them had short reign, and I highly suspect that the training took their tool on their bodies.

So all in all, I think that while this age is the obvious rule, it predicates on most fighters nowadays starting about the same age, training and fighting about the same average as the others; but change a couple of things, and you have the exceptions (like Glover being champ so late in life)

These age ranges are not only a man's physiological prime, but are also proven over time as far as performance goes in MMA. Yes, it'll vary from individual to individual, but wear and tear doesn't change the age range at which your body is physiologically in its peak condition. A man will never be naturally faster, stronger, or have as good reaction time as he will between the ages of 27-35. Whether or not individual performance is hindered by injuries, distraction, illness, mental blocks, or whatever else is irrelevant. Muscle strength, muscle density, speed, and reflexes will never be naturally better. That is why it's the range of a man's prime. Speed and reflexes see declines start at 36-37 in most. Muscle strength and density can hold until 50 in some cases.

 

[TR1]

I think keeping fresh does guys a world of good, as far as scheduling fights. If you stay in the cage and don’t take these long layoffs it only makes for more comfortability in those situations. And when you can do it against people who have no business being in there with the no 1 guy in the world, of course they are going to out preform the guy who hasn’t had the same luxury. When you get to stay sharp by fighting Nagata after a tough fight, get your feet wet constantly, you are more comfortable going against the next worthy opponent. Fedor has an entire org relying on his success as a hw, so they made his path as comfortable as possible. When he didn’t get the same treatment and couldn’t have “play fights” and it was a top guy one fight after another, he simply couldn’t replicate what he was doing. It was too much pressure and too much talent for him to do it under the eye of an athletic commission. Wear and tear is the easy way out of excuse making. Everyone has it. You saw his confirmation of scheduling being his real enemy when he unretired to fight fucking Jaideep Singh

Fedor put together a better (deeper) record over his 10 year epic run than any HW champ before or after.

Your arguments about "consistent opponents" make no sense and are frankly an irrelevant cope.

Lmao @ talking about irrelivant American commissions.

When he didn’t get the same treatment and couldn’t have “play fights” and it was a top guy one fight after another, he simply couldn’t replicate what he was doing.

Aside from the fact that he did indeed beat straight top guys....comical to see Fedor "critics" come up with some arbitrary "Well umm, he never went this many fights without doing this" while worming around his run seeing him beat better competition than anyone has put together before or after.

Fedor critics and being too stupid for basic logic, name a more iconic duo.

 

[Shaddows]

These age ranges are not only a man's physiological prime, but are also proven over time as far as performance goes in MMA. Yes, it'll vary from individual to individual, but wear and tear doesn't change the age range at which your body is physiologically in its peak condition. A man will never be naturally faster, stronger, or have as good reaction time as he will between the ages of 27-35. Whether or not individual performance is hindered by injuries, distraction, illness, mental blocks, or whatever else is irrelevant. Muscle strength, muscle density, speed, and reflexes will never be naturally better. That is why it's the range of a man's prime. Speed and reflexes see declines start at 36-37 in most. Muscle strength and density can hold until 50 in some cases.

I mean, I don't disagree with your post at all, but that's without counting real life.

IMO someone who starts too early, starts declining faster.
Someone whose style leads to too many wars, tend to decline faster

On the opposite side: Someone who takes good care of their body, avoids too much wear and tear can stay on their prime for much longer, extending their peak (i.e. Tom Brady).

So while all you said is true, I do think it highly depends on the individual and their choices.

 

[Fioretti]

A lot of posters are under the impression there has never been a champ under 30, and that most competitive sports have their athletes peak in their 20s.

Also a lot of brilliant minds here seem to think dozens of fights have no effect on the body, and injuries don't exist.

Lot of low IQ arguments here to be honest.

Not being able to understand that injuries, wear and tear, and experience do not affect your "prime" is a better example of "a low IQ argument". Individual peak performance is not the same as a man's physical prime. This is the most common misconception around here, and it is the root cause for arguments such as these. If fighter A peaks in his mid-to-late 20's, people tend to (incorrectly) call that his "prime". That doesn't mean his body was in its physical prime, it means that's when he had the most success as a fighter.

 

[TR1]

That doesn't mean his body was in its physical prime, it means that's when he had the most success as a fighter.

