UFC/MMA should learn from boxing...

[Jose Beehive]

Chimaev doesn't deserve a bump in competition, he hasn't earned it yet.

Come on man, we'd never have seen GSP lose to Matt Serra with this logic.. You need big underdogs sometimes or it's boring.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Congrats.

How do you know what level Chimaev is at?
The opponents he is steamrolling ARE CLEARLY NOT ON HIS LEVEL
Yet you don't want him to move up in competition?

They're not on his level, you're killing off the Rhys McKees of the world if you feed Chimaev 10 more of him.

It doesn't make sense man, I don't know how you don't see it or if you're trolling

I'm done here

I want him to move up in competition when he's ready for it. Chimaev hasn't proved that he is ready yet.
That's okay, people like Rhys McKee will probably never be champion anyway.
So admit defeat then? Cool.

 

[g*r*b]

Personally I prefer that a prospect learns by experience what it's like to lose pretty early on in their career. I know the danger is that you may damage their confidence. But coddle them with opponents of a certain level for too long and they can fossilize in their habits and never surmount that level. Or if they go very long undefeated and get their first loss when they're set in their ways they may never recover, or -- perhaps worse in some ways -- never be able to acknowledge and fix the problem, and blunder onwards none the better. Better to learn early on that there are levels to this, and to deal with the adversity of losing when you're still resilient and more able to bounce back.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

I want him to move up in competition when he's ready for it. Chimaev hasn't proved that he is ready yet.
That's okay, people like Rhys McKee will probably never be champion anyway.
So admit defeat then? Cool.

So you're just picking and choosing who you think is good or not, okay cool.

Your system is flawed. Your logic is flawed. Yeah, I'm very defeated.

Everyone can join this thread and read the dumb shit you posted.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

So if a guy wins 50 fights in a row and has 10 losses in his career he doesn't deserve a title shot? That's fucking retarded, man.


Also pretty sure Lawler had 10 career losses when he won the title so, so your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

I'm not wondering if you're trolling because of a different opinion, but because of the ridiculousness

Why, because I only want people who have good records fighting for titles?
Yet for every Robbie Lawler, there is 100 fighters with with 10 or more losses on their record who never amount to anything. It's pretty obvious Lawler is the exception to the rule and he doesn't represent the majority of fighters who have those kind of records.
So you are so close minded that you think that anyone opinion that isn't your own is ridiculous?

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

But he's shown you he's at a higher level than the guys he's killing, so you have no idea what level he's at. Maybe he can't crack the top 15, maybe he could beat Usman. You have no idea because no one has seen it. And there's only 1 way to find out

Chimaev deserves a fight with a top 10 fighter because he beat a couple of no names in his first two fights in the UFC? But my position is retarded?

Are you sure you aren't trolling? LOL

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Why, because I only want people who have good records fighting for titles?
Yet for every Robbie Lawler, there is 100 fighters with with 10 or more losses on their record who never amount to anything. It's pretty obvious Lawler is the exception to the rule and he doesn't represent the majority of fighters who have those kind of records.
So you are so close minded that you think that anyone opinion that isn't your own is ridiculous?

50 straight wins isn't a good record?
How about 100-10?

No, you just don't understand that your system doesn't work and your logic is flawed. I don't know if you're new to the sport or 12 years old

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Chimaev deserves a fight with a top 10 fighter because he beat a couple of no names in his first two fights in the UFC? But my position is retarded?

Are you sure you aren't trolling? LOL

Give him #25 and if he beats him #20 and then #15 then #10 or something yeah

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Come on man, we'd never have seen GSP lose to Matt Serra with this logic.. You need big underdogs sometimes or it's boring.

It's pretty obvious that GSP's loss to Serra was a fluke that would only happen 1 out a 100 times. It's just that the first time they fought it was the 1 time. The rematch is what would happen 99 times if they fought 100 times.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

So you're just picking and choosing who you think is good or not, okay cool.

Your system is flawed. Your logic is flawed. Yeah, I'm very defeated.

Everyone can join this thread and read the dumb shit you posted.

Now, I'm basing it off of wins and losses.
My system seems to have worked fine for boxing for decades.
If they be objective, then they will see that I am right.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Now, I'm basing it off of wins and losses.
My system seems to have worked fine for boxing for decades.
If they be objective, then they will see that I am right.

No you're not, because you said a guy that's 100-10 doesn't deserve a title shot.

Good day

 

[Jose Beehive]

It's pretty obvious that GSP's loss to Serra was a fluke that would only happen 1 out a 100 times. It's just that the first time they fought it was the 1 time. The rematch is what would happen 99 times if they fought 100 times.

So what? Are flukes forbidden ?

Your logic would mean GSP would never get an opportunity to redeem this fluke, if it were his 10th loss.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

50 straight wins isn't a good record?
How about 100-10?

No, you just don't understand that your system doesn't work and your logic is flawed. I don't know if you're new to the sport or 12 years old

50 straight wins is good if you have no losses.
You would be like 70 by then, but I suppose if you are 100-10 you can get a title shot.
Again, my system works just fine in boxing. It could work in MMA.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Give him #25 and if he beats him #20 and then #15 then #10 or something yeah

That is somewhat reasonable I guess, but can we at least agree that Chimaev still has a long way to go before he is ready for someone in the top 10?

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

No you're not, because you said a guy that's 100-10 doesn't deserve a title shot.

Good day

Like I said, if someone could somehow wins 100 fights in a row after their 10 losses then they would deserve a title shot. But I highly doubt that would happen.
I'm Glad to see that you admit defeat.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

So what? Are flukes forbidden ?

Your logic would mean GSP would never get an opportunity to redeem this fluke, if it were his 10th loss.

No, I'm just saying that if MMA was more like boxing then Serra would have never gotten a title shot to begin with.
No, because at that point GSP had already been the champion. So he has proven himself of being worthy of a title shot.
I'm talking about contenders who has never been the champ. If they have 10 or more losses, it's clear that they will most likely never be champ and they don't deserve a title shot.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Like I said, if someone could somehow wins 100 fights in a row after their 10 losses then they would deserve a title shot. But I highly doubt that would happen.
I'm Glad to see that you admit defeat.

You're a weird dude. Where online discussions have to do with winning or losing. A sign of little dick syndrome. Get some friends. Read a book.

 

[Jose Beehive]

No, I'm just saying that if MMA was more like boxing then Serra would have never gotten a title shot to begin with.
No, because at that point GSP had already been the champion. So he has proven himself of being worthy of a title shot.
I'm talking about contenders who has never been the champ. If they have 10 or more losses, it's clear that they will most likely never be champ and they don't deserve a title shot.

So If Oleinik wins his next 5 fights he shouldn't get a shot?

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

You're a weird dude. Where online discussions have to do with winning or losing. A sign of little dick syndrome. Get some friends. Read a book.

We're not just having a discussion, we're having an online debate.
Who said anything about dick size? Sounds like someone is projecting to me.
I do have friends, and I read books. Now what?

 

[Canarinha]

Fuck that, what's the point of a padded record if you still gonna get smashed when you get to the top? I love that the UFC and MMA in general is more "put your money where your mouth is" than boxing.

It's up to the manager and the fighter to pick and choose as best as they can.

There is a huge thing called experience you know? that kind of thing wins fights.