Originally Posted by
ex carrabba fan
I've read the first few paragraphs, and I'm just shaking my head.
Oh well, only thing non UFC fighters can do is beat who is put in front of them and then wait for the eventual merge.
Thing I don't get about the SI article is that nobody really elevates Overeem that highly and acts like there's a huge gap between Overeem and Cain/JDS or anyone else. People in general just know that Overeem is a dangerous guy who is right there towards the top. Of course he has to prove himself before anyone says he's undisputed #1 or #2. I guess some MMA writers really have nothing to write about so they resort to calling people frauds.
I'm curious to know what this idiots background and expertise in the sport is. He sounds like he's been casually following MMA for about a year and went through a crash course in MMA by looking at wiki's/sherdog fight records/various message board postings instead of actually watching FIGHTS.
I know that I am biased cause I am a BJ Penn fanboy, but to insult the man and his place in history is infuriating.
"The Penn Fallacy occurs when a fighter is thought of as top rank despite there being no evidence that he is. It holds theory above practice and
style above achievement, and lends support to all promoters who seek to carefully manicure the images of fighters who look or talk a part they can't actually play. It negates the very point of fighting, which is that it is a sport in which a man is wholly accountable for, and judged by, what actually happens in his fights. It is bad, and ought to be done away with."
This guy is smoking some damn good stuff. If THAT is the definition of the fallacy, it should be called the Clay Guida Fallacy.
No evidence that he is deserving of top rank status? Not that anyone asked (or even agrees with Marchman) but here are just a few reasons why Marchman is a tool and has no idea what he is talking about.
- former champ in 2 different weight classes
- Hughes was a top 10 P4P fighter when he got absolutely steamrolled by BJ in their first fight
- Lost, but stepped up to the challenge to fight Machida (once considered a top 5 P4P and still an elite level fighter) at his weight class
- Ran roughshod through the UFC 155 division as champ until he ran into Frank Edgar (who is a stud)
- fought to a draw against the much larger #2 WW in the world Fitch
This is the part of the article that clearly shows that Marchman only looks at printed results, not fights
"B.J. Penn deserves to have the fallacy named after him because he is widely thought of as a top welterweight contender despite not having won an important fight in that division since January of 2004, and thought of by many as the uncrowned lightweight champion even though he was thrashed twice by Frankie Edgar, his obvious better, last year"
Aside from that blind a-hole Douglas Crosby, Marchman must be the only other human being alive who thinks that FE "thrashed" BJ in the first fight. It was a razor close fight that a lot of people (including myself) thought BJ should have won.
If anyone cares to waste 10 minutes of their life to read the inane dribble that is, Tim Marchman's column
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/tim_marchman/06/15/overeem/index.html
