Jump to content

What exactly is a CAN?????? Lesson of the day.


HIMBOB

Recommended Posts

There seems to be some confusion about what it means to be a CAN in MMA circles. So in the aim of spreading my vast knowledge and wisdom let me clear this for you all:

 

A can is anyone who has lost a fight at any point in time and is not holding the belt right now.

So once somebody has lost a fight they now become a can.

 

Let us take Tim Sylvia for example.

Tim Sylvia was once 16-0, held and defended the UFC HW title, has wins over Arlovski 2-1, Rothwell and Vera. Currently 33-6. But seeing he has been beaten by all of the following cans Fedor, Big Nog, Couture, Alovski, Mir and Mercer he is a CAN no two ways about it. Not even that a hopeless can.

 

As to true champions let?s look at Cain,

Cain has beaten everyone he has faced, therefore he is provably a vastly better fighter right now than Sylvia ever was. If in doubt look at the second figure in his fight record 0 losses ZERO therefore legend!!!!!!

Its is unimportant who he beat because seeing they have all been beaten and none are holding the belt they are all cans just like the ones who beat Sylvia.

 

 

 

I should also mention: holding a belt does not mean you are any good either, usually you just got gifted a title shot because of UFC/Dana hype (how you actually took the belt is unimportant). This is a mistake often made by younger fans so I thought it worth including.

 

Stand by for another lesson tomorrow.

 

Toddle pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion about what it means to be a CAN in MMA circles. So in the aim of spreading my vast knowledge and wisdom let me clear this for you all:

 

A can is anyone who has lost a fight at any point in time and is not holding the belt right now.

So once somebody has lost a fight they now become a can.

 

Let us take Tim Sylvia for example.

Tim Sylvia was once 16-0' date=' held and defended the UFC HW title, has wins over Arlovski 2-1, Rothwell and Vera. Currently 33-6. But seeing he has been beaten by all of the following cans Fedor, Big Nog, Couture, Alovski, Mir and Mercer he is a CAN no two ways about it. Not even that a hopeless can.

 

As to true champions let’s look at Cain,

Cain has beaten everyone he has faced, therefore he is provably a vastly better fighter right now than Sylvia ever was. If in doubt look at the second figure in his fight record 0 losses ZERO therefore legend!!!!!!

Its is unimportant who he beat because seeing they have all been beaten and none are holding the belt they are all cans just like the ones who beat Sylvia.

 

 

 

I should also mention: holding a belt does not mean you are any good either, usually you just got gifted a title shot because of UFC/Dana hype (how you actually took the belt is unimportant). This is a mistake often made by younger fans so I thought it worth including.

 

Stand by for another lesson tomorrow.

 

Toddle pip.[/quote']

 

Ummmmmm, no. So you are saying everyone with an L and not holding the belt is a can? You're calling JDS a can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the petty name calling when something doesn't go someones way is still in full force!

 

The definition of a can is anyone who sits on their *** and calls someone else a can for doing something they will never do.

 

That's my definition anyway.

 

And no O.P....That wasn't directed toward you, it was just a general statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the petty name calling when something doesn't go someones way is still in full force!

 

The definition of a can is anyone who sits on their *** and calls someone else a can for doing something they will never do.

 

That's my definition anyway.

 

And no O.P....That wasn't directed toward you' date=' it was just a general statement.[/quote']

 

Ahahah:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although funny, this analysis is dead wrong.

 

I once wrote a thread on how to determine a can. It's very easy actually.

 

On Wikipedia, if your name is colored in red, or black (meaning there is no writeup about you on Wikipedia), you're a can.

 

It's the most simple, and oddly enough, accurate method.

 

Check it out, it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although funny' date=' this analysis is dead wrong.

 

I once wrote a thread on how to determine a can. It's very easy actually.

 

On Wikipedia, if your name is colored in red, or black (meaning there is no writeup about you on Wikipedia), you're a can.

 

It's the most simple, and oddly enough, accurate method.

 

Check it out, it's true.[/quote']

 

McSweeny is quite the can.

He's in blue on Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion about what it means to be a CAN in MMA circles. So in the aim of spreading my vast knowledge and wisdom let me clear this for you all:

 

A can is anyone who has lost a fight at any point in time and is not holding the belt right now.

So once somebody has lost a fight they now become a can.

 

Let us take Tim Sylvia for example.

