What is a "Can"?
by Damon O. on Mar 19, 2010 10:07 AM EDT
Email
Print
This term has been flung around so much that it's almost completely lost it's meaning. For instance, when Andrei Arlovski lost to Fedor and Brett Rogers people/commenter's (on various MMA blogs) began calling him a Can. Let's think about this for a second. A Former UFC HW Champion with a Record of (15 - 7) loses to the No. 1 and No. 8 ranked HW's and he's a Can? Negatory.
An actual Tin Can is relatively cheap and easily disposed of. The same goes for a Can in MMA. A can has a lack luster record, little to no skill, and is brought in to lose. Some examples of MMA Can's are Shannon "The Cannon" Ritch (45-67-2-4), Sherman “The Tank” Pendergarst (11 – 17), or Shawn Nolan (6 - 45).
A Can should not be confused with a Journeyman or a fighter who is Shot. A Journeyman is a fighter that has a decent skillset but isn't quite at the level of a Contender or a Prospect. A fighter who is Shot was once a Contender or a Champion but age and injuries have caught up with them, i.e. Ken Shamrock (27 - 13 -2).
I don't mean to disrespect said fighters, but a clearer definition of the term "Can" needed to be established. But then again, what do I know? I just post pictures and Gif's.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
71 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent point. (I actually think it might be a good idea to make a “Concensus MMA Dictionary”. Other words/expressions that may need defining are for instance “Freak Show”, “Lay`n`Pray” and “Chin” and many more. )
My brain is like a box of chocolates... you never know when it`s gonna melt.
by BlueberryMuffin on Mar 19, 2010 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I'll tell you what a CAN is....
Its not someone with a horrible record, we call those people “irrelevant.” A CAN, put simply, is a fighter on the wrong side of 30 not currently fighting up to par and is continually summoned to fight great fighters in order to pad records and provide warm up fights.
A CAN has had a fall from grace and now struggles each and every fight to maintain relevancy. And its getting harder…..and harder for them
You describe a fighter that is SHOT
Not a CAN
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
Fine by me
I couldn’t figure out how to do it myself.
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
Wasn't Rashad Evans 'brought in to lose' against Chuck?
you can’t limit it to only that category… I like Deo’s description better.
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 19, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
That's not true.
A can is a fighter who has no purpose in any fight but to be a professional loser. They are nothing but squash matches.
A journeyman fighter can be brought in for a fight they are likely to lose or pose little stylistic threat to their opponent, but that does not make them a can nor the fight a squash match. That is called a showcase.
Thanks for this, Deo. I made reference to it in a comment yesterday, and you can’t begin to understand how grateful I am that you’re actually confronting the butchering of terminology.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
So by your definition there are only a couple of guys in the sport that are cans and even that would be very questionable. Even of the guys mentioned in the article two of them have won a significant number of fights and if you look at their records it’s not like they are getting matched up just to get squashed in most of them. How many guys can you name that 1. Never win any fights, 2. Never are booked against anyone they even have a chance of beating and 3. stay in the sport long enough to be considered a professional anything? Why would prize fighting even come up with a term that basically describes no one who is involved? What you are describing would be what the Washington Generals were to the Harlem Globetrotters.
I'll reply to all your posts here for the sake of organization if that's cool by you.
The term can is meant for the guys used to pad records early on in boxing. They show up, get beaten, collect a paycheck, repeat. They serve the purpose of adding numbers and non-threatening experience to a young fighter. If you want names of cans in MMA, look at the first five opponents of just about any top fighter other than Randy, Hendo, Brock, or Nastula. There’s tons of them. They don’t get famous because they only do two things; suck and lose.
I don’t believe there is a can in the UFC, and that’s what makes them a great organization.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 19, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have no problem with what you are saying but I think that maybe you are confusing “your” definition with “the” definition of what a can is. You say I am confused with what I wrote but when you get right down to it does anyone actually know of an official definition for the term Tomato Can? If there isn’t an official definition then no one’s definition is actually wrong and we are all just puffing up because other people don’t agree with our personal opinions on the subject.
Was he? Because it seems that Dana brought him (and Paulo Thiago) as prospects with multi-fight contracts instead of guys who were just supposed to lose to make other fighters look better. Who decides if a guy with legitimate talent was just brought in to lose or if they were brought in to be tested to see where they stand? Do we as fans decide what Zuffa is thinking when they make match ups? I personally would have to say that JDS and Paulo were n’o brought in specifically to lose just as Rashad wasn’t specifically brought in just to lose to Chuck. They were giving young guys a shot not feeding established fighters “guaranteed wins”.
