Respect for Carla Esparza in Her Final UFC Fight” —Why I think she should be inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame

[TheMMAnalyst]

You can do that with most fighters. Rose for example got lucky in her rematch against torres, got lucky in her rematch against zhang, got lucky in her rematch against Andrade -- that's three close fights right there and rose hasn't even had as many fights in general as Carla.

The meat and potatos part of your argument comes down to your last sentence to be honest -- You do not like her style and didn't enjoy her fights. It doesn't erase her accomplishments though. Winning a belt back 8 years after you lost it is pretty damn special, regardless of how it happened.

Not true at all bro, you don’t need to white knight for her.

She had 1 finish in 14 UFC fights employing a control based style with 4/5 of her last fights being split/majority decisions that based on new judging criteria she would’ve lost. I can’t just “do that” for any fighter lol.

Winning a few splits in wild fights like Rose/Zhang 2 (who she head kicked in 2 minutes the first time) or having a blood n’ guts war with Andrade in the rematch (after getting thrown on her head and practically getting her neck broken in the first fight) is very different then having a run to the title based on like 3 gamified splits in a row followed by the worst low output title fight of all-time.

I’m not a Rose fan and if we want to be harsh she had a few breaks as well and also is 50% responsible for the worst WMMA title fight of all-time (out of a lot of bad WMMA title fights), but that’s different than employing an anti-fighting style primarily based on gaming the judging criteria of the time.

How many dope fights will we remember of Rose? At least 9 (JJ x2, Zhang x2, Andrade x2, choking out PvZ/Angela Hil/Waterson (head kicked her right befor)… shit even in a random loss I still remember parts of the KK fight that were entertaining.

Fact of the matter is some fighters consistently put on better fights and have better performances that we remember, I can’t “do that for anyone” it either happened or it didn’t.

Rose has 15 UFC fights with 5 finishes (33%) so more UFC fights than Carla, while Carla has 14 UFC fights with 1 finish (7%).

Rose had at least 10 great fights to recall out of 15, at 66% that’s absurdly good, especially since she went full Pat Barry disciple lately and is more of a boring point fighter these days.

Outside of stats we have our eyes and our hearts - who did cool shit in the octagon? who brought the fight to their opponent with some regularity? who has a legit highlight reel? who gave us hilarious weird sound bites like the cult-like “I’m the best” chant?

Carla didn’t “win the belt back” so much as she was gifted multiple decisions in a row and then had a staring contest which turned into a coin-flip gift.

That doesn’t mean she didn’t accomplish what she accomplished, but how she accomplished it is what we should remember. You want to remove all context for some reason so you can vouch for how great she was as a fighter when a fighters real job is to entertain and at that most of us would say she failed.

They are prize fighters, so not only are they fighting for prizes but the objective structure of the sport is a circus where we need to want to see them fight for prizes.

Who wants to see Carla fight based on how she fights? A very slim minority of fans. With enough fighters like her the circus would close, her career is dependent on other fighters using riskier styles to entertain so she can ride the coat tails of those cards.

It’s like being the bearded lady at the circus - it’s fine to have one, but you take a look and leave. Does it sell tickets though? Now if the whole circus was bearded ladies, would anyone want to go to the circus?

And notice I never once said before or now that she didn’t deserve to be in their Hall of Fame (though it’s a meaningless thing since the UFC picks and chooses who based on random criteria), she was a pioneer and she did go up against a lot of great fighters and regardless of “gaming the judging criteria” or putting on boring performances she managed to get a lot of wins.

I think it’s important to have an honest discussion, however harsh, about what we truly remember about her as a fighter. I get you absolutely love you some control fighters so not shockingly you are going to back her.

But to try to frame this as a smear campaign that is revisionist history that we could “do to anyone” is patently false and misplaced anger based on the fact that you don’t like these points being brought into the discussion.

 

[Lawrence]

She belongs in the hall of fame.

She appeared in the inaugural Bellator women's tournament (before UFC even had a women's division) losing to WMMA legend Megumi Fujii.

She then went to Invicta, and became the first ever Invicta champion.