Huh? What are you even arguing then?

This whole thread is a testiment to proving nothing at all with many meaningless words and cherry picked statistics.

It varies from fighter to fighter, it varies from career to career. Generally the older a division becomes on average, the weaker it tends to be.

 

[Fioretti]

I mean, I don't disagree with your post at all, but that's without counting real life.

IMO someone who starts too early, starts declining faster.
Someone whose style leads to too many wars, tend to decline faster

On the opposite side: Someone who takes good care of their body, avoids too much wear and tear can stay on their prime for much longer, extending their peak (i.e. Tom Brady).

So while all you said is true, I do think it highly depends on the individual and their choices.

No, it's absolutely counting real life. This is reality, bro.

Yeah, their individual performance may decline, but that doesn't mean they're "out of their prime". There's so many potential factors involved, it's fuckin crazy, but being "out of prime" is typically not a factor when they're in this age range. It's more commonly used as an excuse, rationalization, or justification. Hell, somebody having vision problems could be a major contributing factor to their decline in performance, but that doesn't mean they're out of their prime. They can be at their strongest, fastest, and have the best reaction time of their life, but not being able to see as well as they were able to 3 months prior is going to hinder their performance. Doesn't mean they're out of their prime.

The numbers and science don't lie.

 

[Fioretti]

Huh? What are you even arguing then?

This whole thread is a testiment to proving nothing at all with many meaningless words and cherry picked statistics.

It varies from fighter to fighter, it varies from career to career. Generally the older a division becomes on average, the weaker it tends to be.

What am I arguing? What are you arguing, bro? You just want to say that Fedor lost because he was out of his prime, right? That's not true, and it seems to really bother you.

The whole thread shows the current age of MMA champions in the top 2 organizations in the world, in each division, the average age of all current champions from each organization, and the average age of all current champions from both organizations combined. That's the point of this thread. What exactly are you saying is "cherry picked"? What stats? I'm not even listing stats, homie, I'm listing age. How the fuck is this cherry picked? It's indisputable. What are you angry about?

 

[TR1]

What am I arguing? What are you arguing, bro? You just want to say that Fedor lost because he was out of his prime, right? That's not true, and it seems to really bother you.

The whole thread shows the current age of MMA champions in the top 2 organizations in the world, in each division, the average of all current champions from each organization, and the average age of all current champions from both organizations combined. That's the point of this thread. What exactly are you saying is "cherry picked"? What stats? I'm not even listing stats, homie, I'm listing age. How the fuck is this cherry picked? It's indisputable. What are you angry about?

Good grief, again lot of words for zero meaning.

You drew an average of champ ages and claimed this scientifically proves where fighter prime is. That is comical.

Aside from that being an absurd and moronic conclusion, I think you don't really understand what prime means, or are using an arbitrary definition to then tie back to age for some meaningless conclusion.
My contention is not really your choice of prime definition, it is your absurd claim that "scientifically no fighter is past their prime in their early 30s".

Fighters lose to different reasons.
Some get injured, some lose interest, and some (like Anderson) stop being able to roid freely.
None of that proves that a fighter will be in their prime in their early 30s, nor is it actually a usefull insight on how individual fighter's primes stack up.

 

[Shaddows]

No, it's absolutely counting real life. This is reality, bro.

Yeah, their individual performance may decline, but that doesn't mean they're "out of their prime". There's so many potential factors involved, it's fuckin crazy, but being "out of prime" is typically not a factor when they're in this age range. It's more commonly used as an excuse, rationalization, or justification. Hell, somebody having vision problems could be a major contributing factor to their decline in performance, but that doesn't mean they're out of their prime. They can be at their strongest, fastest, and have the best reaction time of their life, but not being able to see as well as they were able to 3 months prior is going to hinder their performance. Doesn't mean they're out of their prime.

The numbers and science don't lie.

true, but these numbers are also generalizing a lot of things.

That is why we have outliers like SIlva or Glover, etc.
That is also why I thing Fedor was out of his prime earlier (in age) than other fighters his age. I disagree these are excuses/justifications.
That's not even taking into account how each body is inherently different than the next. Some people can take huge abuse while others breaks in the littlest push.

I gave you the example of AKA fighters. The results speaks for themselves IMO.

