Chael Sonnen out of UFC 147. UFC 145 Main Event changed to Henderson/Evans. Light-Heavyweight Championship bout - Silva/Jones bout in the works for UFC 147

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Chael Sonnen out of UFC 147. UFC 145 Main Event changed to Henderson/Evans. Light-Heavyweight Championship bout - Silva/Jones bout in the works for UFC 147
« Previous Page
Adrenaline
4/1/12 7:14:33PM
You dirty bastard, my heart sank for half a second until I saw that wikipedia was the source in the headline. Well done my friend
mrsmiley
4/1/12 7:20:04PM
My god I almost screamed with joy.
Good joke.
Cooler
4/1/12 8:25:07PM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by Cooler


Posted by Bubbles


Posted by Cooler

Sad thing is I was looking forward more to Jones/Silva or Jones/Hendo than the actual matchups in reality. Rashad needs to just get knocked out by Machida again so his padded record can finally be exposed again.



padded? you have got to be shitting me. Besides Tito, who was a last minute replacement, the last guy he fought who wasn't a top 10 was Bisping. How in the hell is that padded?



lol, I'm referring to the UFC padding records to make them look better, ala Serra, Rashad, Guillard etc.



He knows what you're referring to.

He's disagreeing with you.

Rashad's record is not padded.



Yeah, he does after I explained it, but apparently you dont.

I am referring to how the UFC adds wins to their record to make them look better, I did not mean they give guys softball matchups although I could name a few in that department, like Bisping but no I am not saying Rashad has had an easy road (even if I held that opinion) and Serra is the best example, his "UFC record" is 17-7 and his real record is 11-7.

EDIT: Good lookin out Shawn, he knew what I meant
Bubbles
4/1/12 9:42:49PM
they probably count TUF fights for them

btw thanks for the clarification
Pookie
4/1/12 11:14:20PM
I went to 5dimes.com to see if they had odd's up. I am a fool.

I was like shiiiiiit, bout to make some money of Anderson. And also i thought, maybe Chael wasn't bullshitting when he said his demands hadn't been met yet.
grappler0000
4/1/12 11:16:22PM

Posted by Cooler


Posted by bjj1605


Posted by Cooler


Posted by Bubbles


Posted by Cooler

Sad thing is I was looking forward more to Jones/Silva or Jones/Hendo than the actual matchups in reality. Rashad needs to just get knocked out by Machida again so his padded record can finally be exposed again.



padded? you have got to be shitting me. Besides Tito, who was a last minute replacement, the last guy he fought who wasn't a top 10 was Bisping. How in the hell is that padded?



lol, I'm referring to the UFC padding records to make them look better, ala Serra, Rashad, Guillard etc.



He knows what you're referring to.

He's disagreeing with you.

Rashad's record is not padded.



Yeah, he does after I explained it, but apparently you dont.

I am referring to how the UFC adds wins to their record to make them look better, I did not mean they give guys softball matchups although I could name a few in that department, like Bisping but no I am not saying Rashad has had an easy road (even if I held that opinion) and Serra is the best example, his "UFC record" is 17-7 and his real record is 11-7.

EDIT: Good lookin out Shawn, he knew what I meant



Whether you agree with those fights being included is one thing, but they didn't just "add wins" to his record. Also, if you're consistently beating the best guys in the world and have only lost one fight, what is being "exposed" exactly? IMO, it sounds like you just don't like the guy and want to discredit him.
Cooler
4/2/12 12:42:51AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler


Posted by bjj1605


Posted by Cooler


Posted by Bubbles


Posted by Cooler

Sad thing is I was looking forward more to Jones/Silva or Jones/Hendo than the actual matchups in reality. Rashad needs to just get knocked out by Machida again so his padded record can finally be exposed again.



padded? you have got to be shitting me. Besides Tito, who was a last minute replacement, the last guy he fought who wasn't a top 10 was Bisping. How in the hell is that padded?



lol, I'm referring to the UFC padding records to make them look better, ala Serra, Rashad, Guillard etc.



He knows what you're referring to.

He's disagreeing with you.

Rashad's record is not padded.



Yeah, he does after I explained it, but apparently you dont.

I am referring to how the UFC adds wins to their record to make them look better, I did not mean they give guys softball matchups although I could name a few in that department, like Bisping but no I am not saying Rashad has had an easy road (even if I held that opinion) and Serra is the best example, his "UFC record" is 17-7 and his real record is 11-7.