Off of her Invicta championship, she participated in the first all-women's season of TUF. It's difficult to stress how stacked this season was. It featured multiple undefeated contenders, including Joanne Calderwood and Tecia Torres. Carla Esparza beat Tecia Torres, defended her #1 seed, and ultimately became the winner of TUF 20, and the inaugural UFC strawweight champion by finishing Rose Namajunas.

After getting dominated by Joanna, it seemed she would fade into irrelevance. She proceeded to go 3-3, including a loss to Randa Markos, and a one sided beating against Suarez.

Instead, she went on a completely unexpected 5-0 run to earn a title shot, beating extremely tough competition in Virna Jandiroba (#3 currently), Alexa Grasso (#1 FLY currently), Marina Rodriguez (#6 currently), and a one sided beating against Yan Xiaonan (#2 currently).

She then unexpectedly won the title in one of the worst fights in history, and proceeded to get dominated by Weili, making her officially 0-2 in title defences. (Is that a UFC record?)

Forget the travesty of the second Rose fight. The fact is that Esparza was a true pioneer of WMMA, and her second title run was one of the greatest career comebacks ever witnessed in the sport.

You and TS have convinced me.

I've been a Cookie Monster fan, but looking back, she has as many or more Elite scalps than Clay Guida, and better belts.

War Cookie Monster !

 

[StonedLemur]

she's deserving of acknowledgement the same way any long term employee does.

So....a hotdog brander and some Coca cola sir? Lol

 

[StonedLemur]

Not true at all bro, you don’t need to white knight for her.

She had 1 finish in 14 UFC fights employing a control based style with 4/5 of her last fights being split/majority decisions that based on new judging criteria she would’ve lost. I can’t just “do that” for any fighter lol.

Winning a few splits in wild fights like Rose/Zhang 2 (who she head kicked in 2 minutes the first time) or having a blood n’ guts war with Andrade is very different then having a run to the title based on like 3 gamified splits in a row followed by the worst low output title fight of all-time.

I’m not a Rose fan and if we want to be harsh she had a few breaks as well and also is 50% responsible for the worst WMMA title fight of all-time (out of a lot of bad WMMA title fights), but that’s different than employing an anti-fighting style primarily based on gaming the judging criteria of the time.

How many dope fights will we remember of Rose? At least 9 (JJ x2, Zhang x2, Andrade x2, choking out PvZ/Angela Hil/Waterson (head kicked her right befor)… shit even in a random loss I still remember parts of the KK fight that were entertaining.

Fact of the matter is some fighters consistently put on better fights and have better performances that we remember, I can’t “do that for anyone” it either happened or it didn’t.

Rose has 15 UFC fights with 5 finishes (33%) so more UFC fights than Carla, while Carla has 14 UFC fights with 1 finish (7%).

Rose had at least 10 great fights to recall out of 15, at 66% that’s absurdly good, especially since she went full Pat Barry disciple lately and is more of a boring point fighter these days.

Outside of stats we have our eyes and our hearts - who did cool shit in the octagon? who brought the fight to their opponent with some regularity? who has a legit highlight reel? who gave us hilarious weird sound bites like the cult-like “I’m the best” chant?

Carla didn’t “win the belt back” so much as she was gifted multiple decisions in a row and then had a staring contest which turned into a coin-flip gift.

That doesn’t mean she didn’t accomplish what she accomplished, but how she accomplished it is what we should remember. You want to remove all context for some reason so you can vouch for how great she was as a fighter when a fighters real job is to entertain and at that most of us would say she failed.

They are prize fighters, so not only are they fighting for prizes but the objective structure of the sport is a circus where we need to want to see them fight for prizes.

Who wants to see Carla fight based on how she fights? A very slim minority of fans. With enough fighters like her the circus would close, her career is dependent on other fighters using riskier styles to entertain so she can ride the coat tails of those cards.

It’s like being the bearded lady at the circus - it’s fine to have one, but you take a look and leave. Does it sell tickets though? Now if the whole circus was bearded ladies, would anyone want to go to the circus?

And notice I never once said before or now that she didn’t deserve to be in their Hall of Fame (though it’s a meaningless thing since the UFC picks and chooses who based on random criteria), she was a pioneer and she did go up against a lot of great fighters and regardless of “gaming the judging criteria” or putting on boring performances she managed to get a lot of wins.

