Just wondered if this bothered anyone else? Often, when asked about x or y fighter (Dana is skeptical about / grudging of) getting into the UFC, he replies 'when he has beat someone relevant' or 'who has he beat' (same thing). This is ofcourse a perfectly reasonable argument except for the fact that, in allot of cases (especially in Dana's own opinion), there are no relevant opponents outside the UFC for the fighter to beat! Take someone like Arlovsky, what possible 'relevant' heavywights are available outside the Zuffa umbralla he could possibly fight? Even if this argument is just a cover for the obvious white elephant Dana / UFC grudge against a fighter, I wish atleast journalists would call out this argument for the logical fallacy that it is. As mma fans its not like we dont have our intelligence insulted enough already.
Arolvsky should be 10-0 since all the HWs outside the ufc sucks. If he doesn't win all his fights against nobodies, then he doesn't deserve a shot back in. Yes there are nobodies outside the ufc, therefore the fighter in question should win all their fights. Hector Lombard is a good example.
There's a lot of excellent talent outside of the ufc Every ufc fighter started out of the ufc too you know And many of them lost during that time.
Please dont turn this into a thread abt Arlovsky, its the principle Im getting at. Also, I think you will find those high standards don't hold up for allot of the Heavyweights the UFC has signed.
like who? Most likely has to do with needing to find an opponent. If everyone is booked, then you have no choice.
Y'know, if eddie alvarez ends up being a consistent top 5 (or even champion) then that gives a pretty good argument for michael chandler being top 5 or the true #1 LW if eddie is UFC champ.
No Im talking specifically about the question of getting into / back into the UFC, not top 10 rankings.
"Who has he beat" is fair. They don't block people from getting in the Ufc if they win fights. Even if they beat nobodies. You just can't accurately judge how good they are. Someone can be 10-0 outside the ufc, just doesn't mean much.
You clearly have some examples in mind. List them. There will be strong arguments for those fighters not being in the ufc. That is why you are being vague.
Thats true, but my point is, there would be the same arguments against some of the guys 'who are' in the UFC also. Hence the contradiction.
You could probably pinpoint a few, but not for the majority. It's not like a foolproof system. I agree. There's always gonna be a few that "bypass" system.
This is pretty much bang on, and you can practically apply it to all sports/sportsmen and women around the world. The athletes who compete in the biggest organisations are generally assumed to be "the best". English people generally assume the best footballers/soccer players will eventually come to play in England, because generally the Premier league pays the most money (or it used to anyway). As a result players playing in the French or Dutch leagues are considered to be not as good - based purely on the league rather than their ability. The most obvious example of this in MMA was Fedor, and Dana applied all of these "who has he beaten" style theories to discredit him. The best way to judge the overall competition is to have an outside body made up of respected former or current fighters who judge fighters from all organisations. It's worth noting that a few years back almost all the top fighters considered Fedor to be the best.
I don't take much of what Danna White says seriously. A good fighter is a good fighter, regardless of organization. Plenty of washouts in the UFC too.
Before Overeem was still with Strikeforce, Dana said Overeem isn't even top 10. Then, Overeem fought Brock and sent Dana's "baddest man on the planet" into retirement :icon_lol:.