 

[Fioretti]

Good grief, again lot of words for zero meaning.

You drew an average of champ ages and claimed this scientifically proves where fighter prime is. That is comical.

Aside from that being an absurd and moronic conclusion, I think you don't really understand what prime means, or are using an arbitrary definition to then tie back to age for some meaningless conclusion.
My contention is not really your choice of prime definition, it is your absurd claim that "scientifically no fighter is past their prime in their early 30s".

Fighters lose to different reasons.
Some get injured, some lose interest, and some (like Anderson) stop being able to roid freely.
None of that proves that a fighter will be in their prime in their early 30s, nor is it actually a usefull insight on how individual fighter's primes stack up.

The words obviously have zero meaning on you. You still think that "prime" means "individual peak athletic success/performance". It doesn't.

Scientifically speaking, a man's physical prime is typically between the ages of 27-35. That's not me making a claim, that is when most men have the highest muscle density, muscle strength, speed, and reaction time. The average age of current champions being between 32 and 33 is just actual real-world demonstration. The average age of UFC champions in each division acquiring their title in this age range is also actual real-world demonstration. It shows that the scientific classification of a man's physiological prime lines up with peak performance in most MMA fighters throughout history.

Saying that no fighter is past their prime in their early 30's is absolutely and 100% true. People can be injured during their physical prime. People can have a bad performance in their physical prime. These things are not mutually exclusive. Most men will not naturally lose muscle strength/density/mass in their early 30's. They pack it on at this age, as their body will naturally build and hold more muscle because they're in their physical prime. Outside factors can affect their performance, yes of course, but that doesn't make them "out of prime".

If you want to deny indisputable and actual numbers, that's on you, friend, but it's obvious that you're doing so because you don't want to admit Fedor was in his prime at age 33. You want to convince people he was out of his prime. You still can't grasp the concept that physical prime and individual personal bests are not the same thing.

true, but these numbers are also generalizing a lot of things.

That is why we have outliers like SIlva or Glover, etc.
That is also why I thing Fedor was out of his prime earlier (in age) than other fighters his age. I disagree these are excuses/justifications.
That's not even taking into account how each body is inherently different than the next. Some people can take huge abuse while others breaks in the littlest push.

I gave you the example of AKA fighters. The results speaks for themselves IMO.

The numbers just line up with science. There's a few outliers like Glover, Randy, Aldo, Jon Jones, BJ Penn, and GSP - who all acquired their titles very young or very late - but those are outliers. Silva was not an outlier or exception. He got his title at 31 and lost it at 38. That's the fucking epitome/embodiment of a man's physical prime. He started visibly slowing around 36-37 and lost right after he turned 38. His streak is actually the perfect example of someone who went undefeated during their prime. Another big misconception around here is that fighters who lose are "out of prime". BREAKING NEWS! Fighters can lose in their physical prime. It's pretty fucking common.

 

[Shaddows]

The numbers just line up with science. There's a few outliers like Glover, Randy, Aldo, Jon Jones, BJ Penn, and GSP - who all acquired their titles very young or very late - but those are outliers. Silva was not an outlier or exception. He got his title at 31 and lost it at 38. That's the fucking epitome/embodiment of a man's physical prime. He started visibly slowing around 36-37 and lost right after he turned 38. His streak is actually the perfect example of someone who went undefeated during their prime. Another big misconception around here is that fighters who lose are "out of prime". BREAKING NEWS! Fighters can lose in their physical prime. It's pretty fucking common.

I don't understand why you are so worked up about it.
I didn't disagree with you in essence, I just noted there are notable exceptions that proves it is not set in stone.
It depends how you treat your body and how it responds to abuse.

You seem to think I have to either agree with you or else is someone a stupid stance.

 

[TR1]

The numbers just line up with science. There's a few outliers like Glover, Randy, Aldo, Jon Jones, BJ Penn, and GSP - who all acquired their titles very young or very late - but those are outliers. Silva was not an outlier or exception. He got his title at 31 and lost it at 38. That's the fucking epitome/embodiment of a man's physical prime. He started visibly slowing around 36-37 and lost right after he turned 38. His streak is actually the perfect example of someone who went undefeated during their prime. Another big misconception around here is that fighters who lose are "out of prime". BREAKING NEWS! Fighters can lose in their physical prime. It's pretty fucking common.

