Which is more important: Who you beat/fought or how many you've beaten?

KazDibiase

"My style is kneeing people in the face."
@Silver
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
11,802
Reaction score
46,980
I'm talking title shot wise. What type of fight is more deserving. A fighter who have some wins or loses against mid/top tier fighters or a fighter who is undefeated with wins against lower/mid fighters?
 
If you are on a 6+ fight streak it is very likely that you are already facing top opponents. So IMO both things should be taken into account
 
Last edited:
giphy.gif
 
In an ideal world, a combination of both
 
The former.

How many fighters have come into the UFC with long undefeated streaks and quickly been handed a loss against top tier competition?
 
Only names. The way I knock down Mountain Dews I could have been a PRIDE champ 10 years ago.

Those days are behind us.
 
Only names. The way I knock down Mountain Dews I could have been a PRIDE champ 10 years ago.

Those days are behind us.
PRIDE Champs Dec. 2006:
HW: Fedor
MW: W. Silva
WW: Hendo
LW: Gomi
GPOW: Cro Cop
GPWW: Misaki

Who ya beatin big guy?
 
It is impossible to answer this without specifics. Could be either.
 
Who you beat and how you beat them.
 
I will say that its fucking insane that Holloway got to 10 wins in a row without getting a crack at a real belt. That should never happen again. He didn't beat anyone in the absolute top flight of that division but he beat everyone else.

The UFC should have a thing where if you get 8 wins a row, either you get a title shot in the next six months or they have to give you a million dollars. Think of the drama. They'd be throwing killers at guys as soon as they got to 6.
 
Quality > quantity obviously. It's been proven countless times. Guys go on big win streaks because they're active against guys ranking #10-20 but once they face that step up in competition they routinely get samshed.
 
If u havent beaten anyone in the top 5 u dont deserve a title shot
 
If we're talking about title shots, it should be both. You should have at least a decent win streak (at least a 3 or 4 wins in a row), with at least one or two wins against top guys.

But of course who you beat is more important than how many.
 
I would say who you beat is more important for the most part but not always. If under some strange circumstance a fighter ranked 15th gets matched up with fighter ranked 2 and wins he shouldn't necessarily be catapulted past him now. Mma is a crazy sport where styles make fights and things that seem unlikely happen every week. so while #15 beat #2, #15 might lose to 3-10 and number 2 beats them all. So does 15 beating 2 steal all the accomplishments from 2 that 15 couldn't do himself? You have to consider the totality of circumstances.
 
Back
Top