Rashad/Liddell was nothing like Dos Santos/Werdum or Thiago/Koscheck.
When Dos Santos fought Werdum, he was less than a year removed from getting armbarred by Joaquim Ferreira and was making his debut against a 3-fight UFC veteran with a world-class BJJ game.
When Thiago fought Koscheck, he’d never competed above Jungle Fight level, and he was being put in against a world-class guy with thirteen UFC bouts under his belt.
Most guys making their UFC debuts don’t get these kinds of opponents. These matches were made with the expectation that both Werdum and Koscheck would almost certainly win.
Paulo’s fight was a tryout but Dos Santos was a kick boxing world champion and one of Big Nog’s students going into that fight. Yea it was a heck of a match to make but it wasn’t like they just expected him go out there and lose. They even had Dos Santos in one of Dana White’s blogs before the Werdum fight, the UFC had to at least suspect he was more than a easy win to feed to Werdum when they signed that fight. Heck the fact that both Paulo and JDS turned out to be the real deal speaks alot for the UFC scouting guys and booking fights, how often does the UFC just bring in guys from out of the blue to feed to title contenders? Don’t assume that just because most fans thought they were guaranteed wins for the known guy that that was the reason the UFC booked them like that.
Paulo Thiago was brought in to lose to Koscheck
Can’t really say that someone’s a Can just because they’re brought in to lose.
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
Not really. Everyone had a bad feeling about the new match up.
"For your information, I would like to ask a question."
-Samuel Goldwyn
Joe Rogan knew.
"My only hope is that the Big Lebowski kills me before the Germans cut my dick off."
by Earl Montclair on Mar 20, 2010 7:00 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s hard to put a definition on the term as it is completely subjective to the fight booking. Is Wes Sims a can? Is James Thompson a can? Well you can’t really call either one a can straight out but there are cases where the match making definately points in that direction. Is Wes SIms a can if he is fighting Travis Fulton or Steve Bosse? Is Wes Sims a can if he is fighting Bobby Lashley on a week’s notice? Is James Thompson a can when he is fighting Jim York, Neil Grove or Rob Broughton? How about when he is fighting Alistair Overeem?
No fighter starts out wanting to be a can, no one starts in a sport hoping they can lose to everyone and make other guys look better. Heck even guys that most people think of that way probably don’t think of themselves in that manner. It’s the fights not the fighters that really defines a can, Shannon Rich vs Sherman Pendergrarst wouldn’t be a can fight even though both guys are considered cans because both guys have a shot. There are very few guys you could outright label as cans but there are all sorts of fights that happen that can be labeled as “facing a can”. We put the emphasis in the wrong place it’s the booking not the individual fighters that makes up the definition of a can. Really it should be considered an adverb to describe a fight not an adjective to describe a fighter(well in Shawn Nolan’s case it is pretty obviously both).
by who me on Mar 19, 2010 12:15 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
See my post directly above.
You are confusing the term “can” which is a fighter with the term “showcase” or “squash match” which is a fight.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I replied to your post above already. Instead of talking about confusion or not I will just go to the dictionary and snag their definition:
Tomato Can
In the context of American boxing or mixed martial arts, a tomato can is a boxer 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. CharacteristicsA 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 red fluid (tomato juice/blood) when being beaten in a fight. Surprises and upsetsIt must be noted that victory over a tomato can is not a certainty. Journeyman boxers generally regarded as tomato cans have been known to provide surprising challenges to champions and in several instances, cause shocking upsets against supposedly superior opponents.
