Dana White's Logic

  • Thread starter Deleted member 359865
  • Start date
Nick is a 170er and sells more than Nate.
 
Dana White's logic:

Nick Diaz

money.jpg


Nate Diaz

Tumbleweed.gif

Yup. A fight against Nick is co headliner on a PPV. A fight against Nate is a co headliner on free TV.
Nick beating Brown leads into an even bigger money fight involving Nick. Nate beating Brown simply derails Browns run and Nate remains an undercard fighter. If Brown beats Nick he is a legitimate WW contender. If Brown beats Nate he beats a LW that never should have been in the cage with him to start with. There is simply no upside to a fight with Nate.
 
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.

Have you ever heard of something called remedial education?
 
Have you ever heard of something called remedial education?

Yes, but for someone who is going to take the time to critique the legitimacy of someone's hypothesis you would think that they would be a little bit more conscious of their own insults.
 
Is it that hard to understand? Nate being a LW being KOed by a LW and losing what? Almost all his fights in WW and Nick losing decision to who? GSP and Condit... Hard to understand
 
Yes, but for someone who is going to take the time to critique the legitimacy of someone's hypothesis you would think that they would be a little bit more conscious of their own insults.

Im just saying it's pretty easy to understand what he meant, if you can't make that connection you're probably a little special.
 
Im just saying it's pretty easy to understand what he meant, if you can't make that connection you're probably a little special.

It's not that I couldn't make the connection it's that I don't appreciate people trying to come at me like they're my Comp 2 professor when they could use some work of their own.
 
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)

Context is key, young paduwan. Nate is 1-2 in his last three fights at a lower weight class. Nick is 1-2 in his last 3 fights at WW, both losses in championship bouts and a victory over a future hall of famer and former WW/LW champion. If Matt Brown beats Nate, it does very little for him in terms of his divisional standing. Conversely, if he beats Nick, it's much easier to sell the public on a title shot. Hell, if I were Matt Brown, I'd tell Nate to fuck off
 
It's not that I couldn't make the connection it's that I don't appreciate people trying to come at me like they're my Comp 2 professor when they could use some work of their own.

The only reason to take issue with what he said is if you didn't understand it.
 
yes, the different division does hold up.

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

Seriously. Nate's best suited at LW, It does nothing for Brown, and if God forbid Diaz does pull off a win then you got a bit of a mess.
Non issue not allowing Nate to fight him.
 
Back
Top