EDIT: Good lookin out Shawn, he knew what I meant



Whether you agree with those fights being included is one thing, but they didn't just "add wins" to his record. Also, if you're consistently beating the best guys in the world and have only lost one fight, what is being "exposed" exactly? IMO, it sounds like you just don't like the guy and want to discredit him.



Who wouldn't agree if they're blatantly adding exhibition fights and unregulated fights into their pro record.. then hell why not add amatuer fights as well, lets go further and add street fights, so lee murray has a win over tito, a guy in a hotel has a win over don frye and bas rutten holds wins over a bunch of guys in bars, lets really get these records UP if were going to go all the way..And its irrelevant what I think towards Rashad but sure I'd like Rashad to lose (his day is coming in georgia) I think that may have been obvious but it stems from him being ranked above Machida and Shogun which I understand isn't set in stone but I find hilarious.
grappler0000
4/2/12 1:25:18AM

Posted by Cooler

Who wouldn't agree if they're blatantly adding exhibition fights and unregulated fights into their pro record.. then hell why not add amatuer fights as well, lets go further and add street fights, so lee murray has a win over tito, a guy in a hotel has a win over don frye and bas rutten holds wins over a bunch of guys in bars, lets really get these records UP if were going to go all the way..And its irrelevant what I think towards Rashad but sure I'd like Rashad to lose (his day is coming in georgia) I think that may have been obvious but it stems from him being ranked above Machida and Shogun which I understand isn't set in stone but I find hilarious.



1. Fallacy
2. Excluding unregulated fights would eliminate the vast majority of overseas fights, as well as some stateside...not sure what that has to do with this conversation though.
3. It is relevant what you think about Rashad when it's the basis for your statement.
grappler0000
4/2/12 1:36:06AM

Posted by Cooler

...but it stems from him being ranked above Machida and Shogun which I understand isn't set in stone but I find hilarious.



Personally, I wouldn't let something as arbitrary as rankings get me that worked up, but I think it's pretty easy to address the logic behind it. Rashad has only lost 1 fight in his entire career and is riding a 4 fight win streak since. Shogun is 4-4 in the UFC. Lyoto is 1-3 in his last four. Doesn't seem so outrageous to me. But hey, rankings are subjective...and if you don't like em, there's always another site with different rankings to help make you feel better.
Cooler
4/2/12 1:48:39AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

Who wouldn't agree if they're blatantly adding exhibition fights and unregulated fights into their pro record.. then hell why not add amatuer fights as well, lets go further and add street fights, so lee murray has a win over tito, a guy in a hotel has a win over don frye and bas rutten holds wins over a bunch of guys in bars, lets really get these records UP if were going to go all the way..And its irrelevant what I think towards Rashad but sure I'd like Rashad to lose (his day is coming in georgia) I think that may have been obvious but it stems from him being ranked above Machida and Shogun which I understand isn't set in stone but I find hilarious.



1. Fallacy
2. Excluding unregulated fights would eliminate the vast majority of overseas fights, as well as some stateside...not sure what that has to do with this conversation though.
3. It is relevant what you think about Rashad when it's the basis for your statement.



1) Such as?

2) I wouldn't be opposed to counting certain unregulated fights but are you saying they should all count? We would first need a competent system of record keeping.

3) It's not relevant to the topic of whether all fights should count. Rashad getting beat up hypothetically had nothing to do with what I originally said which was that I wished the new april fools match-ups were true and I followed up by saying that I want Rashad to be exposed because I dont think he is better than a few guys and overrated, thats all.
Cooler
4/2/12 1:52:00AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

...but it stems from him being ranked above Machida and Shogun which I understand isn't set in stone but I find hilarious.



Personally, I wouldn't let something as arbitrary as rankings get me that worked up, but I think it's pretty easy to address the logic behind it. Rashad has only lost 1 fight in his entire career and is riding a 4 fight win streak since. Shogun is 4-4 in the UFC. Lyoto is 1-3 in his last four. Doesn't seem so outrageous to me. But hey, rankings are subjective...and if you don't like em, there's always another site with different rankings to help make you feel better.



You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up

And I already addressed the politics of rankings, I don't care.

There should be a new ranking rule you know what it is? if you get stanky legged you cant ever be ranked ahead of that guy unless you've fallen off the radar. Machida hasnt fallen off the radar, he's probably still a few big wins away from a contender fight or title fight (still in the top 5 in some top 10 lists if that matters right?)
grappler0000
4/2/12 2:30:30AM

Posted by Cooler

You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up



You might want to read up on fallacies a little better next time

Secondly, you already explained that you want Rashad to lose because of his ranking above your boys



There should be a new ranking rule you know what it is? if you get stanky legged you cant ever be ranked ahead of that guy unless you've fallen off the radar.