On March 24, 1975, Muhammad Ali faced Chuck Wepner, a lightly regarded but popular boxer from New Jersey. A former nightclub bouncer, Wepner was nicknamed the “The Bayonne Bleeder” and was considered a washed-up contender with a poor record. Don King selected Wepner as a tomato can to provide an easy victory for Ali after his famous win over George Foreman.1 In a surprising turn of events, Wepner scored a disputed knockdown in the ninth round, survived 19 seconds short of the distance, before losing to a TKO in the 15th round.2 Wepner’s bout with Ali provided the inspiration for Sylvester Stallone’s movie Rocky.3
In a fight on February 11, 1990, Mike Tyson lost his championship to James “Buster” Douglas in Tokyo.4 The victory over Tyson, the previously undefeated “baddest man on the planet” and arguably the most feared boxer in professional boxing at that time, at the hands of the 42-1 betting odds underdog Douglas, has been described as one of the most shocking upsets in modern sports history.5 Douglas was widely regarded as a tomato can, lined up to provide an easy victory for Tyson at that time. That view was borne out later when Douglas lost his first title defense against Evander Holyfield and was never able to successfully compete at such a high level again.
by who me on Mar 19, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
tomato can (plural tomato cans)
(slang, boxing, derogatory) An inferior fighter in the sport of boxing; The insinuation is that an up and coming fighter takes on a “tomato can” to burnish his reputation and record.
(slang, boxing) A boxer who “takes a dive” or loses a fight on purpose.
this.
is where the term can came from…
not hard to crush, and spews red stuff when you do…
duuuuh..
Actually a can of tomatoes is sort of hard to crush but yea the spewing of red stuff is the source of the phrase :D
Actually, cans can be crushed quite easily
if you know how to properly apply pressure and a structural weak point.
It seems like you and I naturally disagree on damn near everything, so I am compelled to argue against anything you say. You say PRIDE was great, I’ll tell you about how dangerous stomps and soccer kicks are. You make an off-hand comment about the octagon being the best fighting surface, I’ll go into how the cage is a hindrance to the action and a ring is superior. Tell me I’m an intelligent and valuable contributer to BE, I’ll write two paragraphs detailing how I’m a useless shitheel who doesn’t know anything about MMA. The game is on, sir!
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I shall end this
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
by Damon O. on Mar 19, 2010 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Mission: Impossible
That’s a helicopter chase seen in the Chunnel, BTW.
The “Charizard” is actually explosive chewing gum. I like the film – fun action/spy film, nothing too deep. Good, mindless fun.
New Orleans Saints - 2010 Super Bowl Champions. Unbelievable. Who Dat.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Mar 20, 2010 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I always thought it came from the idea that is was a “canned” victory – manufactured for someone to win.
New Orleans Saints - 2010 Super Bowl Champions. Unbelievable. Who Dat.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Mar 19, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
What you are describing as a showcase or squash match is what the dictionary describes as a Tomato Can. The crux of the definition is that it is a easy win for one of the fighters not that one of the fighters only exist to lose fights to everyone he faces. Heck when you get right down to it the definitions actually fit closest with what MMAEruption stated.
When you go to a boxing gym and hang out with people in the boxing world you’ll find very few fighters are referred to as tomato cans. That is a derogatory term. A tomato can is really a worthless fighter who has no chance to win against anyone with even mediocre skills. He does little or nothing to even work on his fight game. He shows up only to lose and collect a purse. In the parlance of the boxing world, a fighter who fights and loses often for the purses but is not that bad of boxer is a “ham and eggers” and those who may be able to fight but are booked against someone who is clearly superior is an “opponent”.
You have to admit, he’s got a point. Most fights should be competitive. If the result is a foregone conclusion, with the only reason for the match up to display the skills of the likely victor, then his opponent is a can. Ken Shamrock is very much a can these days, regardless of what his skill was like when he was a former champion.
Which is why when I think of tomato cans I don’t think of it in terms of fighters I think of it in terms of fighter match ups. It’s an insulting term towards a fighter but lets be real there are all sorts of match ups out there that are booked specifically to be one sided beatings. What guys in a gym call cans and fight promoters call cans are going to be two different things because of that, they see things in two very different ways. In the same manner fans talking about the issue are going to have different ideas about what it means too. Is anyone’s personal definition the official definition here?
Back to the online definitions again.
tomato can n. an inferior boxer.
