The problem with average UFC Sherdogger analysis

[Poatan Power]

When analyzing fighters, Sherdoggers:

• Take in the totality of a fighter's career to denigrate their prime (BJ Penn, Fedor, Sylvia)
• Take their one closely contested win or loss to denigrate the totality of their career (GSP v. Hendricks, Serra)
• Use the end of their career to diminish the totality of their career (Anderson, Chuck, Fedor)
• Use the talent of today to insinuate that the talent of other era's is inferior, therefore the fighters of that era are also inferior/garbage (2016-2020 v. 2000-2004, for example)
• Ignore the rankings of the fighters opponents at the time (Forrest v. Rua, Jackson, etc., Conor v. Poirier/Holloway) to act as if their opponents were less elite or as if their opponents were more elite
• Have absolutely no training whatsoever and have no idea what the hell they're talking about/looking at
• Bash Stephen A/ESPN analysts/Ariel/Rogan/etc. for lack of knowledge or something when they themselves have equal or less pedigree (SAS being 100% correct about Conor v. Cowboy, Rogan's mistaken takes)
• Take lack of takedowns/submissions as a sign of poor grappling (Chuck)
• Take a lack of knockouts as soft hands (Bisping, Nick/Nate)
• Take a lack of finishes as a means of diminishing their elite level (GSP)
• Use a mediocre record to argue a mediocre fighter (Nate, BJ, Cowboy, Chuck, etc.) (ties into the first and third points)

I think I feel better now.

edit: please feel free to add

 

[You Will Vote For Dreyga]

• Most of Sherbros have no idea what they are talking about and just parrot popular opinion

 

[DRstrange]

I'm detecting a real cunty vibe from you right now.

 

[Poatan Power]

• Most of Sherbros have no idea what they are talking about abs just parrot popular opinion

I mean is some of this shit even popular?

I remember when we use to argue about whether or not Condit or Diaz won. Not that one or the other was trash for not winning via hurricanrana.

 

[AmericanUppercut]

If this is your problem,
thank God for a wonderful life.

 

[Break Brick]

I mean is some of this shit even popular?

I remember when we use to argue about whether or not Condit or Diaz won. Not that one or the other was trash for not winning via hurricanrana.

Diaz 1, 2 & 5 for life.

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

The problem with the average Sherdogger analysis is that we assume all fighters are as alpha as us, and judge them to an unreasonably high standard

 

[Straatblaffer]

Stopped reading after 'analysing'. Most Sherdoggers don't analyse fighters, they just crap on them. Good there are exceptions to that make my visits here worth it.

 

[VinceArch]

I mean is some of this shit even popular?

I remember when we use to argue about whether or not Condit or Diaz won. Not that one or the other was trash for not winning via hurricanrana.

Man, I remember arguing if GSP beat BJ the first time. He did by the way, but the Penn fans were rabid back in the day.

 

[modulus]

Didn't read the whole list but agree with what I saw.

 

[Orochimaru 大蛇丸]

• Have absolutely no training whatsoever and have no idea what the hell they're talking about/looking at

 

[TriangleMonkey]

• Have absolutely no training whatsoever and have no idea what the hell they're talking about/looking at

This is a problem however, there are plenty of ‘doggers who have fought before and have put in training. Some just have trained for leisure and others have coached.


How are we to know who is who?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

When analyzing fighters, Sherdoggers:

• Take in the totality of a fighter's career to denigrate their prime (BJ Penn, Fedor, Sylvia)
• Take their one closely contested win or loss to denigrate the totality of their career (GSP v. Hendricks, Serra)
• Use the end of their career to diminish the totality of their career (Anderson, Chuck, Fedor)
• Use the talent of today to insinuate that the talent of other era's is inferior, therefore the fighters of that era are also inferior/garbage (2016-2020 v. 2000-2004, for example)
• Ignore the rankings of the fighters opponents at the time (Forrest v. Rua, Jackson, etc., Conor v. Poirier/Holloway) to act as if their opponents were less elite or as if their opponents were more elite
• Have absolutely no training whatsoever and have no idea what the hell they're talking about/looking at
• Bash Stephen A/ESPN analysts/Ariel/Rogan/etc. for lack of knowledge or something when they themselves have equal or less pedigree (SAS being 100% correct about Conor v. Cowboy, Rogan's mistaken takes)
• Take lack of takedowns/submissions as a sign of poor grappling (Chuck)
• Take a lack of knockouts as soft hands (Bisping, Nick/Nate)
• Take a lack of finishes as a means of diminishing their elite level (GSP)
• Use a mediocre record to argue a mediocre fighter (Nate, BJ, Cowboy, Chuck, etc.) (ties into the first and third points)

I think I feel better now.

edit: please feel free to add

You basically summarized why I barely spend any time in the Heavies.

 

[SakurabasEar]

Shitty takes are kind of the appeal of this place. I get some good laughs in during the build up to a big ppv

 

[Normot]

The problem is people literally care nothing for accuracy. Only for winning arguments and will twist everything just so they can feel like a winner for a few minutes.

 

[rear naked ankle pick]

why u didnt mention hairline and height analysts? Those are real ones

 

[Young Calf Kick]

why u didnt mention hairline and height analysts? Those are real ones

hi rear naked ankle pick yousa little dorky dork

 

[Post 2 Decision]

You see that kind of shit across all sports

Most people are dumb, therefore most fans of a specific sport are dumb

That means the majority of opinions you will read are dumb

 

[Prologue]

• Rickson via armbar.

 

[tasticles]

If this is your problem,
thank God for a wonderful life.

He put so much thought into this too. If it weren't for morons, athletes would be broke.