This is comical, and really the epitome of the delusional Anderoid fanbase.

We have a plethora of champions who got their belts in their 20s. We have an overwhelming number of top athletes in their sports performing at their best in their 20s. But all of a sudden those are "outliers"? What lmao?

Anderson magically left his prime as soon as steroid testing appeared. You can convince yourself it was because "he was in prime in his mid 30s", but to anyone with a brain it is clear his prime was at the end of the needle he stuck in his ass.

. The average age of current champions being between 32 and 33 is just actual real-world demonstration.

It is a meaningless average, when as you have yourself admitted peak physical abilities range from 20s to early 30s. Deriving that range of peak performance by using an average of (current) champ ages to say "this fighter was/was not in their prime at this age" is comically dumb. That would not pass scientific rigor in a freshman college course.

 

[Fioretti]

I don't understand why you are so worked up about it.
I didn't disagree with you in essence, I just noted there are notable exceptions that proves it is not set in stone.
It depends how you treat your body and how it responds to abuse.

You seem to think I have to either agree with you or else is someone a stupid stance.

I'm not worked up, I just swear a lot. There's always going to be exceptions, no doubt, but the 27-35 range is about as set in stone as it gets. You should also note that I almost always (intentionally) include "typically" or "usually" or "commonly" or something similar to notate that these are the most common occurrences. Which, of course, allows for the reality that there will always be an exception.

This is comical, and really the epitome of the delusional Anderoid fanbase.

We have a plethora of champions who got their belts in their 20s. We have an overwhelming number of top athletes in their sports performing at their best in their 20s. But all of a sudden those are "outliers"? What lmao?

Anderson magically left his prime as soon as steroid testing appeared. You can convince yourself it was because "he was in prime in his mid 30s", but to anyone with a brain it is clear his prime was at the end of the needle he stuck in his ass.

There are very few MMA champions who acquired their belts before the age of 27. Do you know how many? Do you know the percentages? Please list those stats for me, good buddy.

Your agenda is as obvious as your ignorance. Shit's weak.

 

[TR1]

I
There are very few MMA champions who acquired their belts before the age of 27. Do you know how many? Do you know the percentages? Please list those stats for me, good buddy.

Your agenda is as obvious as your ignorance. Shit's weak.

An Anderoid shill talking about agendas. Lmao, too good.

So now we have gone from "no bro, a fighters peak can't be below 32, 33 or 34" to "how many were champs before they were 27?". The age range is getting bigger and bigger.

Talk about not even being able to keep a consistent argument.

 

[Fioretti]

An Anderoid shill talking about agendas. Lmao, too good.

So now we have gone from "no bro, a fighters peak can't be below 32, 33 or 34" to "how many were champs before they were 27?". The age range is getting bigger and bigger.

Talk about not even being able to keep a consistent argument.

No, you've gone from "fighters can't be prime past 30", to "we have a plethora of champions who got their belt in their 20s" - both incorrect.

I've never strayed from 27-35 as a man's physical prime. Never once. Quit trying to derail the thread, kidd-o. Fedor wasn't past his prime at the age of 33.

18 out of 99 male UFC champions were able to acquire their titles before the age of 27. That's 18.18% out of all male champions in UFC history.

Yes, they are outliers. They are the minority. 81.82% of UFC champions first acquired their belt at age 27 or older. I know, it hurts. Try to cry less and try to refute age less. It's not a good look to try and deny age. It can't be argued against unless you're Ngannou or something, and he's probably older than we think, so it doesn't help you anyway.

 

[Arrrrgh]

Updated the OP with current champions, ages, and averages.

From the top 2 MMA organizations in the world:

• 2 out of 19 champions are in their 20's: Pettis (27) and Namajunas (28)
• 3 out of 19 are exactly 31
• 2 out of 19 are exactly 32
• 17 out of 19 champions are 31+ years old
  
• 12 out of 19 champions are 33+ years old
• Each org has 1 current double champion: Nunes (32), and Pitbull (33)

It's weird that you keep bumping this thread that gets about 3-5 replies every 3 months.

 

[Fioretti]

It's weird that you keep bumping this thread that gets about 3-5 replies every 3 months.

So weird that I update it as champions age and belts change hands. Like, why would I even do that?