I know it will make you feel better about the rankings that you "don't care about", but really??? That's just absurd.
bjj1605
4/2/12 2:35:03AM

Posted by Shawn91111



I think he is referring too that Evans record is 17-1-1, but the UFC has it at 22-1-1, they have done this to other fighters as well.

Im guessing thats what Cooler is speaking of



Ya but that's not padding.

TUF fights don't show up on pro records because of a stupid rule about reporting.

The guys still actually win those fights and other than the reporting, they are pro fights for all intents and purposes.
grappler0000
4/2/12 2:39:53AM

Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

Who wouldn't agree if they're blatantly adding exhibition fights and unregulated fights into their pro record.. then hell why not add amatuer fights as well, lets go further and add street fights, so lee murray has a win over tito, a guy in a hotel has a win over don frye and bas rutten holds wins over a bunch of guys in bars, lets really get these records UP if were going to go all the way..And its irrelevant what I think towards Rashad but sure I'd like Rashad to lose (his day is coming in georgia) I think that may have been obvious but it stems from him being ranked above Machida and Shogun which I understand isn't set in stone but I find hilarious.



1. Fallacy
2. Excluding unregulated fights would eliminate the vast majority of overseas fights, as well as some stateside...not sure what that has to do with this conversation though.
3. It is relevant what you think about Rashad when it's the basis for your statement.



1) Such as?

2) I wouldn't be opposed to counting certain unregulated fights but are you saying they should all count? We would first need a competent system of record keeping.

3) It's not relevant to the topic of whether all fights should count. Rashad getting beat up hypothetically had nothing to do with what I originally said which was that I wished the new april fools match-ups were true and I followed up by saying that I want Rashad to be exposed because I dont think he is better than a few guys and overrated, thats all.



1. Slippery Slope
2. I don't think you realize how many unregulated fights are in Fight Finder and other record-keeping systems already. I would guess well over half of all MMA fights "on the record" are unregulated.
3. It is relevant when your disdain for him is the driving force of your logic and statements. Speaking of relevance, I've still yet to hear how fighting the only guy that's beat him will somehow expose the UFC including actual fights (some of which were exhibition by a technicality, but were still done under the same rules and overseen by the same commission) on his record. There's just no connection there for me. I'd like to see the dots connected.
bjj1605
4/2/12 2:40:40AM

Posted by Cooler


Yeah, he does after I explained it, but apparently you dont.

I am referring to how the UFC adds wins to their record to make them look better, I did not mean they give guys softball matchups although I could name a few in that department, like Bisping but no I am not saying Rashad has had an easy road (even if I held that opinion) and Serra is the best example, his "UFC record" is 17-7 and his real record is 11-7.

EDIT: Good lookin out Shawn, he knew what I meant



See my above post.

Saying that the UFC is adding "exhibition fights" is an even dumber argument than what I thought you were saying.

TUF fights are pretty much pro-fights. The only reason they aren't officially counted is because they can't be reported in the allotted time (it would give away the show.)

Sounds like you've just got a bad case of hate for Rashad and you're making up dumb reasons to back your ridiculous opinion.
Shawn91111
4/2/12 3:37:01AM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by Shawn91111



I think he is referring too that Evans record is 17-1-1, but the UFC has it at 22-1-1, they have done this to other fighters as well.

Im guessing thats what Cooler is speaking of



Ya but that's not padding.

TUF fights don't show up on pro records because of a stupid rule about reporting.

The guys still actually win those fights and other than the reporting, they are pro fights for all intents and purposes.




Thats not the only reference to the UFC padding the fighters records so try again. The UFC has played with people's records before.. I.E. Royce Gracie before his fight with Matt Hughes... that was painfully obvious.

Cooler
4/2/12 4:14:56AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up



You might want to read up on fallacies a little better next time





And you explained what fallacy I committed? Still waiting on that one boss.. I actually took the time to explain which one you violated. The fallacy of equivocation, meaning in this instance you misled the use of my words to more than one meaning, ala equivocating my position to a certain response that I didnt make. I mean whats your point here? to try and one up me? You're not doing so well trying to pull the "you dont know what a word means (but neither do I so I'll say you don't)" card.
grappler0000
4/2/12 4:42:26AM

Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up



You might want to read up on fallacies a little better next time





And you explained what fallacy I committed? Still waiting on that one boss.. I actually took the time to explain which one you violated. The fallacy of equivocation, meaning in this instance you misled the use of my words to more than one meaning, ala equivocating my position to a certain response that I didnt make. I mean whats your point here? to try and one up me? You're not doing so well trying to pull the "you dont know what a word means (but neither do I so I'll say you don't)" card.



