The sheer stupidity of the "who has he beat" logic

The "who has he beat" has been around long before UFC. I first heard been used when comparing all time greats in boxing, especially Tyson to all the old time greats.
 
A hierarchy is established after years of fights taking place. Pretty simple.
 
A hierarchy is established after years of fights taking place. Pretty simple.

It's definitely simplier to just look at rankings instead of judging a fighter on his showcased abilities. Such task only requires basic math and no knowledge about fighting.

The downside of such approach is that you'll be one of the idiots who failed to see how painfully obvious Jones was going to murk Shogun.
 
Name me one great fighter who had a big win before his first big win.

There is none. All great fighters literally beat nobody until they beat somebody.

Yet they all became great fighters.

Never use that retarded logic again.
If MYTHborg was as confident as you in her "skills" she would actually fight top competition and not avoid grapplers with actual good takedowns to the point where she won't even fight Cindy Dandois.
 
Name me one great fighter who had a big win before his first big win.

There is none. All great fighters literally beat nobody until they beat somebody.

Yet they all became great fighters.

Never use that retarded logic again.
new-website-proves-mma-math-is-uselessand-hilarious-body-image-1464970730.jpg
 
It's definitely simplier to just look at rankings instead of judging a fighter on his showcased abilities. Such task only requires basic math and no knowledge about fighting.

The downside of such approach is that you'll be one of the idiots who failed to see how painfully obvious Jones was going to murk Shogun.

Cool, so we know that Shogun was a really good win for Jones. Excellent work chap.
 
Back
Top