I think it’s important to have an honest discussion, however harsh, about what we truly remember about her as a fighter. I get you absolutely love you some control fighters so not shockingly you are going to back her.

But to try to frame this as a smear campaign that is revisionist history that we could “do to anyone” is patently false and misplaced anger based on the fact that you don’t like these points being brought into the discussion.

Don't forget Rose KOd Joanna and beat her twice too sir.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Don't forget Rose KOd Joanna and beat her twice too sir.

I didn't forget it at all my friend!

I mentioned both JJ fights as being great fights to remember, I just didn't specifically highlight the legendary KO in the first one, which is one of the most memorable KO's in all of WMMA history. Plus the Zhang first-round KO head-kick as well is another legendary moment (in a fight I was rooting for Zhang, so you can't call me biased, as I stated I'm not a Rose fan).

Rose put on insane back-and-forth brawls and has an incredible highlight reel of violence plus finishes to reflect on. No matter how much anyone tries to do a revisionist takedown of her career (which arguably there are many things to criticize) you can't take those fights/moments away.

That's what we truly remember as fight fans - those moments, those fights, how we felt during them and afterwards. It's literally inarguable that Carla does not have those legendary fights and legendary moments to recall.

To me her greatest moment/highlight was winning TUF, that's the thing I'll always remember her most positively for. But in the UFC itself I only remember one violent performance against a fatally-flawed Yan - after almost a decade of fighting and 14 fights that's just not a ton of impact for me as a fan of fighting.

 

[Koala]

Only moments I remember with her:
- She was an ass on TUF but was wrestling at a level unknown by her opponents
- The Skittles going in all directions

- She had nothing outside wrestling and Tatiana Suarez showed there are levels to wrestling
- Strinker against Namajunas

 

[fortheo]

Not true at all bro, you don’t need to white knight for her.

She had 1 finish in 14 UFC fights employing a control based style with 4/5 of her last fights being split/majority decisions that based on new judging criteria she would’ve lost. I can’t just “do that” for any fighter lol.

Winning a few splits in wild fights like Rose/Zhang 2 (who she head kicked in 2 minutes the first time) or having a blood n’ guts war with Andrade in the rematch (after getting thrown on her head and practically getting her neck broken in the first fight) is very different then having a run to the title based on like 3 gamified splits in a row followed by the worst low output title fight of all-time.

I’m not a Rose fan and if we want to be harsh she had a few breaks as well and also is 50% responsible for the worst WMMA title fight of all-time (out of a lot of bad WMMA title fights), but that’s different than employing an anti-fighting style primarily based on gaming the judging criteria of the time.

How many dope fights will we remember of Rose? At least 9 (JJ x2, Zhang x2, Andrade x2, choking out PvZ/Angela Hil/Waterson (head kicked her right befor)… shit even in a random loss I still remember parts of the KK fight that were entertaining.

Fact of the matter is some fighters consistently put on better fights and have better performances that we remember, I can’t “do that for anyone” it either happened or it didn’t.

Rose has 15 UFC fights with 5 finishes (33%) so more UFC fights than Carla, while Carla has 14 UFC fights with 1 finish (7%).

Rose had at least 10 great fights to recall out of 15, at 66% that’s absurdly good, especially since she went full Pat Barry disciple lately and is more of a boring point fighter these days.

Outside of stats we have our eyes and our hearts - who did cool shit in the octagon? who brought the fight to their opponent with some regularity? who has a legit highlight reel? who gave us hilarious weird sound bites like the cult-like “I’m the best” chant?

Carla didn’t “win the belt back” so much as she was gifted multiple decisions in a row and then had a staring contest which turned into a coin-flip gift.

That doesn’t mean she didn’t accomplish what she accomplished, but how she accomplished it is what we should remember. You want to remove all context for some reason so you can vouch for how great she was as a fighter when a fighters real job is to entertain and at that most of us would say she failed.

They are prize fighters, so not only are they fighting for prizes but the objective structure of the sport is a circus where we need to want to see them fight for prizes.

Who wants to see Carla fight based on how she fights? A very slim minority of fans. With enough fighters like her the circus would close, her career is dependent on other fighters using riskier styles to entertain so she can ride the coat tails of those cards.

