Do Masvidal and Diaz have the most combined losses in a UFC PPV main event?

[WHITE ANDERSON]

You may objectively be the worst judge of what is objectively a bad fight in Sherdog history

well, let's think about this
fight records are objective: they track facts about the world regarding wins and losses.
we keep a record of these things because they matter, it matters to us in terms of finding out who the better fighters are.
a promotion like the UFC signs fighters. it has weight classes. the fighters compete against one another in a particular weight class. generally, the fighters with more wins - and a higher ratio of wins to losses - are better than the fighters with fewer wins - and a higher ratio of losses to wins.
an example: jose aldo is a better fighter than artem lobov at featherweight.
what makes that a fact? among many things, it's that jose aldo has more victories at featherweight.
someone might say aldo has faced a higher "level of competition." it is difficult to say what that means, but it is plausible to say that beating better competition entails that these fighters have more wins than losses.

i don't think any of that is controversial.
so we can comfortably say masvidal and diaz, two fighters who have .500 records at welterweight, and a combined 26 losses overall, is objectively not one of the best fights in UFC history. it may be a very entertaining fight, but there are better welterweights
if you think there is an objectively worse main event in UFC history, please offer a counterexample. and i don't mean one you think is less entertaining. entertainment and skill are not necessarily related

 

[Noraaq]

I like me some Diaz bros but it's interesting how Nate went from a career journeyman to the BMF after beating Conor, lol. Nick was much more talented than Nate, shame he wasn't the one to beat Conor.

 

[DanasWife]

well, let's think about this
fight records are objective: they track facts about the world regarding wins and losses.
we keep a record of these things because they matter, it matters to us in terms of finding out who the better fighters are.
a promotion like the UFC signs fighters. it has weight classes. the fighters compete against one another in a particular weight class. generally, the fighters with more wins - and a higher ratio of wins to losses - are better than the fighters with fewer wins - and a higher ratio of losses to wins.
an example: jose aldo is a better fighter than artem lobov at featherweight.
what makes that a fact? among many things, it's that jose aldo has more victories at featherweight.
someone might say aldo has faced a higher "level of competition." it is difficult to say what that means, but it is plausible to say that beating better competition entails that these fighters have more wins than losses.

i don't think any of that is controversial.
so we can comfortably say masvidal and diaz, two fighters who have .500 records at welterweight, and a combined 26 losses overall, is objectively not one of the best fights in UFC history. it may be a very entertaining fight, but there are better welterweights
if you think there is an objectively worse main event in UFC history, please offer a counterexample. and i don't mean one you think is less entertaining. entertainment and skill are not necessarily related

And you are objectively an idiot. They also have a combined 54 wins, does that not factor in to your objective analysis? Also, based on your subjective opinion that there are better walterweights, you come to the conclusion that they are objectively the worst main event in history? If your not trolling, then you are objectively a complete moron. This is going to be the biggest card of the year (revenue wise/ppv wise), because these two fighters bring it every time, and right now are two of the biggest stars in the UFC.