When Ben Askren brushed off Nate Diaz as “average,” he wasn’t just critiquing a résumé; he was kicking one of MMA’s loudest hornets’ nests. Even though it was just a blunt, almost clinical take, everyone knew what was coming next.

Askren made the remark while chatting on Daniel Cormier’s YouTube channel, and to his credit, he saw the storm forming in real time. “Please don’t post this clip,” he joked, fully aware of where it could go. The clip went up anyway. And once it did, the reaction snowballed fast.

‘Funky’s core argument was simple: “Nate Diaz, I don’t even think he’s that good, but he has convinced people he’s good at fighting somehow, some way…. He was average. His record is 21-13. That’s not that great.”

Cormier initially pushed back, suggesting Diaz was one of the best in his prime, although eventually, DC had to admit the numbers didn’t lie. But here’s the thing, Nate Diaz has never been remembered by the math. Fans don’t talk about him in spreadsheets or win percentages. They remember the moments. The chaos. The nights when he kept walking forward when most fighters would’ve folded.

This is the guy who won The Ultimate Fighter 5. The guy who fought Benson Henderson for the lightweight title back in 2012. The guy with 16 post-fight bonuses, third-most in UFC history. That résumé doesn’t line up with the word “average” if you grew up watching him bleed, smile, and flip people off inside the cage!

Askren, of course, wasn’t arguing excitement. He was arguing for elite status. And that distinction is where the debate caught fire. Was Nate Diaz elite? Or was he simply unforgettable? Fans didn’t wait long to answer.

Fans defend Nate Diaz as Ben Askren comes under fire for his remarks

One fan wrote, “But what’s Ben’s record in the UFC?” That’s when the conversation flipped on its head. Suddenly, the spotlight wasn’t on Nate Diaz anymore, it was on Ben Askren. His own UFC run, a disputed win over Robbie Lawler followed by emphatic losses to Jorge Masvidal and Demian Maia, became part of the debate. And fans started asking the obvious questions. How much weight should résumé critiques carry when they come from someone whose UFC stint was over almost as quickly as it started?

Another fan pointed out, “Nick was always the more talented brother.” That take didn’t come out of nowhere. It taps straight into long-standing Diaz lore. Nick’s Strikeforce title run and his cleaner boxing earned him the reputation as the more “complete” brother. It’s a debate fans have had for years. But most of the fans bringing it up weren’t really siding with Askren. They were redirecting the argument. Does Nate have to be elite to matter? Does every legacy need a belt attached to it? Or can durability, longevity, and unforgettable moments carry just as much weight?

Top Stories

Jon Jones Reveals Biggest Obstacle to Alex Pereira Superfight at the White House

Alex Pereira Confirms Major Tracy Cortez Relationship Status Update After Viral Marriage Proposal Clip

Dana White Confirms Arman Tsarukyan’s Behavior Cost Him UFC 324 Title Shot After Paddy Pimblett Rant

“Enemies for Life”: Jon Jones Slams Daniel Cormier in X-Rated Rant After Failed Friendship Attempt

“Bad Idea”: Former UFC P4P No. 1 Explains Seven Title Fights at White House Could Backfire

Someone else pushed back with, “Nah above average for sure, just not elite. Nate has some quality wins. Finishing prime Conor off the couch is a statement.” This might be the most balanced reaction of all. Diaz’s submission of Conor McGregor in 2016 wasn’t a fluke in fans’ eyes; it was an upset that reshaped the sport. Elite or not, the Stockton native beat elite fighters on elite nights.

One fan claimed, “Nate is exciting to watch, most of his wins are by stoppage. 21 wins, 17 finishes.” Here’s the disconnect Askren may have underestimated. Fans don’t rank greatness solely by win-loss columns. They rank it by violence, risk, and replay value. Diaz delivered all three consistently, even in losses.

A different fan wrote, “I’ve never heard anyone make the argument that Nate Diaz is elite. He’s just really popular and always fun to watch.” This reaction actually supports Askren’s point, albeit unintentionally. Many fans don’t claim Diaz as an all-time great. They claim him as a cult hero. Someone who fought anyone, anywhere, and never changed his style to chase belts.

And finally, another fan claimed, “Was Nate a world champ? No. But he fought the best for 10 years while Askren beat up on cans.” That final line cuts deep. Nate Diaz spent more than a decade in the UFC, sharing the cage with top contenders across multiple divisions. Ben Askren, to his credit, dominated everywhere outside the UFC. That part isn’t really in dispute. But fans tend to ask a different question: who stayed afloat in the deepest waters the longest?

And that’s where the argument gets tricky.  On paper, Askren isn’t wrong. Nate Diaz was never dominant. He never ruled a division. He never put together the kind of consistent run that defines champions. But fans aren’t flipping through spreadsheets here. They’re defending something else entirely. Average fighters don’t inspire this kind of reaction. And that might be the loudest rebuttal of all!