• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Should the lighter fighters be weighed more heavily all time?

You didn’t read the thread I guess.

It’s cool. Point taken: don’t make lengthy posts
post wasnt lenghty


but Im unsure what you mean when you said

"Even though the lighter weight classes hold the most records for title defenses in a row (which in theory would mean there is lower competition since the belt is changing around less offen"

the ligher weight classes hold the most records for title defenses in a row, How can multiple weight classes hold this record? and if more people are competing at the level of the champion, would that in theory mean the competition level is higher if more people are fighting at the champs level?
 
And if the bigger guys were smaller they would ‘move better’?

And if the smaller guys were bigger they might play real sports?

LOL this is a wild thread you have created.
Not his best work. And I usually groan when he makes a half decent thread. But this one really blows.

When I got to the “now that Reebok has taken over” part. And I said..

Fuck this shit.
 
If the larger guys were weighed less and the smaller guys were weighed least would the middle guys also weight a little more?
 
P4P is an opinion. Nobody can prove what would happen if 2 athletes were magically the same size.

So a big circle jerk

Just for fun and marketing. And yeah debating. But it's not factual.
 
The smaller guys would lose vs the bigger guys therefore we should rate the bigger guys more highly.
Pretty much. We are talking about best fighters but at the same time like to pretend that size and weight mean little, so it becomes a discussion about “skill”. Big guys tend to suffer 1 hit ko’s more easily, get injured in practice more easily, etc. We are also ignoring (very often) the fact that most small guys are not even so small anymore, but can cut huge amounts of weight. It is a moot point because the smaller guys are by definition more skilled and the bigger guys by definition more dangerous. Open weight competition would show you a few of those small guys who are able to take on big guys, but nobody in their right mind would do it, or sanction it, these days. Guys like Saku and Minnowa are a thing of the past.
If somehow the UFC would be willing to pay their talent crazy money, maybe more big guys could be available for these p4p lists to mean more, but as it stands, p4p best will be a LW (or thereabouts) guy most of the time.
In reality, the HW champ is the king and always will be in any combat sport.
 
Hear me out:

Generally the higher weight classes have had less talent than the lower weight classes (LHW and HW). This could be for a number of reasons.. two of which: more pay in other sports for bigger better players, more rare to find bigger people than smaller ones etc. Especially now that Reebok has taken over and the top end of fighters are getting paid more than ever, it could be a less convincing for big athletes to commit to MMA.

The lighter weight classes generally seem to be a shark tank historically. There are more smaller people than bigger people and smaller people especially in America have a harder time competing in American sports which tend to require bigger bodies.

Even though the lighter weight classes hold the most records for title defenses in a row (which in theory would mean there is lower competition since the belt is changing around less offen), it's less a consequence of low competition and more about the fact that it is harder to win against other small fighters with one punch and due to the sheer volume of smaller fighters, there is a higher chance that one superior fighter would appear to dominate the rest. (At least this is my theory)

So my question to you is, shouldn't we weigh the smaller fighters in higher regard when it comes to P4P and GOAT talks? Yes, the bigger fighters would most likely beat the smaller champs in a fight but the smaller fighters have to be more excellent to remain in the top of the rankings.

On the other hand, it is way harder to hold onto the title at the bigger divisions since anyone can turn your lights off in one punch so longer title defenses at the higher weight classes are impressive.

Should the lighter fighters be weighed more heavily all time or do the bigger fighters have their own set of challenges which allows the smaller fighters to seem more impressive? What do you think?

It is as simple as this: I call it "body-to-world" strength.

There is a certain body size range, which is optimal for the world (the realities of gravity, etc.), beyond which the extra weight of the person works against them.

This is WHY gymnasts will typically be 95 to 130 pounds ... and also WHY you will never see eight 220 pound gymnast.

The greatest gymnasts of all time, are ALWAYS smaller people, because they have an ideal "body-to-world' strength, which allows them to move freely without being taxed by gravity.

