It will be a waste of my time, but, well, these things happen.
You have been wasting your time hating at Cyborg for many years, i see you shitposting about her in this thread and in the heavies quite often. Let's not act like your time is that precious old man.
I did not use the words "small women." I said "small and unskilled women" as a general statement given that most of her resume features women smaller than her. And women with poor records. The bulk of the data supports this. There are exceptions, but one can generally when speaking to the vast majority of individuals who are represented within the peak of the bell curve. This is not complex.
You deliberately misquoted me. You had to selectively edit my post to get the quote to read the way you wanted. This is not just a straw man argument (another logically fallacious position) but an intellectually dishonest method of taking a remark out of context and deliberately presented a false statement.
No, i didn't misquoted you, i just picked the most ridiculous part of your post and decided to highlight it separating from the rest.
That was the focus of my response so i only quoted it, and it's not like you didn't said it.
As you said, there was a "and unskilled" missing, but don't act like i changed drastically what you said.
The point is, by the way you choose to put it (you frequently does that tbh), it's like she never faced any legit featherweights, and it suggests she ONLY wins because of a size advantage. That's far from the truth.
She doesn't fight only "small and unskilled women", she fights, and has always fought, whoever stepped up to fight her.
Also, by counting her first 5 fights in your data, you're being dishonest. When Cyborg started she wasn't nearly as muscular, she was in her early 20's and was very lean, having been training just for a few years. These early ones in Brazil were openweight fights, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Then out of her next 16 opponents (Coenen x2), now fighting in US, she faced some that have never fought at 135 or under (Takahashi, Yamanaka, Carano, Tweet, Muxlow) and some fighters that were mostly career-featherweights, fighters that already had experience and success in that division (Coenen, Van Duin, Ibragimova). So out of 16, we can say that 8 were mostly bantamweights (Holly, Evinger, L.Smith, Lansberg, Finney, Baszler, Yana and Akano). That's not the majority.
I never said featherweights were small. This is another straw-man argument (a type of logical fallacy where one re-words someone's statement to make it easier for them to argue against) which is, again, logically fallacious. And quite simply wrong.
And i never suggested that you said it.
I clearly demonstrated why you were so wrong: she fought a 5'11 featherweight, who by no means, doesn't matter where you from, could be labelled as "small", it's just wrong to say so, even speaking generically. The same applies to Tweet, Carano, Holly, Coenen etc, they aren't small athletes, for WMMA standards. Not even close.
I will re-state: I never said featherweights were small. I said most of her opponents were.
And you're wrong.
Therefore, most of her competition has been smaller than her.
"Smaller than her" and "small" are 2 complete different things. Most of Ronda's competition were smaller than her. Davis and Carmouche are now fighting at 125. Could you say most of them were "small"? No. That's non sense.
You then engage in an ad hominem attack. This too is logically fallacious. Name calling is both childish and a sign that data is lacking when you are trying to support a position.
You don't respect the sport, WMMA as a whole or Cyborg, why should i respect you? You already should've been punished due to fighter bashing.
Also, my hatred is a very powerful thing.
Lol, sure old man.
