In MMA a Loss Doesn't Mean as Much as Boxing

Being able to choke a guy out has never impressed me that much which is why it means less than a boxing stoppage.

 

So wrong.

Submitting someone is much more clear-cut than a KO. You heard of the phrase "lucky punch"? Well, there's no such thing as a lucky submission. YOU made the choice to quit when you tap. There's no freak occurrence.

 

It is because this was the Fertitta's strategy when Zuffa owned the UFC to never let a single fighter get bigger than the UFC brand. It is the difference between promoting a brand vs promoting a fighter.
They actively made matches to give the worst style match up possible after a win.
That isn't the case any more, now we are going to see more promotion of single fighters like McGregor and Rousey and a loss matters huge.
Rousey lost millions of dollars with that loss. Because of that loss we are never going to get to see the remake of Road House. That would have been the best worst movie easy.

 

MMA is not ufc. how long will it take before some (majority) MMA fans realise that UFC is not a sport. MMA is the sport. dumb.
I like both sports but just dont watch MMA as its not televised enough, UFc is televised at stupid o clock in the UK and its just doesnt have the hype it needs. Conor followed floyds method and capitalized on it well. (although i think his win against aldo was lucky) I couldt tell you about any other fighters from other promotions as their boring and not promoted properly. UFC is doing the promotion of mma, but i dont hold any fighter in high regard tbh.

 

how ever mcgregor gets a pass from most ufc fans

he just about avenged a loss. 'JUST'

 

But he avenged it none the less.

And I feel that a guy like Diaz will always be wrong for Conor.

 

Thank some of Mayweathers more ******ed fanboys for this. Losses didn't use to matter as much as they do today. A zero more often than not used to mean a fighter was protected or unproven.

 

Bang on!

 

Any gorilla can put you in a headlock and there are quick ways of getting out of one that are against mma rules. And since you mention it, lucky punches happen in mma way more than boxing from what I can see.

 

Nope.

 

No, you just can't make factual points to discredit boxing in your rabid attempts to paint MMA as superior.

...okay

Let me stop you right there. The global talent pool for boxing is deep and those 25 fights are not against bums. Lots of MMA fans don't understand that because some fighters get championship fights in 10 fights. There are many levels in the historical and specialized sport of boxing.

 

So the first 25 fights of ANY Boxers career is against SOLID contenders, yeah?

It's only Loma that's broken the mould - and look what happened there.

No, because having TWENTY FIVE FIGHTS is a career in MMA due to the wear & tear on the body AND because there are so many ways to lose.

Twenty five fights with hands = Longevity. Proven.

Same amount with knees, elbows, submissions = Career done.

 

No, that's the point. To GET to solid contender status you have to climb multiple tiers. The guy you fight for you debut is not the guy you fight in your 5th fight, and he's not the guy you fight in your tenth or 15th fight, and certainly not your 20th or 25th fight.

Loma had like 400 amateur fights. Guys like him and Rigo put in the same amount of rounds but in a different system.

If fighters hardly ever rises to the top for a sustained period I wonder how fighters can distinguish themselves in history. If losing is that easy, winning means less. Extreme randomization contradicts the point of competition long-term.

 

Multiple tiers? More like multiple nobodies. Tally up the losses and wins of say Cotto's first 25 fights...

No, you can distinguish yourself as the best. You just don't need an inflated career of 49 fights over three different decades to do so.

 

The actual tally is 534-186-15. That's a win/loss ratio of 74.2%.

Cotto's career is one of many that illustrates why these levels are so important.

In Cotto's debut he fought another debutant.
His next 4 fights were guys with more fights and more wins than him, but with losing records.
His next 3 fights were guys with winning records and more fights.
His next 5 after that were guys with 20 and 30 fights with winning records.
In his 14th and 15th fights he's fighting seasoned veterans with records of 39-5 and 34-5, the latter on an HBO undercard of one of Floyd's fights.
In his 16th fights he's fighting for an international title, a level below World Champion status.
In his 20th fight he's fighting a former world title challenger in Lovemore N'Dou.
His next 5 fights and pretty much every fight after that, he's fighting top contenders and champions. Pinto, Bailey, Corley, Torres.

He later goes on to fight Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah, before facing off against Mosley at his peak and becoming the top dog at welterweight in that moment with Floyd's retirement.

That's how long it takes for a fighter to reach the top. Because each tier of fighter is built on the one below it, and it takes a lot to be able to climb over that many men of varying skill level to finally become the finished product, a tried and tested champion.

Until the next guy beats you, and the next guy beats him 2 fights later, and the next guy, and so on. As I heard one person put it, a round-robin until the end of time makes it difficult for anyone to stand out. I'm not saying there aren't elite fighters in MMA, but if it seems like anyone can lose to anyone at any given time, it defeats the purpose of sport itself.