[Zits]

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

And in the HW division, in particular, that hasn't been the case. Guys like Gonzaga, Sylvia, Gan McGee, etc. get shots constantly, and there's INFINITELY more case to call those shots undeserved than a former 2-time champion. I guess I'm saying that this stuff isn't defined enough to really call it undeserved.

Gonzaga, at least, was 4-0 at that point in the UFC and had just dominated the man many people considered the #2 hw in the world. He kicked CroCop's butt decisively even before the KO.

We can agree to disagree on this point but I fail to see how someone 0-2 in their most recent HW fights and 2-2 in their most recent 4 fights (one win of which was a gimmie) is someone you view as warranting an immediate title shot based on their record.

Maybe we could have just had Sylvia and Arlovski* fight for eternity. That'd be a fan winner. Each had been a former title holder so they'd always deserve a shot.

In short, you're not being objective. This is mildly surprising because I made an effort to be very objective, hence highlighting by opinion of BJ (who you know I'm a fan of). On the other hand it isn't surprising.



*the initial immediate rematch Andre got was a contract stipulation, since then he's gotten no love.

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

If the above quote were the entirety of my argument, you'd have a point. But it's an afterthought at best.

My opinion of the rest of your position had already been laid out and is abbreviated above. At the point of my "post hoc ergo propter hoc" comment there was just your wrong reasoning left.

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

And "calling something by its proper name" in such a way is ridiculous. First of all, post hoc is enough. You don't need "post hoc ergo propter fallacy." Pretentious wording. Second of all, is the Latin necessary? This isn't debate club. Settle down. A lot of people on here are quick to point out when someone "breaks the rules" of a disagreement by posting these "fallacies".

This is somewhat sad/annoying. I didn't post what I did in a condescending manner. We've corresponded enough that I figured you knew what the term meant (and that "post hoc" on its own meant something else). This wasn't about breaking some rules, it was a terminally flawed argument for the position you were taking. It seemed reasonable to point that out. Why should I take pains to explain something in a few sentences when there is already a phrase for it and I assume you know what that phrase means? That's a waste of both our time.

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

And if a guy fought his butt off against the best in the business to earn a title shot, and then whips the champ, it isn't a post hoc. It's the truth.

The whipping of the current champ can not, after the fact, be used to justify why he got the shot to do so unless you have a time machine that lets you explore the different possibilities. His fighting his butt off (and winning) was also, at that point, a thing of the past.

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

I'm a smart guy too; but the true test of your understanding of a topic is whether you can make someone less knowledgeable than yourself understand. Otherwise, it's a bunch of self-congratulatory philosophical masturbation.

Time travel doesn't exist. Does that help?


This is getting annoying and I'm getting pissy. You're arguing as a fan. If you want to argue objectively let me know.

This post has been edited by Zits: 17 April 2008 - 01:28 AM

[RightintheFace]

Zits, on Apr 16 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Gonzaga, at least, was 4-0 at that point in the UFC and had just dominated the man many people considered the #2 hw in the world. He kicked CroCop's but decisively even before the KO.

We can agree to disagree on this point but I fail to see how someone 0-2 in their most recent HW fights and 2-2 in their most recent 4 fights (one win of which was a gimmie) is someone you view as warranting an immediate title shot based on their record.

Maybe we could have just had Sylvia and Arlovski fight for eternity. That'd be a fan winner.

In short, you're not being objective. This is mildly surprising because I made an effort to be very objective, hence highlighting by opinion of BJ (who you know I'm a fan of). On the other hand it isn't surprising.
My opinion of the rest of your position has already been laid out and is abbreviated above. At that point there was just your wrong reasoning.
This is somewhat sad/annoying. I didn't post what I did in a condescending manner. We've corresponded enough that I figured you knew what the term meant (and that "post hoc" on its own meant something else). This wasn't about breaking some rules, it was a terminally flawed argument for the position you were taking. It seemed reasonable to point that out.
The whipping of the current champ can not, after the fact, be used to justify why he got the shot to do so unless you have a time machine that lets you explore the different possibilities.
Time travel doesn't exist. Does that help?
This is getting annoying and I'm getting pissy. You're arguing as a fan. If you want to argue objectively let me know.

