I mean, the concept of pfp is more philosophical when it comes to lighter guys like Islam. It's not realistic. It is a ohh if Islam had that size and that ability, he could... It's just a, idk, way to show who seems more dominant overall, even knowing that Islam Makhachev would get totally destroyed by Alex Pereira and Jon Jones.... And Tom Aspinall, and Jiri Prochazka... And DDP too, you name it.
But Alex Pereira is #3 and JJ is #2 ... Why is Tom Aspinall #8? If he's the most likely guy to take on JJ, why #8? It doesn't matter if he's fighting in HW, because so is JJ. So if Tom Aspinall and JJ is the biggest fight, then Tom should be way closer to JJ than Alex Pereira... The ranking means pretty much that Jon Jones would have a harder time going to LHW and defeating Alex than defeating Tom.
But that's not the case, right? I mean, whoever does the pfp list is weighing on how Tom Aspinall is very dominant, how he KO'd two monsters there, and all... Tom Aspinall is the biggest threat...
But one knowledgeable MMA nerd and hardcore spectator/fan/follower had once told me --- I don't remember when --- "when fighters of similar weight are very close in the pfp, it means something. Nothing just ever happens in politics, just as in pfp if they are fighters that are the same weight and size, naturally". That's interesting...
I'm starting to weigh in on the possibility that Tom may be having been built up intentionally to a point, as well as Anakalaev, also with odds wise helping it, or Dana too, when saying JJ would pick Alex apart... Just as a way to build up what they seem as pretty much guaranteed as the last fight. But they may want to make more money with events before getting into that biggest of all fights... so maybe ""deceiving"" opinions on who's the toughest for this guys is part of it... Like, to make them have even bigger PPV events, so the final fight is not only even bigger than before, but also, done after the "best" fighters have given as much $ as they wanted...
Idk, I don't even believe this that much, it's more like a sudden thought in this week off that is giving me more free time than I should have lulz... I think that, from a most fact based approach, it may be nonsense, but.... We can only have perceptions shaped by what we see. I think it can be argued or theorized that an organization that still wants ultimately profit, wouldn't want us to see some things they already see.
But Alex Pereira is #3 and JJ is #2 ... Why is Tom Aspinall #8? If he's the most likely guy to take on JJ, why #8? It doesn't matter if he's fighting in HW, because so is JJ. So if Tom Aspinall and JJ is the biggest fight, then Tom should be way closer to JJ than Alex Pereira... The ranking means pretty much that Jon Jones would have a harder time going to LHW and defeating Alex than defeating Tom.
But that's not the case, right? I mean, whoever does the pfp list is weighing on how Tom Aspinall is very dominant, how he KO'd two monsters there, and all... Tom Aspinall is the biggest threat...
But one knowledgeable MMA nerd and hardcore spectator/fan/follower had once told me --- I don't remember when --- "when fighters of similar weight are very close in the pfp, it means something. Nothing just ever happens in politics, just as in pfp if they are fighters that are the same weight and size, naturally". That's interesting...
I'm starting to weigh in on the possibility that Tom may be having been built up intentionally to a point, as well as Anakalaev, also with odds wise helping it, or Dana too, when saying JJ would pick Alex apart... Just as a way to build up what they seem as pretty much guaranteed as the last fight. But they may want to make more money with events before getting into that biggest of all fights... so maybe ""deceiving"" opinions on who's the toughest for this guys is part of it... Like, to make them have even bigger PPV events, so the final fight is not only even bigger than before, but also, done after the "best" fighters have given as much $ as they wanted...
Idk, I don't even believe this that much, it's more like a sudden thought in this week off that is giving me more free time than I should have lulz... I think that, from a most fact based approach, it may be nonsense, but.... We can only have perceptions shaped by what we see. I think it can be argued or theorized that an organization that still wants ultimately profit, wouldn't want us to see some things they already see.
