He’s not gonna fuck you bro.
2 Likes
Dude fought 7 times in a calendar year. That alone deserves it in an age where fighters like Colby & Khamzat act like pussies sitting on the sidelines and rely on their mouths to do the talking rather than their ability in the cage
5 Likes
Nah. HOF is supposed to be for the elite of the elite
Cerrone is a fan favorite. Awesome fighter and awesome guy. But his resume and career just doesn’t warrant HOF
3 Likes
Good for him. He was a very active fighter who was very good in his prime.
On the way to his title shot at LW he put together an eight fight win streak that included wins over Barboza, Alvarez, Miller and Bendo among others. He also had a six fight win streak during the WEC/UFC transition. Later up at WW he had another four fight win streak. He fought the best fighters in the world for fifteen years in the WEC and the UFC and did it in two weight classes. Often fought four times a year as well which very few have been able to do at the elite level. Most FOTN/POTN bonuses in UFC history. Hats off to him.
Personally I don’t give a fuck who the UFC does or does not put in their Hall of Fame. Not gonna impact me one way or the other.
5 Likes
You’re kidding right? Everyone is ducking Khamzat not the other way around
2 Likes
Shut the fuck up cunt…
2 Likes
Always love’d the fuckin Cowboy!
3 Likes
Why would anyone be ducking a guy who’s only step up in competition resulted in a lacklustre decision win that showed how many flaws he has in his game?
2 Likes
Congratulations to Cerrone!
4 Likes
Nate Diaz wouldn’t accept the fight even when Khamzat offered to give him his entire purse… that’s called a duck
1 Like
I think he is worthy.
Congrats Cowboy!
Thanks for all the fights!
3 Likes
7 Likes
Name second cowboy
Not sure how deserving he is regardless of how big POS he seems to be outside the octagon. We now giving HOF to every fighter who prefers stand up and does so more excitingly than most?
2 Likes
Soon Laura Sanko will also be in the hall of fame despite only ever having one professional fight a decade a go!
1 Like
Her repeated sexual innuendoes during her short time with the UFC (even though she of course slept with nobody!) should buy her a place among the greatest…
I don’t disagree with the POS stuff, but there are objective ways of looking at his merit. Performance bonuses. Longevity. Anyone who makes it anywhere near the 20 year mark should automatically be HOF, because the only way you could ever achieve something like that would be to be in the top 2%.
Let me ask you a follow up question. Arlovski has fought since 2000 in the UFC, and he holds the record for longest tenure. Without knowing ANYTHING else, is that enough to induct him? I think so. There must be something about him that allows him to stay and keep fighting, whereas others left long, long ago. During his run, JDS, Cain, Werdum, Brock, Mir, Gonzaga, Crocop, Big Nog, Carwin, Roy Nelson, Mark Hunt… they’ve all come and gone. Why is he still here when none of those other guys are, even though he was there BEFORE them too.
My point is: there’s something to be said for guys who were able to make a career of it. They are EXCEPTIONALLY rare, rare enough that surely you have to consider them to be in the top 2%. We shouldn’t even have to ask whether Jim Miller and Diego Sanchez belong. Their longevity alone implies it.
I did write “disregarding him being a POS” i.e. I did not take that into consideration in my argument.
Performance bonuses and longevity should not lead to HOF. Performance bonus was also implicitly addressed in my argument.
What should the criteria be, then? Championships? Winning streaks? Street cred? Instagram followers? Gut feeling that amongst tough guys, the guy is the toughest?
Admittedly I don’t envy the person in charge of the HOF. Establishing a clear criteria seems impossible in principle, and even if it did exist, it would undermine the credibility of the place every time some poindexter who crossed their t’s and dotted their i’s snuck in. And yet the absence of a criteria just causes chaos and accusations of corporate favouritism.
My suggestion that we make it “top 2%” seems like a good compromise between having a criteria and not. It’s not so clear and restrictive that it trivializes the thing, but it’s not so nebulous that it allows everyone in, either.
That said, I’m not sure how anyone could argue that a guy like Cowboy or Arlovski is not top 2%. The longevity of their tenure is incredible.
Compare that to former champions like TWood, Anthony Pettis and even Chris Weidman. Where are they now? Should Randy Couture and BJ Penn be in the HOF? Their records suck. And yet they were champs who held the belt, were dominant in the sport over long periods of time, they were pioneers. They seem like top 2%.
I’m rambling. I guess I’d just like to know what your criteria IS instead of IS NOT. I think it’s a lot easier to come up with reasons why a guy should NOT be in the HOF than it is to come up with reasons why he should.
Another approach would be to collect vast statistics. Then look at where each fighter places. If a fighter is in the top 2% of many categories, they get nominated to a vote. I suspect this is more in line with traditional halls of fame.
But the evolution of that is to use machine learning to classify whether someone is HOF or not. It would truly be the most fair and unbiased.
But then we’d be complaining about how a machine decided on our behalf, and I’m further unconvinced that a machine would respond well to changes in the sport as it evolves (e.g., maybe fighters from one era place in the top 2% because of deprecated rules that favoured their approach, but this excludes modern fighters… sort of like how hockey’s rules favoured Gretzky’s scoring record).
I’m not sure this is a winning game. I’m not sure there’s a good answer.