I'm not arguing as a fan. I'm being objective too. Yours isn't the only objective view. I hate BJ, but think he earned a shot. The fundamental truth to my argument is that there are no set criteria for what defines "earning a shot." You give precedent to recent success or failure; I give precedent to career achievements. The "official rules" don't exist, so neither of our opinions is objective OR entirely accurate. They're only opinions.

I didn't "use the post hoc argument" to "prove he deserved a shot". I articulated my reasons pretty clearly why he deserved it before the fight, and only added the "post hoc" section as, essentially, a nail in the coffin. I'll phrase it differently. I thought before the fight that Randy had a better chance of beating Tim than any of the other even remotely possible candidates. And I was right.

[Zits]

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

I'm not arguing as a fan. I'm being objective too. Yours isn't the only objective view. I hate BJ, but think he earned a shot. The fundamental truth to my argument is that there are no set criteria for what defines "earning a shot." You give precedent to recent success or failure; I give precedent to career achievements. The "official rules" don't exist, so neither of our opinions is objective OR entirely accurate. They're only opinions.

Opinions can vary in the degree to which they are objective.
Being a legend is a pretty nebulous criteria and leads to the conclusion that an opinion is not objective.

RightintheFace, on Apr 16 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

I didn't "use the post hoc argument" to "prove he deserved a shot". I articulated my reasons pretty clearly why he deserved it before the fight, and only added the "post hoc" section as, essentially, a nail in the coffin. I'll phrase it differently. I thought before the fight that Randy had a better chance of beating Tim than any of the other even remotely possible candidates. And I was right.

Objective reasons as to why Randy deserved/should have gotten (versus earned) a title shot:
Fan appeal, he is an automatic ticket and ppv sell
Had a skill set that matched well with Tim
There was a dearth of talent in the division.


That's about it. I find it telling that he had to beat Van Arsdale to get his rematch with Chuck but did not have to fight to face Tim.

[RightintheFace]

Zits, on Apr 16 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Opinions can vary in the degree to which they are objective.
Being a legend is a pretty nebulous criteria and leads to the conclusion that an opinion is not objective.
Objective reasons as to why Randy deserved/should have gotten (versus earned) a title shot:
Fan appeal, he is an automatic ticket and ppv sell
Had a skill set that matched well with Tim
There was a dearth of talent in the division.
That's about it. I find it telling that he had to beat Van Arsdale to get his rematch with Chuck but did not have to fight to face Tim.

Did I ever use the word legend? You're attributing a lot of "nebulous" stuff to my otherwise pretty straightforward opinion.

The reasons you list, plus a long history of winning and (the biggest reason) the lack of objective criteria of what constitutes earning a title shot, are the reasons he got the shot.

[Johns Redd]

I think some deserve a shot at the title even if they haven't fought up to it. BJ is a good example because we all know he's awesome so he should be able to walk into a title contention, or very near to one at any time until proven otherwise. In boxing (cough!!) that happened as long as I can remember - guys coming out of retirement, or walking straight into a title fight. Couture on the other hand, I agree, does not warrant that buy in. I think because he's "Cpt. America" and is so popular, he is given more credit than he deserves based on his track record lately. Though he beat up Gonzaga, he's been beaten by guys who are more consistent and who deserve a title shot before him.

Zits, on Apr 15 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

Here are two other fighters I don't think deserved their title shots:BJ Penn (@ either LW or WW)Rampage

No - they did. The only variable here is that Rampage may have been given an easier shoe in because he was coming over from Pride.They are different than Randy. Randy's getting older and his performances, I believe, are beginning to show it. A fight between Randy and Fedor a "superfight"...c'mooon!!

[BoxingJudoka]

Johns Redd, on Apr 20 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

The only variable here is that Rampage may have been given an easier shoe in because he was coming over from Pride.They are different than Randy. Randy's getting older and his performances, I believe, are beginning to show it. A fight between Randy and Fedor a "superfight"...c'mooon!!

Actually Rampage was probably given a shot at Liddell because he'd beaten Liddell in the past - Chuck probably wanted a chance for revenge. Not that it worked out that way.