- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Mainly for curiosity 2008 they said around age 20 was the limit, now I'm curious as to now
I think it depends on how athletic you are. If you are decently fit and athletic, I'd say maybe 35 but that also depends what weight division.
I also wondered...anyone know if a lot of fighters go on painkillers after tough fights?
Fighting is brutal. If you start young your beat up by 30. Injuries are almost unavoidable in this sport. In my opinion, most often, MMA fighters don't reach their full potential for this reason.
If you get a late start to MMA, but we're athletic and fit, you have your "man" strength, wisdom, and life knowledge. And I believe a better chance at achieving your actual potential.
Personally, I think a high level gymnast or top tier rock climber could be a force if they started training at 22-23. But still have a very good chance in their later 20's.
I agree with most everything but your last paragraph. That is like saying a power lifter or NFL player will make a great mixed martial artist based on what they can do in the weight room. Most people cannot take the punishment of getting beat on, even during the training portion where there is no cash flow opportunities.
Outside of their fixed fights, Pancrase and RINGS had things right I think about developing fighters. Instead of killing yourself in the dojo and fighting twice a year, there were more fights and the ways you could take damage was limited in terms of strikes on the ground or to the face. Former UFC matchmaker John Peretti was a big proponent of not allowing strikes to the head on the ground due to the hammer/anvil effect it had on the brain.
More fights are possible this way, along with the in ring experience --not to mention building a following for fighters. No need for a 400 fighter roster either.