Please indicate how you would judge the following fighters: As a "bum" or "non-bum". I'm not normally one to degrade ANY fighter by calling him a "bum", and this is not intended to demean or belittle any fighter, for it takes a lot of balls to fight for a living. That said, in the spirit of this post, humor me, and accept I am using the terms "bum" and "non-bum" rather liberally. EDIT: For the purposes of THIS thread, I am defining BUM as "someone no top 50 all-time heavy should have ANY PROBLEM beating" Looking forward to seeing your lists. :smoke * Fabian Meza (4-4-1) * Troy Weida (44-21) * Carlos Monroe (11-7) * Derrick Lampkins (10-4-2) * Marcus McIntyre (24-3) * Cody Koch (25-2) * Najee Shaheed (21-12-2) * Steve Pannell (34-12) * Phil Jackson (44-13) * Zoran Vujecic (18-2) * Eli Dixon (22-9-1) * Donnell Wingfield (29-12-1) * Joseph Chingangu (24-9)
No, I'm just bored out of my mind, and figured I'd take the argument to task to help occupy my time before I begin my 3-day bender! :smoke
Here is how I would categorize a bum. If you've lost 25% or more of your fights, you're a bum. Also, b/c many people have padded records, I would also say that if someone has made a living by beating up on people that have lost 25% or more of their fights, they are probably bums too.
