All weight classes need to be gotten rid of. (Inspired by Sarcastro's thread)

**Yohan** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 10:01am

Dead horse.

Beaten

They have weight classes because it's entertainment and they want evenly matched fights. It's also good because it gives everyone a chance to fight.

Originally Posted by Iphaltuus

Seriously though, how can things possibly be made to keep things even? My theory behind the bone weight is that each fighter will eventually find a balance around their own frame, why take that away from them?

This comment is plain stupid. First off, it's not the bone structure that matters, it's the amount of lean muscle. The fat is going to slow the fighter down, and it's up to the fighter to lose the fat - the less he loses, the lower weight class he or she can be in.

**legomepanda** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 10:38am

I don't think everyone wants an even fight... Watching someone win against a larger opponent is just as entertaining as watching him get dominated, so either way I feel it's a win.
Also, it should be made clear that I'm not saying "do away with weight classes." I'm suggesting that an open weight division be added.

**Ke?poFist** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 10:45am

Originally Posted by Iphaltuus

Yeah, I read it, big whoop wanna fight about it?

I thought about how people are always changing muscle and fat mass to make weights in the different divisions of every fighting sport. The first response was to have no weight classes. Then I remembered about the open weight grand prix's and tourneys etc. That's nice, but people seem to want a fight between two equally skilled and equally bulked characters, only peppered with a complete pwnage here or there.

Then I remembered something that was key to the solution I have come up with. We live in the new millenium. No longer do we have to have fighters stand on the opposite scale of a pile of burnt witch bodies!

But seriously, we got science, why not use it? I personally am interested in using science to compare the weight of a fighters bone structure and classify from there. I think it's the frame that counts, the rest is just flesh right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPgI-7hTZkQ

**A.D.D** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 12:01pm

Originally Posted by DARKSON

Open weight was fine when everyone sucked. Now the skill level of the competition has evolved to the point were giving up weight is a huge disadvantage. It would be a bad career choice for a professional to give up a large amount of weight to an opponent. See W. Silva in the last open weight grand prix.

I agree with you but Silva only had two fights in that grand prix. He beat Fujiti who outweighed him but lost to CroCop who he came in slightly heavier than. Though CroCop's frame is larger.

Anyway this topic is kind of pointless for any event that would happen in the US anyway. There is no way this would be allowed.

**Iphaltuus** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 2:02pm

Damn Ke?po Fist, 2wice?

Originally Posted by Yohan

Dead horse.

Beaten

They have weight classes because it's entertainment and they want evenly matched fights. It's also good because it gives everyone a chance to fight.

This comment is plain stupid. First off, it's not the bone structure that matters, it's the amount of lean muscle. The fat is going to slow the fighter down, and it's up to the fighter to lose the fat - the less he loses, the lower weight class he or she can be in.

I know it may seem a bit irrational. But I was trying to think of a solution to the problem that evolved on Sarcastro's thread. It basically boiled down to fighters cutting just enough weight to be at the top of their class. I think skeletal frame has something to be done about the weight and mass of a person, so if someone built their muscle adequately around their own frame, it wouldn't necissarily matter how much they weighed in the end. My theory is that if a fighter who over or under-weighted himself down with muscle, he or she would have a disadvantage against another fighter with the same skeletal frame who weighed him or herself more proportionally to their own frame. I mean when it comes down to it, muscles are nice and provide some difference between the strength of two people, but I imagine that tendons have a more important role in that area.

I don't really care what you think about my theory unless you have research to back it up. What I am more interested in is your solution to fighters being able to manipulate the weight divisions to their own advantage.

Then again, on the other end of the spectrum, it might be more interesting as it is. I mean we all remember the Liddell/Couture and Penn/Hughes fights.

**Kentucky Fried Chokin** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 2:14pm

The bone structure thing is retarded. By that logic you would have Jeff Monson fighting a bunch of welterweights. I like the idea of an open-weight GP, but to eliminate the weight classes entirely would make more battles of size and strength, which is not nearly as entertaining as skilled battles of technique. I think the best solution is to just not read Sirc's threads.

**Vieux Normand** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 2:17pm

Shrimps shouldn't fight. It isn't safe for them. Anything they can learn, we can learn (assuming it's even necessary) and anything they can arm themselves with, so can we.

**Iphaltuus** · Posted On: 6/08/2008 2:31pm

I don't mean the bone structure necessarily. Perhaps bone density, or the weight of ones skeleton alone, or added to the weight of that persons tendons. I don't know, I would like to know if anyone does really.

And I know the title is misleading, but I don't nor wouldn't wish to get rid of weight classes, I understand their importance. I just think that they can be improved with todays technology to defend against the manipulation of a fighters weight versus what they should weigh.