Jon Fitch has said the fighters were better during his era because....

Fedor5723

Green Belt
@Green
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
1,054
They fought less fights a year. Any truth to this? What does this mean?

Less fighters = more stiff competition?

Less filler fights?

Winning streaks meant more?
 
tumblr_my2q5mrGlB1ry1rm7o1_400.gif
 
I think he got hit in the head too many times. The guys in his era fought way more than these guys now days. Chronic inactiveness is probably the worst thing about modern fighters. Fighting twice a year is considered "acitve".
 
I think it's the same thing. The UFC tries to get people with around 10 fights unless they are some sort of specialist or young prospect. The main difference is that in the past you can win 3 fights in a row and it's good enough for a title shot claim. It's not like that anymore.
 
That shit was fucking wild at the time, but less impressive now knowing Johnny was juiced to the fucking gills
<{JustBleed}>

I remember watching that live, a young in shape, supplemented Bigg Rigg was a force, he is a cop or sheriff now in Texas btw
 
Back
Top