It’s like being the bearded lady at the circus - it’s fine to have one, but you take a look and leave. Does it sell tickets though? Now if the whole circus was bearded ladies, would anyone want to go to the circus?

And notice I never once said before or now that she didn’t deserve to be in their Hall of Fame (though it’s a meaningless thing since the UFC picks and chooses who based on random criteria), she was a pioneer and she did go up against a lot of great fighters and regardless of “gaming the judging criteria” or putting on boring performances she managed to get a lot of wins.

I think it’s important to have an honest discussion, however harsh, about what we truly remember about her as a fighter. I get you absolutely love you some control fighters so not shockingly you are going to back her.

But to try to frame this as a smear campaign that is revisionist history that we could “do to anyone” is patently false and misplaced anger based on the fact that you don’t like these points being brought into the discussion.

I wasn't attacking you. You flat out said you do not like her style, and now you're just doubling down on that and presenting me your reasons for not liking it and how it shaped your opinion on her. For what It's worth, I do not like her style either. I just don't think it is relevant enough to bring up in a thread about whether or not she deserves to be in the stupid UFC's HOF unless you are arguing against her case. But since you never said she doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then I don't know why you even wrote all of this about disliking her style in the first place. Why bring it up you aren't arguing against her case to be in the HOF?

To me, the point about her boring gamified style is moot in regards to whether or not she should be in the HOF. She isn't a justin gaethje or cowboy cerrone type fighter whose main argument for being in the HOF is the fact that they're exciting -- she's a two time former champ, and the first champ ever in what has been the UFC's premier women's division. Her argument is built on that, not her style of fighting.

 

[Blastbeat]

i am not a fan of Carla, but she is the first ever Strawweight champ and a 2x champ. as others mentioned she also was the first Invicta strawweight champ.
her accomplishments speak for themselves and she has some damn good names on her resume.
its completely appropriate for her to be in the HOF. remember, just cause you dislike a fighter's style, it doesnt mean that you can dismiss their accomplishments.
she's a pioneer and can be proud of the career she had. except for her 2nd fight vs Rose. that was horrible.

 

[NicholasJBasile]

View attachment 1065369

Alright, listen up, Sherbums. I know most of you love to trash Carla Esparza, but it’s about time we put some respect on her name. I’ve seen the constant disrespect for years, and it’s downright ridiculous.

Carla Esparza has been one of the most consistent fighters in the UFC, and guess what? She’s not only great—she deserves to be in the UFC Hall of Fame. That’s right, while some of you are busy trolling, she’s out here making history.

So, before you dismiss her in her final UFC fight, let’s break down why you should be giving her props.

Why should Esparza be respected?

1. First-Ever UFC Strawweight Champion and Winner of The Ultimate Fighter: Let’s not forget, Carla made history by not only becoming the first UFC Strawweight Champion, but she won The Ultimate Fighter to do it. She fought through a stacked tournament, beating fighters like Angela Hill, Tecia Torres, and Jessica Penne, before defeating Rose Namajunas in the finale to claim the belt. That was no easy feat, and it set the tone for the entire division.



2. A True Undersized Warrior: At 5’1” with a 63-inch reach, Carla Esparza is one of the smallest fighters in the strawweight division. She’s essentially an atomweight competing against much larger strawweights. In nearly every fight, she was overpowered and outstrengthed, but her technical skills, fight IQ, and heart allowed her to secure victories against bigger, stronger opponents. The fact that she consistently pulled off wins against high-caliber fighters despite this physical disadvantage makes her career even more impressive.


3. Pioneer in Women’s MMA: Before the UFC had a women’s strawweight division, Carla Esparza was already competing at a high level. She became the Invicta FC Strawweight Champion in 2013, long before there was a major stage for women in the 115-pound division. She played a crucial role in paving the way for other women in the sport, helping to establish the strawweight division when there were few opportunities for women’s MMA.


4. Two-Time Champion and Remarkable Comeback: Esparza didn’t just win the belt once—she came back years later to reclaim the title against the odds. After suffering a tough loss to rising star Tatiana Suarez at UFC 228, many thought Esparza’s time at the top was over. Suarez dominated Esparza in that fight, but Carla refused to let that define her career. Despite not being favored by the UFC to return to title contention, Esparza put together an impressive five-fight win streak, eventually earning a rematch with Rose Namajunas at UFC 274, where she reclaimed the strawweight title after nearly 8 years.


