Dana White's Logic

[Deleted member 359865]

Ok, may someone explain Dana White's logic as to why he won't allow Nate Diaz to fight Matt Brown because Nate is 1-2 in his last three fights but WILL allow Nick Diaz to fight...who mind has the SAME EXACT RECORD in his last three fights and is retired. Even the different division excuse doesn't hold up considering the fact Nate has fought at welterweight before. I'd much rather Dana be honest and say he wants Matt Brown to fight Nick rather than Nate because Nick can draw more. But this whole records and division stuff is kind of BS (Not trying to bash White but its true)

 

[Judo Thai Boxer]

Because Nick was actually ranked at WW before the Diaz brothers had their little temper tantrum.

 

[Spindrift0036]

The words " Dana " and " logic " should never be in the same sentence

 

[Degen Gambler]

Nick is considered a top WW. Nate is not. You goof.

 

[Diet Otsuka]

its cool bro, you're just mad that dana is swaggin on you

 

[cage_bx]

You are trying to bash Dana, don't lie about it and rightfully so his logic makes no sense...

 

[SeattleFightFan]

yes, the different division does hold up.

it's not complicated. don't try so hard to refuse to understand.

 

[Megatronlee]

Because Fuck

 

[Ghost in the Shell]

Nick is considered a top WW. Nate is not. You goof.

What a joke

 

[DrDangles]

Nate got tooled by Bendo, and KO'd by Thomson
Nick barely lost to Condit, and lost to GSP

Different levels if you ask me

 

[Deleted member 359865]

Nick is considered a top WW. Nate is not. You goof.

Oh yeah just like how Chael Sonnen was a top LHW when he took on Jon Jones right.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Oh yeah just like how Chael Sonnen was a top LHW when he took on Jon Jones right.

apples and oranges.

if you're going to take a most extreme example and pretend it's common to support your hypothesis, it's pretty much evidence your hypothesis cannot hold up to basic logic or common sense.

either you're stuck in remedial or you're trying too hard to stick your head up your....in the sand. not sure which. either way, best of luck.

 

[xP]

lol. The division stuff is not "bs". Nick was a WW title contender. Nate was a LW contender.

 

[Talent]

Lol. His what?

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Dana White's logic:

Nick Diaz

Nate Diaz

 

[LNP 101]

Simple,
Nick>>>>>>>>>>>>Nate.
End of story.

 

[BionicCommando]

Ok, may someone explain Dana White's logic as to why he won't allow Nate Diaz to fight Matt Brown because Nate is 1-2 in his last three fights but WILL allow Nick Diaz to fight...who mind has the SAME EXACT RECORD in his last three fights and is retired. Even the different division excuse doesn't hold up considering the fact Nate has fought at welterweight before. I'd much rather Dana be honest and say he wants Matt Brown to fight Nick rather than Nate because Nick can draw more. But this whole records and division stuff is kind of BS (Not trying to bash White but its true)

If the argument is "one is a LW, one is a WW" it's valid up to a point since Nick was a WW last year where as Nate hasn't been a welterweight since like 2011.


Also understand that referring to somebody as a draw (or not as a draw) is a sensitive subject in the court of public appeal. If Dana White says "WELL NATE DIAZ ISN'T A DRAW LIKE NICK IS!" then rubes will go "well why should I care about Nate if his brother is a bigger deal?"


It's like a lot of old wrestling minds say about why smaller guys struggle to draw: if you tell somebody something so many times, eventually they'll believe it.

 

[Emjay]

How would anyone other than Dana White have the answer to this?

 

[Perrichet]

The words " Dana " and " logic " should never be in the same sentence

Pretty much what I was going to say

 

[Deleted member 359865]

apples and oranges.

if you're going to take a most extreme example and pretend it's common to support your hypothesis, it's pretty much evidence your hypothesis cannot hold up to basic logic or common sense.

either you're stuck in remedial or you're trying too hard to stick your head up your....in the sand. not sure which. either way, best of luck.

LOL stuck in remedial what? You can't just be stuck in remedial, if you're seriously going to argue structures of arguments and challenge my intelligence at least have your insults make sense grammatically. The example I used isn't even "extreme" more title fights take place against undeserving opponents than do regular bouts. You mean to tell me after all of the fighters who have talked their ways into title bouts coming off losses make more sense than a middle of the road WW fight.