What are the biggest myths that you debunked with your own eyes?

Volcano's are ranked based on observations that indicate a potential to do something.
Citizens, Insurers, planners, politicians and engineers can make decisions based on those rankings.

Fighter's are ranked based on observations that indicate a potential to do something.
Fans, promoters, and matchmakers, can make decisions based on those rankings.

In the case of the fighters, the potential here is to ... ?
 
K1 level striking is greatest myth in the HISTORY of MMA.....



(Bracing for impending shitstorm)


And I am having my doubts as to whether "top of the food chain jiu jitsu" and it transferring over to MMA is a myth as well....

K1 level striking and ADCC level BJJ are not myths but they are pure styles that need to be modified for mma effectiveness.
Some fighters simply can not adjust their styles favourably to adapt to a different sport.
 
For me, it was Paulo Filho's "world class" BJJ. I actually bought the hype when he was in Pride. Years later and to quote Chael Sonnen, I knew it was a happy meal when I saw Dave Branch controlled him with ease.

You're fucking retarded, the guy was legit and is not the same guy he was years ago clearly and I HATED watching the guy fight. The "happy meal" quote was fucking gay as well by the way.
 
In the case of the fighters, the potential here is to ... ?

Win fights. A "better" fighter is a fighter with a higher potential of winning vs the relative field.

The controversy is in what evidences to use, and what algorithm(whether formal or subjective) to extrapolate those potentials.
 
Win fights. A "better" fighter is a fighter with a higher potential of winning vs the relative field.

The controversy is in what evidences to use, and what algorithm(whether formal or subjective) to extrapolate those potentials.

Right but when you have a wildcard variable, like Dana White (or whomever makes the decisions), disrupting the formula, your algorithm means nothing. I don't care how robust it is, it can't account for dynamic capitalism :icon_lol:

"Whoever wins in the most impressive fashion gets the title shot"

- Dana White before UFC on FOX 4

"We'll make the fights people want to see regardless of the rankings"

- Dana White during some scrum
 
Right but when you have a wildcard variable, like Dana White (or whomever makes the decisions), disrupting the formula, your algorithm means nothing. I don't care how robust it is, it can't account for dynamic capitalism :icon_lol:

"Whoever wins in the most impressive fashion gets the title shot"

- Dana White before UFC on FOX 4

"We'll make the fights people want to see regardless of the rankings"

- Dana White during some scrum

Yeah, I think that would still work well with the volcano analogy.
The government might look at the rankings for allocating disaster prevention resources.

However, if one area has a more motivated Senator, or a more famous volcano, #4 could leap frog #3 and get more resources.
 
Myths my eyes debunked for me..

That gsp is/was a great striker

That smaller guys always put on more technical fights than any other class
 
Yeah, I think that would still work well with the volcano analogy.
The government might look at the rankings for allocating disaster prevention resources.

However, if one area has a more motivated Senator, or a more famous volcano, #4 could leap frog #3 and get more resources.

So what's the point of ranking them in the first place is someone can just come in and make a subjective "call" and shake everything up when they feel the need?
 
I got 2

wmma is worth watching. and Hendricks as champ would be exciting.
 
The KO power of almost any brawler in the UFC.

Anyone who lands a shot and drops a guy is automatically branded as a power puncher, and we saw this debunked many times.
 
So what's the point of ranking them in the first place is someone can just come in and make a subjective "call" and shake everything up when they feel the need?

One value, is to help evidence that corruption/bias is taking place.

When a fighter get skipped they can go, "Bullshit! I'm ranked higher than that guy!" and if the fans agree and get behind him, maybe Dana will change his mind, maybe he'll get next shot, etc.

Same thing will volcanoes, the town that gets inadequate funding can point to the list, write their senator, picket the white house whatever. But at least they'll have something to point to.
 
One value, is to help evidence that corruption/bias is taking place.

When a fighter get skipped they can go, "Bullshit! I'm ranked higher than that guy!" and if the fans agree and get behind him, maybe Dana will change his mind, maybe he'll get next shot, etc.

Same thing will volcanoes, the town that gets inadequate funding can point to the list, write their senator, picket the white house whatever. But at least they'll have something to point to.

So I'm right, they don't matter
 
So you're just going to ignore my points, and blindly come to your own conclusion?:icon_conf

That's always been my conclusion. There's nothing blind about it.

If an unranked guy can come from another org and beat the #4 guy in his division, why even rank these guys?

It's not an indication of potential because each fighter is on his own "track" in terms of how the organization chooses to progress him.

Each guy fights what would be considered a different "quality" of opponent in route to achieving a ranking that's supposed to say "of these 10 guys, he's the 4th best". But if someone gets injured, or if everyone else is booked, it's ok for some unranked guy to step in and threaten all of that "work" to get to that spot.

Nothing about it makes any sense.
 
Umm.. no.

Rankings in sports are supposed to give indication of who is the best and determine who gets to compete for championships.

Uh ... I think you're thinking about standings
 
Back
Top