Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by nino, Jun 10, 2017.
Why do mma fighters have so many losses?
So many ways to lose.
You're bound to run into fighters who specialize in your weaknesses.
Buncha bums nobody is any good
cuz they arent protected infact its usually the opposite they are sped up.
MMA outcomes are variance heavy
Fighters are very close in skill
The best fight the best way more often than in boxing for instance
Losses mean less in MMA than boxing...unless the champ of your division doesn't want to fight you then you have to win 5-10 fights in a row, but lose that one fight and suddenly you go to the back of the line and some simp on a 1-2 fight winning streak gets a title shot instead.
USADA came in. They cant take pills and snort shit no more
A lot of "Old School" fighters have more losses than new age fighters simply due to the fact to the schedule they kept.....fighting multiple times a night and/or at least several times a year.
None of this fighting once a year or taking extended periods of time off simply bc they can. Not including prolonged injuries.
This is a weird thread because the win% in both MMA and Boxing should be close to 50%. In almost all MMA or Boxing fights, someone wins and someone loses.
the main reason is the lack of an amateur scene. fighters turn pro right away and pick up the basics as they go. the talent pool in mma just isnt deep enough. another thing is mma business is built on recruiting athletes from other sports, you get one-dimensional fighters who are too old to learn all the fundamentals
Common sense is not on the Guest list.
Why do all NFL teams have loses?
When the competition is stiff you can win or lose on any given night that is why most fighters think it is the best out of three to determine a winner
Rampage vs W. Silva is a good example, Silva beat him twice then Rampage knocked his head off.
It's been a long voiced tenet of MMA that losses are bound to occur with more frequency and even Dana White himself was known to say so before that one time where it didn't suit him and then all of a sudden a fighter is shit as soon as he gets beat, until the next time when the opposite suits him again. Piece of shit.
A good post above provided the main reasons, i.e. fewer participants means less of an amateur scene and more rematches, and there are many more ways to lose. Fans who don't have their heads up their asses generally accept that even that fighter you love to hate doesn't suddenly become a can just because he lost 1 fight. The "only as good as your last fight" crowd are generally more prone to falling for UFC hype/wolf tickets, imo.
So are you saying that Silva was the winner because he won two of their three fights or that Rampage is the real winner because he won the third?
Separate names with a comma.