Conversely, even though a 220 pound man may be stronger, in his ability to weight lift, etc., the TAX OF GRAVITY impedes the larger man, to where he cannot move and perform like the smaller gymnast can.

These same truths apply to fighters. You will never see a heavyweight move like Dimitris Johnson.

Smaller-weight fighters are faster, move better, can keep a better pace, and can fight longer (at a faster pace) then much larger men can fight.

As such, true fight connoisseurs actually appreciate the lighter-weight fighters, because they realize they perform better, pound-for-pound.
 
Pvp Jon Jones and Francis Nganous and Tom Aspinals 250 pounds are more than Volkanovskis 160 pounds. Let's magically deduct someones body and they will lose.
 
Since hearing the term P4P for the first time as a youngster watching boxing, I always thought it was designated to lighter fighters. It did not apply to heavyweights in any way. It wasn’t about power, it was about the extremely high intelligence and skill that particular fighter uniquely possessed, that would carry over to any weight. Skill vs skill, talent vs talent, regardless of weight. So back then, you’d hear about Roy Jones Junior, for example. Today I think calling someone like Demetrius Johnson follows that same spirit. IIRC, it all started as the highest compliment you could bestow on a boxer’s quality. Now it’s just daily thread #26 of sherdog forums. Even UFC started a top 10 list which includes heavyweights and doesn’t make sense to me personally. So yes I do agree it belongs to the smaller fighter who can do it all and do it all as good or better than anyone. The reason why it’s the smaller fighter is just a matter of physiques. You cant possibly have the same extensive repertoire of moves when you’re a heavyweight. At the end of the day P4P is just an idea. It’s not measurable it’s not objective. It’s just a compliment paid. I would say the same thing about GOAT.
 
Last edited:
post wasnt lenghty


but Im unsure what you mean when you said

"Even though the lighter weight classes hold the most records for title defenses in a row (which in theory would mean there is lower competition since the belt is changing around less offen"

the ligher weight classes hold the most records for title defenses in a row, How can multiple weight classes hold this record? and if more people are competing at the level of the champion, would that in theory mean the competition level is higher if more people are fighting at the champs level?
Should have worded that better was going to sleep. Meant that they seem to have the more title defenses in a row as opposed to higher divisions.

Should have worded it better I was about to go to sleep
 
I think it evens out.

Little guys can claim they're better because there's a larger talent pool so if someone defends their belt 10 times they're a legend.

But the big guys can claim they're better because every punch could be a KO at that weight. So if someone defends their title 10 times they're a legend.

Basically they each have pros and cons that cancel each other out.
When you say "big guys" I assume you mean specifically heavyweight because 205 and 185 have had plenty of dominant fighters.
 
Should have worded that better was going to sleep. Meant that they seem to have the more title defenses in a row as opposed to higher divisions.

Should have worded it better I was about to go to sleep
but they dont.

MW LHW and FLY WW (Anderson, jones, johnson, st.pierre) are the classes with the most consecutive title defenses. Flyweight is on the far side of the spectrum just like HW, in terms of shallow talent pool.

BW FW LW and also HW are all very hard to keep the title in.
 
If they weighed more heavily they wouldn't be the lighter weight fighters anymore.

<Y2JSmirk>
 
but they dont.

MW LHW and FLY WW (Anderson, jones, johnson, st.pierre) are the classes with the most consecutive title defenses. Flyweight is on the far side of the spectrum just like HW, in terms of shallow talent pool.

BW FW LW and also HW are all very hard to keep the title in.

FW had Aldo


This list seems to lean towards lighter weight classes
 
but they dont.

MW LHW and FLY WW (Anderson, jones, johnson, st.pierre) are the classes with the most consecutive title defenses. Flyweight is on the far side of the spectrum just like HW, in terms of shallow talent pool.

BW FW LW and also HW are all very hard to keep the title in.

Also Bantamweight starts becoming way too small so an outlier like Johnson is similar to Jones where it is rare to see so many defenses.

I guess the thread should have been should average sized fighters be weighed more heavily as opposed to just small fighters…..
 
Back
Top