So am I the only one that thinks Nate Diaz is a good gatekeeper?

K

Kana Li

Blue Belt
@Blue
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
897
Reaction score
297
He seems like a gatekeeper, most of his top fights he has lost.


Edit: I would consider gatekeepers to be people who probably cannot fight for a title, but are still around the top 5.
 
Last edited:
There are no good or bad gatekeepers. There are just gatekeepers.
 
He subbed Jim Miller when Jim had been top 5 for ages. Nate's inconsistent and lets his emotions derail him a bit, but he's good. Better than a gatekeeper.

Then again, someone today characterised Poirier as a journeyman, so maybe gatekeeper isn't so bad...
 
Codpiece said:
He subbed Jim Miller when Jim had been top 5 for ages. Nate's inconsistent and lets his emotions derail him a bit, but he's good. Better than a gatekeeper.

Then again, someone today characterised Poirier as a journeyman, so maybe gatekeeper isn't so bad...
Click to expand...

I would say that him being inconsistent is what makes him a gate keeper. He may have the skills to fight at a high level, but he fails to and random times.
 
He's had a couple bad performances no doubt but most of his losses are to top guys. He could have gotten the nod vs DHK or Guida, too. Did more damage and landed way more strikes in both fights but got held down some so lost the decisions. When you whoop up on the likes of Cerrone and Johnson when they are on a roll (Majority of people thought Johnson beat Dariush) it's hard to call you a gatekeeper but then again it's a loose term anyways so it's hard to say.

I also personally think he looks better in victory than he looks bad in defeat a lot of the time if that makes any sense. When he wins he's boxing people up or subbing them and when he loses it's him getting held down most of the time with a couple exceptions. To me that means something. As a true fan I don't think you should just glance at wiki and tally wins and losses (and I'm not saying you did that) and grade the fighters based off of that, I think you have to break the fights down individually and I definitely feel Nate has had some very fine performances in some of his victories.
 
dbader08 said:
He's had a couple bad performances no doubt but most of his losses are to top guys. When you whoop up on the likes of Cerrone and Johnson when they are on a roll (Majority of people thought Johnson beat Dariush) it's hard to call you a gatekeeper but then again it's a loose term anyways so it's hard to say.
Click to expand...

You do have a point. I would consider gatekeepers to be people who probably cannot fight for a title, but are still around the top 5.
 
Kana Li said:
You do have a point. I would consider gatekeepers to be people who probably cannot fight for a title, but are still around the top 5.
Click to expand...
I added a bit more to my post lol but right on...LW division is a shark tank too so by those standards I could see him being a gatekeeper...nothing to be ashamed of though obviously. 155 and 170 are the toughest divisions in the UFC imo and have been for a long time although featherweight is right there as well now.
 
dbader08 said:
I added a bit more to my post lol but right on...LW division is a shark tank too so by those standards I could see him being a gatekeeper...nothing to be ashamed of though obviously. 155 and 170 are the toughest divisions in the UFC imo and have been for a long time although featherweight is right there as well now.
Click to expand...

So true, but he is hardly the person I would pick to take down one of the best fighters.
 
He's already fought for a title..........

And wasn't he a WEC champ once upon a time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,471
Messages
56,649,068
Members
175,333
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top