Citations: 1955 Jack Gregson New York Herald Tribune (New York City) (Nov. 6) "A Glossary of Fight Terms for TV Fans" p. 23 @ ADS-L (Dec. 10, 2001) Barry Popik "War on Poverty (1955); The Way It Is; Fight Terms": "Tomato Can"—an inferior fighter. This reference is generally made by one manager describing another manager’s fighter. [1983 Globe and Mail (Toronto, Can.) (Feb. 11) "Boxer cannot find his size" p. P19: I’ve learned my lesson the hard way. I don’t want to end up looking like a tomato can when my career is over.] 1987 Jack Fiske San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 5) "Now Everyone Wants to Take a Shot at Foreman" p. 61: Carlos DeLeon’s one-round KO of a tomato can, who quit after a hook to the body, on the Tyson-Tony Tucker card, was not conclusive enough to showcase him as future opponent for Tyson. 2004 Dave Hackenberg Toledo Blade (Ohio) (May 4) "Nondescript heavies make Tyson interesting": McBride is, to be gracious, a journeyman. In boxing parlance he is a tomato can. He hasn’t fought anyone, to speak of, yet has kissed plenty of canvas.
http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/tomato_can/
quote fail….
tomato can n. an inferior boxer.
Citations: 1955 Jack Gregson New York Herald Tribune (New York City) (Nov. 6) “A Glossary of Fight Terms for TV Fans” p. 23 @ ADS-L (Dec. 10, 2001) Barry Popik “War on Poverty (1955); The Way It Is; Fight Terms”: “Tomato Can”—an inferior fighter. This reference is generally made by one manager describing another manager’s fighter. [1983 Globe and Mail (Toronto, Can.) (Feb. 11) “Boxer cannot find his size” p. P19: I’ve learned my lesson the hard way. I don’t want to end up looking like a tomato can when my career is over.] 1987 Jack Fiske San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 5) “Now Everyone Wants to Take a Shot at Foreman” p. 61: Carlos DeLeon’s one-round KO of a tomato can, who quit after a hook to the body, on the Tyson-Tony Tucker card, was not conclusive enough to showcase him as future opponent for Tyson. 2004 Dave Hackenberg Toledo Blade (Ohio) (May 4) “Nondescript heavies make Tyson interesting”: McBride is, to be gracious, a journeyman. In boxing parlance he is a tomato can. He hasn’t fought anyone, to speak of, yet has kissed plenty of canvas.
If the definition that they cited going back to sports writers in the 1950’s is “an inferior boxer” then there is a heck of a lot of room for interpretation there. Guys go into fights with inferior fighters all the time, that doesn’t mean the guy is just there to take a fall or some kind of stooge who only fights to lose.
Of course no fighter starts out wanting to be a Can, but that’s how the cookie crumbles. If two Can’s fight, their ultra limited skillsets and less than stellar records aren’t magically erased from existence. They’re both still Can’s. A promoter does not assign a fighters attributes, train them, or make sure they lives a healthy lifestyle. That’s all on the fighter.
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
So your definition is that a can is a shitty fighter who has always been a shitty fighter but not a shitty fighter who used to be a decent fighter in his younger days or a fighter who is only currently a shitty fighter because he is fighting at a higher level that his current skill set(unless his skill set is shitty). Yep, clear as mud, so who decides if a shitty fighter actually is a shitty fighter and label’s him a can?
Jose "Can"seco
of course, you have to have some relative experience to be a “can”, but i think the shoe may fit.
he has relative experience of sucking.
so he qualifies.
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 19, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Great.
The only thing I can add are:
- the term “can” is shortened from “tomato can”. I’ve heard that tomato can refers to the fact that they can easily be crushed and/or they open easily and bleed (in other words, get beat up easy).
- the hierarchy in boxing (and now mma) is, in descending order: champions, contenders, fringe contenders, journeymen, opponents, and “tomato cans”.
by John Nash on Mar 19, 2010 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
I always knew what in meant but didn’t know it’s origin. Now if some one could tell me where the use of the word “WAR” as used on every MMA forum came from ala WAR Simms. It sounds like some thing BJ might have started but I’m not sure.
Started on Sherdog
Before the forum area degenerated into a cesspool. Tis all I know.
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
If I remember right
It started with the James Thompson War Wagon.
by Chris Barton on Mar 19, 2010 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions
He's also shot
Like completely. He’s like a ’89 Volvo. Still running but just barely.
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
A can is a fighter that isn’t given a chance to win. Whether it be a very shitty fighter with a very bad record, or a fighter that was good 15 years ago. A fighter is called “shot” after a couple years and many loses but after awhile that term loses definition and that fighter is a can. James Thompson is a can. He is only given a chance against the lowest level fighter. Even then he still might not win. I think he fought butterbean awhile ago. Butterbean is a can even worse then james thompson. This is a useless debate. A can is a Can. And we all know what a can is plain and simple.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
