The problem with average UFC Sherdogger analysis

[HHJ]

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

Yeah it can be fun.

 

[TheChance]

Totality must have just popped up on someone's word a day calendar

 

[Ozze]

But, on the other hand, are great at reading fighters at weigh ins and/or face offs!

"Fighter X is SHOOK!!!"

Bet the house.

 

[Satan's Daddy.]

If you wanna complain like a twelve year old school girl, then hop the f off this forum, we dont need ya.

 

[CPH]

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.

Condit got shit on big time, for going JackWink instead of Dogfight as promised, even though the NBK nick was well-earned otherwise.

 

[carpediem]

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

The above is spot on however it's not just sherdog where the retards are out in force it's virtually everywhere online. I saw a guy the other day saying he could be a fighter but he already had a job. Clearly no clue how gruelling ANY combat sport is...

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

Hard to watch fights when we have five 10's to satisfy... Before we go warm up with teh 315 and run a 4.3 40 down the street to help the banging milf get unstuck from the dryer....

 

[Pequeño Corey]

So Bisping and the Diaz bros actually have heavy hands?

 

[cws80us]

Pretty spot on with the list. The main thing I see, which kind of sums up a lot of what you said, is just classic recency bias. The mentality that the current fighters are automatically better than anyone before them. Whoever is the latest and greatest thing is immediately crowned the goat. And as soon as they lose they never were really that good in the first place. Everyone they beat was a bum, etc... Build them up then tear them down.

 

[mma fighter]

Don't put too much stock in retards anslysis.

 

[drbolony]

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

Don't you make a bunch threads repeating The Weasel's ideas?

Imo it's bad for the same reason it's always been, no one knows what they're talking about, and would rather troll or "be witty" to try and cover up their ignorance.

 

[Dude Incredible]

We have to accept SAS's shitty opinions but not other Sherdogger's shitty opinions? A good chunk of us have been watching MMA far longer than SAS (and the other ESPN douches) if he even watches - so just because he does boxing training and he's on the TV he's more credible than us? No fucking way. Dude, unless he shows serious growth, can fuck off out of MMA unless he's actually going to interview other people than Conor and ask legit questions, but even then that's him interviewing and not giving his opinion.

Otherwise I actually agree with the list. But there are some legit fantastic analyses around here. Few and far in between but that's not what you're talking about. But even then a lot of those are by non-fighters.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

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

I would suggest that nothing you said goes toward fight analysis, only some stupid forum verbal wank banter like "P4P GOAT" analysis.

And that's the problem with most sherdogger analysis - it's rarely actual fight analysis.

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

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?

"How are we to know who is who?"
Maybe people have to show their credentials on some kind of I.D. card. Like a 'MMA forum vaccine passport" if you will.

 

[Ardelia13]

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

I can roll with most of this, but I struggle with:

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

One can have never trained in a martial art, yet still have a solid idea of what they're seeing.

Like, I've never played a down of football at any level...I was a skinny kid in high school, and did the Army instead of immediate college.

But I have watched many thousands of hours of football, usually sober and with an eye toward analyzing what I was watching. I've read (and watched) a ton of content from positional specialists who have played the game and who've explained nuances of certain positions and techniques. Even 20 years of playing Madden has given me a lot of insight into what certain formations are called and how and why they work (once you exclude the really gamey elements and EA's usual suite of bugs and concessions to playability).

I'll never know as much as those specialists or people who've played (I haven't forced my body to do those things), but I certainly know enough to form some perfectly valid opinions.

Same thing with MMA. The only hand-to-hand training I've ever absorbed was what the Army gave me...I did a lot more than the basic training overview, but even that was geared toward actual combat, not a competitive sport with rules.

But I've consumed thousands of hours from the same kinds of content sources thar I listed above for football, and I'm certainly qualified to form a valid opinion without ever having rolled.

Maybe my opinion isn't quite as informed as somebody who has trained, but neither is it completely uninformed.