5. Notable Wins and Accomplishments of Her Opponents:

• Rose Namajunas (UFC 274 & The Ultimate Fighter 20 Finale): Esparza defeated Namajunas twice, finishing her via submission (rear-naked choke) in their first meeting to become the first-ever UFC Strawweight Champion. In their rematch at UFC 274, Esparza won a close decision to reclaim the belt. Namajunas is a two-time champion and one of the division’s all-time greats, which makes these wins even more impressive.


• Yan Xiaonan (UFC Fight Night 188): Yan was on a 6-fight win streak in the UFC and was considered a top contender before Esparza dominated her and earned a TKO victory.


• Michelle Waterson (UFC 249): Waterson, a former Invicta FC Atomweight Champion, was a formidable opponent known for her striking and creativity in the octagon, but Esparza’s experience prevailed.


• Cynthia Calvillo (UFC 219): Calvillo, an undefeated rising prospect at the time, was thought to be the next big thing in the division, but Esparza showed her veteran savvy and outpointed her in a close fight.


• Alexa Grasso (UFC Fight Night 159): Grasso, now a UFC Flyweight Champion, was an up-and-coming striker when Esparza edged out a decision in a hard-fought battle. Grasso has gone on to become a top contender and current champion at flyweight.


• Marina Rodriguez (UFC on ESPN 14): Rodriguez, a rising star known for her striking, had never been defeated in the UFC before she ran into Esparza, who used her veteran skills to grind out a tough split decision win. Rodriguez is now considered one of the best in the strawweight division.


• Virna Jandiroba (UFC Fight Night 150): Jandiroba, a former Invicta FC Strawweight Champion, was undefeated before she faced Esparza, who handed her the first loss of her career.

A Career That Deserves Respect: Regardless of whether you are a fan or not, Carla’s accomplishments can’t be ignored. She has faced legends, earned her spot, and is now having her last fight. Instead of focusing on criticisms, it’s worth acknowledging her place in UFC history.






What are your thoughts on Carla’s career and how she should be remembered as she exits the sport, Sherbums?

Probably not a popular opinion, but I agree 100% in that she should be in the UFC HoF.

 

[PhilMcCavity]

Shit argument.

She beat Alexa Grasso

She beat Rose twice and finished her

She ended Calvillo’s, Marina Rodriguez’s, Virna Janiorba’s undefeated records

Ended Yan Xiaonan’s undefeated streak in the UFC

All while being undersized in the division in brutal fashion

Only a fool would say she is bad fighter

Wallace your obsession with wmma is strange. So that’s enough Wallace

 

[BangBang]

For being a 2 time SW champion, she has to be in.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

I wasn't attacking you. You flat out said you do not like her style, and now you're just doubling down on that and presenting me your reasons for not liking it and how it shaped your opinion on her. For what It's worth, I do not like her style either. I just don't think it is relevant enough to bring up in a thread about whether or not she deserves to be in the stupid UFC's HOF unless you are arguing against her case. But since you never said she doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then I don't know why you even wrote all of this about disliking her style in the first place. Why bring it up you aren't arguing against her case to be in the HOF?

To me, the point about her boring gamified style is moot in regards to whether or not she should be in the HOF. She isn't a justin gaethje or cowboy cerrone type fighter whose main argument for being in the HOF is the fact that they're exciting -- she's a two time former champ, and the first champ ever in what has been the UFC's premier women's division. Her argument is built on that, not her style of fighting.

I'm presenting counters to your points about saying that "we could do this to any fighter like Rose" making a parallel argument that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.

How is it not relevant to discuss her performances and her fights in a discussion of whether she should be in the HOF or not?

It's an important discussion to have - is the only thing that matters random stats like wins/win-streaks devoid of context (how they won, who they won against, whether they deserved to win or not in fights they got decisions in)?

