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

That the soap they sell for children as non stinging when you get it in your eyes, does, in fact, sting when you get it in your eyes.

This might be the only perfect answer in this thread, and your AV is a nice touch.
 
That fedor is unbeatable... But it wasnt a myth i was trying to debunk unfortunately
 
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.

you are aware rankings change based on who wins, and there is an element of chance to all sports right?

rumble was unranked and beat davis, the #4. that does not mean that I, an unranked nobody, could do the same.
 
That PRIDE fighters>UFC fighters. You remember what the consensus was back in 2003-04-05? If you woulda posted that Rich Franklin and Chris Leben would have good/great wins over Wanderlei back then you wouldve been flamed to hell.

How did those two fair against Anderson Silva? Just wondering.
 
you are aware rankings change based on who wins, and there is an element of chance to all sports right?

rumble was unranked and beat davis, the #4. that does not mean that I, an unranked nobody, could do the same.

What's your point?
 
they are supposed to change, and have plenty of meaning. its called an upset for a reason.

Why is it called an upset?
 
I think it's a myth that you believe they matter

I think it's a myth that you believe it is a myth that his post's point was a myth based on the fact that him caring about the rankings was a myth.
 
1. Overeem was 'dominating' Chuck before he gassed.
LOL, Chuck took him down and landed knees to his head. He was throwing his own punches during exchanges. And besides, that fight was like 3 minutes long! Who the hell gasses in 3 minutes?

2. Roy's loss to Arlovski was due to a BS standup.
NO. The standup occurred in R1, with about a minute left. Roy had two full rounds to go, and regardless, the fight would have started standing in R2, which is incidentally when Roy was completely gassed and Arlovski dropped him.

3. 90% of fighters use PED's!
Except for me and my teammates, of course; we're in the 10%.

To respond to your question in #1....

erick silva
 
So then they don't matter.

A ranking system is supposed to be an absolute hierarchy. Any deviation from the hierarchy renders it meaningless

Where did you get that it has to absolute? They are quite handy as a rough measurement
 
That PRIDE fighters>UFC fighters. You remember what the consensus was back in 2003-04-05? If you woulda posted that Rich Franklin and Chris Leben would have good/great wins over Wanderlei back then you wouldve been flamed to hell.

A lot of that was based on guys like Coleman, Kerr, randleman, pulver, mezger, bustamante, Newton, etc coming to pride in the early days and not doing very well. Coleman did ok, but he lost to all the good guys.

And it's not a myth.....the pride guys did better from that era.
 
Back
Top