1. You have no idea what an equivocation fallacy is. You've just proved that a second time.
2. Wait no longer. It was explained on the last page, boss
Cooler
4/2/12 4:51:24AM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up



You might want to read up on fallacies a little better next time





And you explained what fallacy I committed? Still waiting on that one boss.. I actually took the time to explain which one you violated. The fallacy of equivocation, meaning in this instance you misled the use of my words to more than one meaning, ala equivocating my position to a certain response that I didnt make. I mean whats your point here? to try and one up me? You're not doing so well trying to pull the "you dont know what a word means (but neither do I so I'll say you don't)" card.



1. You have no idea what an equivocation fallacy is. You've just proved that a second time.
2. Wait no longer. It was explained on the last page, boss



1) I literally read it to you word for word. Look it up.

2) Ok Mr. Strawman
grappler0000
4/2/12 5:21:56AM

Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up



You might want to read up on fallacies a little better next time





And you explained what fallacy I committed? Still waiting on that one boss.. I actually took the time to explain which one you violated. The fallacy of equivocation, meaning in this instance you misled the use of my words to more than one meaning, ala equivocating my position to a certain response that I didnt make. I mean whats your point here? to try and one up me? You're not doing so well trying to pull the "you dont know what a word means (but neither do I so I'll say you don't)" card.



1. You have no idea what an equivocation fallacy is. You've just proved that a second time.
2. Wait no longer. It was explained on the last page, boss



1) I literally read it to you word for word. Look it up.

2) Ok Mr. Strawman



1. I don't need to look it up. I have studied logic and am well aware of the meaning. Either google landed you on the wrong page or you don't understand what you read. Only you know which it is. Well, I guess you don't know yet, but once you figure it out, you'll be the only one to know.

2. You seem to be just grasping at straws now...see what I did there? In all seriousness though, I'd love to hear your explanation for this one too.
george112
4/2/12 11:14:35AM
I wish there was emoticon that was eating a huge tub of popcorn

This is good stuff
BuffaloDave
4/2/12 11:36:29AM

Posted by george112

I wish there was emoticon that was eating a huge tub of popcorn

This is good stuff



There's always the classic gif,

george112
4/2/12 11:40:45AM

Posted by BuffaloDave


Posted by george112

I wish there was emoticon that was eating a huge tub of popcorn

This is good stuff



There's always the classic gif,






Ah yes perfect

edit

You got a prop coming. Gotta spread the love
Chael_Sonnen
4/2/12 1:46:09PM
Andy isn't getting off that easy....he has to actually fight come June.

Tell the old lady to have the steak ready....Medium Rare!

Image Attachment(s):
Photo Attachment 1
Cooler
4/2/12 4:39:30PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Cooler

You're the one who cried fallacy and then commited one, an equivication fallacy saying I'm 'worked up' when the last word in my sentence was 'hilarious' which is far from being worked up



You might want to read up on fallacies a little better next time





And you explained what fallacy I committed? Still waiting on that one boss.. I actually took the time to explain which one you violated. The fallacy of equivocation, meaning in this instance you misled the use of my words to more than one meaning, ala equivocating my position to a certain response that I didnt make. I mean whats your point here? to try and one up me? You're not doing so well trying to pull the "you dont know what a word means (but neither do I so I'll say you don't)" card.



1. You have no idea what an equivocation fallacy is. You've just proved that a second time.
2. Wait no longer. It was explained on the last page, boss



1) I literally read it to you word for word. Look it up.

2) Ok Mr. Strawman



1. I don't need to look it up. I have studied logic and am well aware of the meaning. Either google landed you on the wrong page or you don't understand what you read. Only you know which it is. Well, I guess you don't know yet, but once you figure it out, you'll be the only one to know.

2. You seem to be just grasping at straws now...see what I did there? In all seriousness though, I'd love to hear your explanation for this one too.



1) "I don't need to look up words, I studied logic" See in the actual field of logic we would call you a quitter since you claim to know it all and wont learn anything from your mistakes, when we dont know something we dont presume upon people we face up to the mistake and say yes I was wrong now I know more. Face it, you fucked up and equivocated, you couldnt even back up anything when I said explain what fallacy I committed, you just said "you look at what you did on the other page, you should know what I mean"....There's more than one fallacy ya know right guy? Is that all you can do is say "I know you are but what am I" arguments.