I even pointed out that it's a completely arbitrary decision made by the UFC on the basis of fighters they want to be associated with for their brand value, this is from my last post:

And notice I never once said before or now that she didn’t deserve to be in their Hall of Fame (though it’s a meaningless thing since the UFC picks and chooses who based on random criteria), she was a pioneer and she did go up against a lot of great fighters and regardless of “gaming the judging criteria” or putting on boring performances she managed to get a lot of wins.

It doesn't matter what I think about the UFC's HOF because it's "their" HOF, they have a completely random criteria that they change and apply as they see fit to benefit their brand value, so it would be interesting to discuss if they want to be associated with her on the merit of those "wins" that were not entertaining and in my argument many of which at the end that led to hr title shot were undeserved.

She won the belt on a reality TV show where they didn't have full camps, proper training protocol, opponent scouting, etc. against a super-green opponent that managed to win a few fights in the tourney where everyone was really inexperienced. Then lost it in her first defense in embarrassing fashion immediately thereafter. Then in the build-up to her next "title run" she got multiple decisions based on control and then won the worst WMMA title fight of all-time by doing nothing. Which she then lost immediately thereafter again, so she never defended her belt.

That doesn't mean she didn't win the title twice or technically "beat" those fighters i.e. Grasso/Rodriguez/Waterson/Rose. It's just a relevant part of the discussion that was being ignored/glossed over in this thread so felt relevant to bring up as context.

It seems that by bringing up facts that may be distasteful in how it colors her performances as a fighter it implies some sort of hatred or bias against her. She seems like a really nice person and I'm happy she had a great career and is going to be able to retire with her brain intact and have a nice family.

But that doesn't mean we can't bring historical context into the discussion to actually add some perspective into what the gravity of those accomplishments are/means. To some people like you it doesn't matter and you think it does, to many others the context matters and they think she doesn't.

To me I don't care either way, the HOF is a UFC marketing tool, so "deserves" got nothing to do with it. I just thought it was an appropriate time to reflect on her achievements and what they actually were/mean so we don't just gloss over fighters careers like they are the stats of baseball players or what-not.

To me fighting is more circus than sport, so when we think about a HOF in other sports it's about accomplishments, so on that merit she is 100% deserving. As a circus where the job is to entertain and it's more about becoming a LEGEND (someone fight fans remember for decades to come, can recall multiple fights from, moments of amazing triumph and violence) I don't think so.

But since I don't set the criteria for the UFC it's irrelevant to me to say whether she is deserving or not - but if you wanted my opinion what I think will happen, since I believe the UFC use it as promotional branding I don't think they will put her in it for the reasons I noted.

If it was MY Hall of Fame context would be everything and it would be about being a "Fight Legend," someone who we think about for years to come and can recall so many fights and moments of violence that inspired and thrilled us. But it ain't my HOF.

 

[fortheo]

I'm presenting counters to your points about saying that "we could do this to any fighter like Rose" making a parallel argument that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.

How is it not relevant to discuss her performances and her fights in a discussion of whether she should be in the HOF or not?

It's an important discussion to have - is the only thing that matters random stats like wins/win-streaks devoid of context (how they won, who they won against, whether they deserved to win or not in fights they got decisions in)?

I even pointed out that it's a completely arbitrary decision made by the UFC on the basis of fighters they want to be associated with for their brand value, this is from my last post:

And notice I never once said before or now that she didn’t deserve to be in their Hall of Fame (though it’s a meaningless thing since the UFC picks and chooses who based on random criteria), she was a pioneer and she did go up against a lot of great fighters and regardless of “gaming the judging criteria” or putting on boring performances she managed to get a lot of wins.

It doesn't matter what I think about the UFC's HOF because it's "their" HOF, they have a completely random criteria that they change and apply as they see fit to benefit their brand value, so it would be interesting to discuss if they want to be associated with her on the merit of those "wins" that were not entertaining and in my argument many of which at the end that led to hr title shot were undeserved.

She won the belt on a reality TV show where they didn't have full camps, proper training protocol, opponent scouting, etc. against a super-green opponent that managed to win a few fights in the tourney where everyone was really inexperienced. Then lost it in her first defense in embarrassing fashion immediately thereafter. Then in the build-up to her next "title run" she got multiple decisions based on control and then won the worst WMMA title fight of all-time by doing nothing. Which she then lost immediately thereafter again, so she never defended her belt.

