What's More Relevant In MMA?

Whenever I read match previews in magazines or on the internet, they author seems to always post the last five wins of each MMA fighter. For some reason, I think it's unnecessary to state the last five wins, as MMA fighters (especially newer guys) seem to evolve so much since the first of five fights, that it's almost irrelevant. As a writer myself, my question to you is this:



What do you think is more relevant in MMA? The mixed martial artist's last three fights, or last five fights?



Lame thread, yes. But it popped in my head while I was driving home a bit ago and just wondering what others think.

I think 5 is a good number but it really depends on how active the fighter has been. For some fighters 5 fights is 5 years for others 5 fights is 5 months. Look at some of these guys in the Bellator tournaments. Three fights in a few months, plus qualifying in the previous season with maybe 1 or 2 fights. So 5+ fights in a 6-12 month month period isn't outrageous. I think last five is just a good number.

self-bump for anyone who gives a bump.

Chicken and Rice - 

Lame thread, yes.



 I think 3 is a good number. In just 3 fights you can even see the evolution of most fighters, look at velasquezs last 3. I think it gives a better representation about where a fighter is currently at in his career.

Whatever BLAF tells us

Can someone post that old "3 is the magic number"song?

Preferably the De la Soul version?