 

[kflo]

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

thank god I’m above average……

 

[Eric Silva 2.0]

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 make some valid points but I wouldn't call GSP/Serra 1 a closely contested loss for GSP. You seem to be pro-GSP and that is fine. He was a great fighter. The fact that he got KO'd by a pudgy LW does matter in my opinion as does the Hendricks fight (I thought he lost, round 1... see vicious elbows). I also take issue with the mediocre reocrd, mediocre fighter. Who is saying BJ and Chuck were mediocre fighters on here? Both were champions and how could anyone who saw BJ's prime think he was medicore? Cowboy and Nate are a different level than BJ and Chuck. All have stayed in the game too long except for Nate. Nate wins even when he loses.

 

[Poatan Power]

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?

I should caveat that with "...but act as if they do know what they're talking about."

So Bisping and the Diaz bros actually have heavy hands?

didn't say that, but their style of volume punching often makes doggers think they don't have the power to knock people out, even though they have. Volume striking and riding that cardio bike wears opponents down and creates openings, not everyone has to H-bomb everyone to have power.

Are they Francis? No. Are they pillow fisted? Nah bro. They hit hard when the right opportunity arises.

You make some valid points but I wouldn't call GSP/Serra 1 a closely contested loss for GSP.

I misspoke. I actually meant "a closely contested win" -OR- a "loss." Not a closely contested loss.

You seem to be pro-GSP and that is fine. He was a great fighter. The fact that he got KO'd by a pudgy LW does matter in my opinion as does the Hendricks fight (I thought he lost, round 1... see vicious elbows).

I'm pro-GSP I guess. I'm more pro-he is one of the GOAT's and his record shows it. Sometimes I see people on here talking about him as if he's Kimbo because he ducked Anderson, "lost" to Hendricks, tapped to strikes or cherry picked Bisping. Nevermind the rest of his pedigree seems to be the dogger notion.

I also take issue with the mediocre reocrd, mediocre fighter. Who is saying BJ and Chuck were mediocre fighters on here?

I can't find posts, but I've def seen people post about them and you can tell their impression of them was heavily slanted to the back half of their career.

Both were champions and how could anyone who saw BJ's prime think he was medicore? Cowboy and Nate are a different level than BJ and Chuck. All have stayed in the game too long except for Nate. Nate wins even when he loses.

Motivated BJ Penn (lol) was a GOAT. But a lot of posts I see shitting on any fighter never considers their greatness at the time, at their peak, or any of that. It's always "1-3 in their last 4," "But he lost to Forrest Griffin," "He cherry picked Irvin/Bisping/etc." "he ducked xyz,"

I think my OP can be summed up with: Sherdoggers find any reason to shit on fighters who are legitimately elite or the level right below elite.

 

[Poatan Power]

I can roll with most of this, but I struggle with:

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

One can have never trained in a martial art, yet still have a solid idea of what they're seeing.

Like, I've never played a down of football at any level...I was a skinny kid in high school, and did the Army instead of immediate college.

But I have watched many thousands of hours of football, usually sober and with an eye toward analyzing what I was watching. I've read (and watched) a ton of content from positional specialists who have played the game and who've explained nuances of certain positions and techniques. Even 20 years of playing Madden has given me a lot of insight into what certain formations are called and how and why they work (once you exclude the really gamey elements and EA's usual suite of bugs and concessions to playability).

I'll never know as much as those specialists or people who've played (I haven't forced my body to do those things), but I certainly know enough to form some perfectly valid opinions.

Same thing with MMA. The only hand-to-hand training I've ever absorbed was what the Army gave me...I did a lot more than the basic training overview, but even that was geared toward actual combat, not a competitive sport with rules.

But I've consumed thousands of hours from the same kinds of content sources thar I listed above for football, and I'm certainly qualified to form a valid opinion without ever having rolled.

Maybe my opinion isn't quite as informed as somebody who has trained, but neither is it completely uninformed.

see above, I should have added a little nuance to basically insinuate keyboard warriors who act like experts on technique or decision making. Monday Morning Judoka's.

Pretty spot on with the list. The main thing I see, which kind of sums up a lot of what you said, is just classic recency bias. The mentality that the current fighters are automatically better than anyone before them. Whoever is the latest and greatest thing is immediately crowned the goat. And as soon as they lose they never were really that good in the first place. Everyone they beat was a bum, etc... Build them up then tear them down.

Yes, the bolded.

 

[NatoHoro]