Jump to content

Tomato Can - how to determine.


Exodus9mm

Recommended Posts

To take a break from my recent streak of childish name calling, boarish claims and bully tactics, I decided to write a blurb on the following:

 

How is a "tomato can" or the more popular, shortened version "can", defined? Hard to say for sure. One thing I do know is that the term gets thrown out here all the time, with reckless abandon. I'm as guilty as anyone on occassion, or more accurately, regularly.

 

In reality though, there's got to be some definitive standard to factually define the term "can". If anyone uses Wikipedia for a resource, you'll notice that in the fight history breakdown at the bottom, there are fighters coloured in blue, red and black.

 

Blue fighters are clickable and a new page brings up their profile, which generally includes pictures, numerous paragraphs of history and accomplishment and many statistics. Pretty much a standard expectation of any self-respecting MMA database. For the most part, these are guys you've heard of before, or should have, if you consider yourself a self-respecting MMA fan.

 

The red ones are fighters that when you click, brings up a page informing you that "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". I figure you might have been accidentally overheard by some mma junky with too much time on their hands when you've been automated to red status.

 

Unfortunately, the colour black is even worse. You can't even click on those ones. It's like they've been blacklisted for some "unfortunate incident" or so utterly embarassed in their first fight, that nobody in their right mind would waste bandwidth writing about them.

 

To this day, I haven't seen a more accurate method for truly defining this term. Wikipedia has a pretty extensive, and accurate database of all things MMA. I'm not sure who is responsible for the pages, or if the blue, red and black system was author intended to be viewed in this light. It's probably a coded system within Wikipedia that effects all hyperlinks. Regardless, I think it's pretty damn accurate after going over scores of pages.

 

Write it down. If you want to find out how many cans a fighter has on their record, hit up Wikipedia and look for the the corresponding colour associated with the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To take a break from my recent streak of childish name calling' date=' boarish claims and bully tactics, I decided to write a blurb on the following:

 

How is a "tomato can" or the more popular, shortened version "can", defined? Hard to say for sure. One thing I do know is that the term gets thrown out here all the time, with reckless abandon. I'm as guilty as anyone on occassion, or more accurately, regularly.

 

In reality though, there's got to be some definitive standard to factually define the term "can". If anyone uses Wikipedia for a resource, you'll notice that in the fight history breakdown at the bottom, there are fighters coloured in blue, red and black.

 

Blue fighters are clickable and a new page brings up their profile, which generally includes pictures, numerous paragraphs of history and accomplishment and many statistics. Pretty much a standard expectation of any self-respecting MMA database. For the most part, these are guys you've heard of before, or should have, if you consider yourself a self-respecting MMA fan.

 

The red ones are fighters that when you click, brings up a page informing you that "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". I figure you might have been accidentally overheard by some mma junky with too much time on their hands when you've been automated to red status.

 

Unfortunately, the colour black is even worse. You can't even click on those ones. It's like they've been blacklisted for some "unfortunate incident" or so utterly embarassed in their first fight, that nobody in their right mind would waste bandwidth writing about them.

 

To this day, I haven't seen a more accurate method for truly defining this term. Wikipedia has a pretty extensive, and accurate database of all things MMA. I'm not sure who is responsible for the pages, or if the blue, red and black system was author intended to be viewed in this light. It's probably a coded system within Wikipedia that effects all hyperlinks. Regardless, I think it's pretty damn accurate after going over scores of pages.

 

Write it down. If you want to find out how many cans a fighter has on their record, hit up Wikipedia and look for the the corresponding colour associated with the opposition.[/quote']

 

you are using wikipedia as proof of something? /facepalm. Wikipedia is nothing. It is user created content, which ANYONE can create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by this standard' date=' of fedor's 31 fights. he's fought 5 tomato cans.

 

babalu has fought 12.

 

mousasi has fought 16. (he must like cans or somethin)

 

and dan "i'm over-rated" hardy has fought 17. losing to several of them aswell.[/quote']

 

Nice, but everyone fights... "cans" before they make it big. Im just saying. Plus, Sobral defeated Shogun... Not a "can". Good argument though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are using wikipedia as proof of something? /facepalm. Wikipedia is nothing. It is user created content' date=' which ANYONE can create.[/quote']

 

It's only slightly less accurate than the big print encyclopedias. And it covers vastly more topics. And it's growing all the time. And it's free.

 

Yes take stuff about politically or religiously contentious matters or 'celebrities' with a pinch of salt. But for the vast majority of stuff you might want to find out about - like Rua's professional MMA record and opponents - it's ideal. There isn't a better reference source out there for that kind of stuff.

 

Basically Wikipedia is the best repository of human knowledge ever created. Name one that is better?

 

To you that may be 'nothing' but to me it's a bloody miracle..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...