Does Mickey Gall win every other fight?

[Talon81]

No, it's skill that is the most objective and most important measure! WMMA was a complete joke across more than half of Modafferi's career and the division she is in is still pretty thin so it's ridiculous to point out that she was a top 10 fighter at one point and Gall wasn't (Mickey is in division that is deep even by men's MMA standards). All you people are just jumping to Modafferi's defence because she comes across as likeable but that doesn't change the fact that she's a c****y fighter and certainly worse than Gall despite him not being a good one either. And no, Coenen is not legit. You're making a fool out of yourself.

skill is not objective without a concrete measure. What you see as skill is not the same as what I would. Almost every win can be discredited, as can almost every loss. You can call all of her wins worthless, much like I could call all of Gall's. Those are not things that can be factually proven between us. What can, however, is the rankings of their wins. Sure, sites will vary a bit in their rankings, but rankings between sites are very close because they are a reflection of aggregate opinions. The fact that you think your opinion, which is obviously very deviant from the majority in this thread, is somehow the authority exactly proves my point of why your assessment of skills is not, by any means, objective.

In fact it is you making a fool of yourself by declaring yourself the bastion of skill assessment against all other voices in this thread.

 

[Livingenergy]

skill is not objective without a concrete measure. What you see as skill is not the same as what I would. Almost every win can be discredited, as can almost every loss. You can call all of her wins worthless, much like I could call all of Gall's. Those are not things that can be factually proven between us. What can, however, is the rankings of their wins. Sure, sites will vary a bit in their rankings, but rankings between sites are very close because they are a reflection of aggregate opinions. The fact that you think your opinion, which is obviously very deviant from the majority in this thread, is somehow the authority exactly proves my point of why your assessment of skills is not, by any means, objective.

In fact it is you making a fool of yourself by declaring yourself the bastion of skill assessment against all other voices in this thread.

A page straight from the bullshit bible.

Anyone with a bit of knowledge can compare the skill level of two fighters...especially when the difference between them is rather big.

 

[Livingenergy]

A page straight from the bullshit bible.

Anyone with a bit of knowledge can compare the skill level of two fighters...especially when the difference between them is rather big.

Mickey Gall has wins only against cans by the standards of men's UFC MMA but they're still much better fighters than the women that Modafferi has faced and won against.

 

[Talon81]

A page straight from the bullshit bible.

Anyone with a bit of knowledge can compare the skill level of two fighters...especially when the difference between them is rather big.

I agree. Unfortunately they also won't agree half the time. Next time just learn what the word objective means before you use it.

Also this discussion was not about their skills but about their relative positions to their divisions. If I were to say that my 11 year old son is the Michael Jordan of kids basketball, I wouldn't be saying he is as skilled as Jordan (or even the best 18 yo), I would be saying that he is at the top of his division of basketball. Context is important

This is the chain you were replying to:

He's the Roxanne Modafferi of men's MMA

Except Modafferi actually has some solid wins.

This is clearly taking about their place relative to their divisions, not their skill sets. Modafferi occupies a higher place in her division. If you still don't get it, well... good luck to you in life.

 

[Livingenergy]

I agree. Unfortunately they also won't agree half the time. Next time just learn what the word objective means before you use it.

Also this discussion was not about their skills but about their relative positions to their divisions. If I were to say that my 11 year old son is the Michael Jordan of kids basketball, I wouldn't be saying he is as skilled as Jordan (or even the best 18 yo), I would be saying that he is at the top of his division of basketball. Context is important

This is the chain you were replying to:




This is clearly taking about their place relative to their divisions, not their skill sets. Modafferi occupies a higher place in her division. If you still don't get it, well... good luck to you in life.

Page number 2 of the bullshit bible. And that analogy between WMMA and your son's basketball league is the title of the chapter.

 

[Tairy Hesticles]

Whatchu talkin about?

Gall beat the brakes off a future UFC HOFer….

His choice of tattoos is unacceptable for a guy who's been sober his whole life.

 

[NenadRS]

Gall had enough time to read a book before changing levels there. It's such a comically bad punch that I love it.

Reflexes like dead horse , to be fair, half way trow punch he stopped, that is why it looks so funny, when his reaction changed towards defending the takedown.

 

[The Mookster]

Mickey Gall somehow lost to modern day Diego Sanchez. I still dont understand how that is possible.

 

[LilNicky95]

His choice of tattoos is unacceptable for a guy who's been sober his whole life.

Perhaps his tattoo artist was not so sober…

 

[Mammothman]

Fixed that 4 you

Randa beat former UFC and Invicta champ Esparza and Gall beat former WWF and World Champion John Cena so I can see the resemblance

 

[Michael Linger]

Gall isn't bad. He's not great, and he's likely never going to be top 10-15, but he isn't bad either. He has some tools, but he tends to get overwhelmed by fighters who are more athletic or powerful.