2) What a shock, the guy who likes the worst show in the world with the dumbest illogical characters doesnt know what another complex term is. Sorry you didnt get what a straw man is, or what a syllogism is but its when you misrepresent someones argument, are you going to claim I've got that definition wrong too? lol. I cant hold your hand and make you read a definition, I can only point out when you commit a fallacy and explain. You're the dim one who actually quoted me first misrepresenting what I said thinking I was saying Rashad was given an easy road. Shows your inability to listen and learn.
bjj1605
4/2/12 5:11:23PM

Posted by Shawn91111


Thats not the only reference to the UFC padding the fighters records so try again. The UFC has played with people's records before.. I.E. Royce Gracie before his fight with Matt Hughes... that was painfully obvious.




Did you really just say that....

are you referring to the Harold Howard fight being removed from the record??

Royce never fought Howard. He walked into the ring and forfeited. If he had just decided to pull out instead, the fight wouldn't show as a loss.

The argument here is getting worse and worse.

You could reasonably make the case that TUF fights shouldn't be counted. You can't reasonably make the case that Royce's fight with Howard should be counted.
george112
4/2/12 5:19:32PM


grappler0000
4/2/12 6:17:51PM

Posted by Cooler

1) "I don't need to look up words, I studied logic" See in the actual field of logic we would call you a quitter...



A quitter for knowing a definition? And I noticed you said 'we'.



...when we dont know something we dont presume upon people we face up to the mistake and say yes I was wrong now I know more.



This is my favorite part



Face it, you fucked up and equivocated, you couldnt even back up anything when I said explain what fallacy I committed, you just said "you look at what you did on the other page, you should know what I mean"....There's more than one fallacy ya know right guy? Is that all you can do is say "I know you are but what am I" arguments.



Actually, that's not what I said. Why would you make up something and throw quotes around it? Forget fallacies...that's called lying. I said that it was explained on the last page. And it was. Feel free to go check. It was a Slippery Slope, as was stated yesterday. Go check, it's there.

And since you still don't understand what an equivocation is, I'll do you the favor. I'm assuming you probably looked up what a fallacy was and read the short def for equivocation on wiki, which goes "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)". I'm guessing you probably tried to adapt that definition to our conversation, but it was forced. That's honestly my best guess...I don't know any other way that you would've come up with what you did. There's 2 problems with what you're saying.

1. What you are claiming is not an equivocation. An equivocation happens when someone tries to pass off a duel meaning of a word as one. An example given from wiki is listed below:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.


In order for it to be an equivocation, there would need to be two distinct meanings of the word 'hilarious'...and I would have to try to use both in order to say they are the same. You are claiming that I am trying to change the meaning of the word 'hilarious' (which I'm not, by the way), which is not an equivocation. But, I'm sure you knew that.

2. I never focused on the word 'hilarious'. I never once made that claim. You stated that you wanted Rashad to lose merely because of his placing in some arbitrary rankings. Wanting someone to lose because of someone else's opinion is 'getting worked up' IMO. So, not only do you still not know what an equivocation fallacy is, it didn't really matter in the long run, since that was never even my argument.



What a shock, the guy who likes the worst show in the world with the dumbest illogical characters doesnt know what another complex term is.


I don't even know what to make of that. Are you talking about Sunny? Whatever, don't even want to know, since it's irrelevant. But, FYI...you are bordering on yet another fallacy with that statement



Sorry you didnt get what a straw man is, or what a syllogism is but its when you misrepresent someones argument, are you going to claim I've got that definition wrong too? lol.



Seriously? A straw man is one of the most basic fallacies. You never stated what you 'believed' it applied to. I asked for an explanation.



I cant hold your hand and make you read a definition, I can only point out when you commit a fallacy and explain.



For that, I thank you. Your attempt was entertaining.



You're the dim one who actually quoted me first misrepresenting what I said thinking I was saying Rashad was given an easy road. Shows your inability to listen and learn.



1. I know what you were trying to say, which is why I challenged exactly that. So, it's kind of ironic about the whole listen and learn thing. There's been several things that you'v missed along the way.

2. Having a debate is one thing, while insulting/name calling is quite another. That is something that is not tolerated. And it's generally a sign that everyone needs to cool off a bit.
Pages: 1 [2]