That doesn't mean she didn't win the title twice or technically "beat" those fighters i.e. Grasso/Rodriguez/Waterson/Rose. It's just a relevant part of the discussion that was being ignored/glossed over in this thread so felt relevant to bring up as context.

It seems that by bringing up facts that may be distasteful in how it colors her performances as a fighter it implies some sort of hatred or bias against her. She seems like a really nice person and I'm happy she had a great career and is going to be able to retire with her brain intact and have a nice family.

But that doesn't mean we can't bring historical context into the discussion to actually add some perspective into what the gravity of those accomplishments are/means. To some people like you it doesn't matter and you think it does, to many others the context matters and they think she doesn't.

To me I don't care either way, the HOF is a UFC marketing tool, so "deserves" got nothing to do with it. I just thought it was an appropriate time to reflect on her achievements and what they actually were/mean so we don't just gloss over fighters careers like they are the stats of baseball players or what-not.

To me fighting is more circus than sport, so when we think about a HOF in other sports it's about accomplishments, so on that merit she is 100% deserving. As a circus where the job is to entertain and it's more about becoming a LEGEND (someone fight fans remember for decades to come, can recall multiple fights from, moments of amazing triumph and violence) I don't think so.

But since I don't set the criteria for the UFC it's irrelevant to me to say whether she is deserving or not - but if you wanted my opinion what I think will happen, since I believe the UFC use it as promotional branding I don't think they will put her in it for the reasons I noted.

If it was MY Hall of Fame context would be everything and it would be about being a "Fight Legend," someone who we think about for years to come and can recall so many fights and moments of violence that inspired and thrilled us. But it ain't my HOF.

You pointed out split decisions as a way to belittle her. Yes, we can do that with other fighters, especially in the Womens' divisions where close decisions are extremely common. I pointed out split decisions of another prominent fighter in her division as an example of how easy it is. You then, only after the fact, expanded on your point about how you can find exciting, memorable fighters from rose but not Carla.

The reason I don't think Carla's style matters in this discussion is because the obvious argument for being in the HOF has nothing to do with how exciting she is but everything to do with her results and accomplishments. Everyone knows her style was extremely boring, yet we are here talking about her being a HOF fighter in spite of that. Nobody in their right mind would put her in the HOF because of her style, so why are we trying to act like her style is the key point here, when it very clearly isn't? We both already acknowledged that a boring gamified style doesn't erase accomplishments, and we both ackowledged that she has the accomplishments.

I responded to you because it seemed like you were using your opinions on carla's style as a reason to not put her into the HOF. You've since clarified you don't care if she goes into the HOF or not, which is fine. Now you're going down a much deeper opinion based rabit hole than I care to go down.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

You pointed out split decisions as a way to belittle her. Yes, we can do that with other fighters, especially in the Womens' divisions where close decisions are extremely common. I pointed out split decisions of another prominent fighter in her division as an example of how easy it is. You then, only after the fact, expanded on your point about how you can find exciting, memorable fighters from rose but not Carla.

The reason I don't think Carla's style matters in this discussion is because the obvious argument for being in the HOF has nothing to do with how exciting she is but everything to do with her results and accomplishments. Everyone knows her style was extremely boring, yet we are here talking about her being a HOF fighter in spite of that. Nobody in their right mind would put her in the HOF because of her style, so why are we trying to act like her style is the key point here, when it very clearly isn't? We both already acknowledged that a boring gamified style doesn't erase accomplishments, and we both ackowledged that she has the accomplishments.

I responded to you because it seemed like you were using your opinions on carla's style as a reason to not put her into the HOF. You've since clarified you don't care if she goes into the HOF or not, which is fine. Now you're going down a much deeper opinion based rabit hole than I care to go down.

Not all split decisions are the same - getting in a blood and guts war with Andrade isn’t the same as getting some control while getting beat up by Marina Rodriguez. It’s apples to oranges, a disingenuous position to try and make a point.

I made that point about not having cool moments in my first post, there was no need to expand on it until you countered my post so I felt the need to provide more relevant details.

I just wanted to have a discussion about the context of her achievements and whether the UFC values that enough on sporting merit alone, if you don’t want to have that discussion no worries bro.