The problem with average UFC Sherdogger analysis

[Ardelia13]

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.

Fair enough

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

I quickly scrolled past the OP and immediately began writing a comment in response focused mainly on being offensive and purposely unproductive, and that’s a major part of the problem.

 

[Baba Ghanoush]

The problem with the average Sherdogger analysis is that they’re a sherdogger.

 

[Pequeño Corey]

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.

I’m not sayin all your points are wrong, but this one falls flat. Some guys hit harder than others. Diaz bros and Ping fight that way because they can’t knock fresh guys out. Cardio is their weapon, and it’s easier to ko someone when they’re gassed.

 

[DesiredUserName]

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

 

[Ardelia13]

I quickly scrolled past the OP and immediately began writing a comment in response focused mainly on being offensive and purposely unproductive, and that’s a major part of the problem.

I see what you did there

 

[mmaknight]

2R

 

[Yep]

Thought this was going to be about diabetes

 

[Paolo Delutis]

I dont think im apart of this list...


Do i get like a certificate or something...














On second thought....i may be on your list for Stephan A Smith...i do not like that man..nope

 

[ColombianFist]

Don't forget if the fighter says it, it's true.

 

[Poatan Power]

I’m not sayin all your points are wrong, but this one falls flat. Some guys hit harder than others. Diaz bros and Ping fight that way because they can’t knock fresh guys out. Cardio is their weapon, and it’s easier to ko someone when they’re gassed.

Nick Diaz: (5) 1st round TKO/KO's
Nate Diaz: (4) 1st round TKO/KO's
Michael Bisping: (8) 1st round TKO/KO's

Maybe my point is falling flat with you, but I was giving these guys as examples. Apply it as you like.

No, these guys are not heavy handed. But my original post was that people think they have soft hands. They can and have finished guys with strikes in the 1st round, albeit I have not gone back and looked at each specific situation to see if the guys were gassed in the 1st round before being finished. Although, Paul Daley v. Nick, Daley def was gassed.

Note: I didn't count doctor stoppages, corner stoppages, shoulder injuries, etc.

 

[Orochimaru 大蛇丸]

Nick Diaz: (5) 1st round TKO/KO's
Nate Diaz: (4) 1st round TKO/KO's
Michael Bisping: (8) 1st round TKO/KO's

Maybe my point is falling flat with you, but I was giving these guys as examples. Apply it as you like. No, they are not heavy handed. But my original post was that people think they have soft hands. They can and have finished guys with strikes in the 1st round, albeit I have not gone back and looked at each specific situation to see if the guys were gassed in the 1st round before being finished. Although, Paul Daley v. Nick, Daley def was gassed.

Note: I didn't count doctor stoppages, corner stoppages, shoulder injuries, etc.

Do you think any MMA fighters lack punching power?

 

[Poatan Power]

Do you think any MMA fighters lack punching power?

Damian Maia. Sakuraba. Leites.

Jake Shields. First TKO/KO was 1999 and had 2 from then until 2018.

edit: I think all 4 of them may have less total TKO/KO's combined than Bisping has 1st round TKO/KO's.

 

[Sickbro69420]

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

It's nice when someone can articulate what you're feeling and I'm for real guilty of doing some of this shit. The only way to get better is to be aware and try to make incremental changes without being defensive and closed minded. Because at the end of the day we all respect the fighters and what they endure for a sport we love to watch so why not be better analyst ourselfs so we can teach the casuals about how to avoid buying Dana whites wolf tickets.

 

[Sickbro69420]

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

For real. The boxing forum was where it was at for the longest time. I rarely post in there myself because I respect the unsaid code of conduct. Well and I haven't been banned in a while so I'm trying to not be a complete loser shit head here.

 

[Do better]

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

Look 2 posts below your original, that is what is wrong with Sherdog

 

[2004 account]

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 just described your typical ufc only watching, cashew ass, noob shill that we see in abundance on this forum, congrats lol.

 

[Poatan Power]

This topic is more relevant tonight than ever.

 

[Poatan Power]

He lacks sportsmanship.

Didn't even give TJ credit and TJ talked him up big time.

Pussy, stupid flashy style, poor sportsman, back to the G league with you.

Taller guy with immense reach advantage running backwards the whole time is embarassing to say the least.

 

[Dirty Frank]

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

So I take it this is genius - level analysis, Shermano?