Tim Sylvia was once 16-0' date=' held and defended the UFC HW title, has wins over Arlovski 2-1, Rothwell and Vera. Currently 33-6. But seeing he has been beaten by all of the following cans Fedor, Big Nog, Couture, Alovski, Mir and Mercer he is a CAN no two ways about it. Not even that a hopeless can.

 

As to true champions let?s look at Cain,

Cain has beaten everyone he has faced, therefore he is provably a vastly better fighter right now than Sylvia ever was. If in doubt look at the second figure in his fight record 0 losses ZERO therefore legend!!!!!!

Its is unimportant who he beat because seeing they have all been beaten and none are holding the belt they are all cans just like the ones who beat Sylvia.

 

 

 

I should also mention: holding a belt does not mean you are any good either, usually you just got gifted a title shot because of UFC/Dana hype (how you actually took the belt is unimportant). This is a mistake often made by younger fans so I thought it worth including.

 

Stand by for another lesson tomorrow.

 

Toddle pip.[/quote']

 

Fedor, Mir, Carwin, JDS - cans?

Rashad, Machida, Rampage - cans?

do i need to continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmmmm' date=' no. So you are saying everyone with an L and not holding the belt is a can? You're calling JDS a can?[/quote']

 

Yeap and yeap. Just like Sotiropoulos, Carwin, Penn, Wanderlai and Guida to name a few.

 

 

Is Wandy a can?

 

Yeap see above.

 

 

Although funny' date=' this analysis is dead wrong.

 

I once wrote a thread on how to determine a can. It's very easy actually.

 

On Wikipedia, if your name is colored in red, or black (meaning there is no writeup about you on Wikipedia), you're a can.

 

It's the most simple, and oddly enough, accurate method.

 

Check it out, it's true.[/quote']

 

Thats actually pretty dam good, I can get behind that.

 

Nice work dude.

 

 

 

the lines between people who have a horrible sense of humors spewing bs' date=' and the people who dont know anything about mma spewing bs are starting to get blurry... hopefully this post was the former...[/quote']

 

Horrible??? Its not horrible.

 

I demand Statisfaction!!! Glove slap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is more along the lines of selfish humour you see I crack myself up all the time. Some people think me telling them a joke is me being nice But no its actually my own mental ************, which I think is a spectator sport.

I do it simply for my own enjoyment as is proven by the fact I am usually the one laughing hardest or if not the only one laughing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet is an awesome place for learning. I never knew what a troll or a can was until I became a member on this site.

 

To be honest' date=' I still do not have a definitive definition for those terms.[/quote']

 

Can,

On Wikipedia, if your name is colored in red, or black (meaning there is no writeup about you on Wikipedia), you're a can.

 

I really like that definition, should become and UFC.com standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can' date='

On Wikipedia, if your name is colored in red, or black (meaning there is no writeup about you on Wikipedia), you're a can.

 

I really like that definition, should become and UFC.com standard.[/quote']

I saw Exodus' earlier post but thanks anyway.

 

So if my name is not on there at all, I am worse than a can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_can_(sports_idiom)

 

"In boxing or mixed martial arts, "tomato can" or simply "can" is an idiom for a fighter with poor or diminished skills who may be considered an easy opponent to defeat, or a "guaranteed win." Fights with "tomato cans" can be arranged to inflate the win total of a professional fighter."

 

A "tomato can" is usually a fighter with a poor record, whose skills are substandard or who lacks toughness or has a "glass chin." Sometimes a formerly successful boxer who is past his prime and who has seen his skills diminish is considered a "tomato can" if he can no longer compete at a high level. Such an individual is an attractive opponent if his name still carries prestige but his diminished skills make him an easy conquest.

 

Most fighters who are considered "tomato cans" are heavyweights, because at lower weight classes one must maintain a certain level of fitness in order to make weight, whereas a heavyweight who once fought at a trim 205 pounds could conceivably gain 150 pounds and still fight in the same division.

 

One characteristic which may account for the use of the "tomato can" metaphor for a bad boxer is the tendency to leak "tomato juice" (i.e. blood) when battered.

 

"Tomato cans" are similar to jobbers in professional wrestling in that they serve to enhance the stature of someone the promotion uses to draw a crowd.

 

"Actual boxing people have a somewhat different view of the term. In the lingo they actually use, "tomato can" is reserved for the lowest level of potential competition. There are, in descending order: champions, contenders, fringe contenders, gatekeepers, journeymen, opponents, and "tomato cans", and they all exist in every weight division. The terms are not interchangeable ("journeyman" is actually a term of respect) and almost none of the individuals referred to here as "tomato cans" would be considered so under that definition of the phrase."

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...