Search results for query: *

Huh? I'm trying to talk about fighting on an MMA discussion forum. I gave my opinion on matchup outcomes in the main post, and explained how I came to those numbers in a later post. Only a few people have responded to talk about MMA, you being one of them. Why is it better to post nonsense than...

You did it again. I watched those fights. Try and stay on topic. P.S. What do you mean in your statement that I bolded?

I'll use whatever reasons I believe to be true. His coaches said he was prepared before the fight, but have admitted otherwise since the fight. Kavanagh said it on Ariel's show very recently. Said there's a night and day difference between his commitment for Khabib, and his commitment for Cowboy...

Back up the shit you say by explaining why you think it. You might as well have just posted "I disagree." and left it at that. Yes, Conor does think he won round 1 if you go by the letter of the law: If you disagree, respond to that post in that thread instead of derailing this one.

Had you gone to more trouble, maybe you wouldn't look stupid. I already know the bold stuff, which makes up the majority of your post. So that wasn't time well spent. He's not just another guy at 155 on the subject of how good a fighter he is. Re-read the OP, as it actually shows that he's the...

"Because I think so" isn't my answer to the question. The reason I think so is the answer to the question. What a shit post . Terrible

Translation: I'm biased in favor of Conor, so I'm wrong? Agree that I'm biased in favor of Conor. Disagree that I'm wrong. How about you tell me how I'm wrong. Only one person thus far has looked at potential matchups to retute the OP. I replied to him and told him how he's wrong. Has no one...

Content, guys. When you post, say stuff.

Could you please make an effort to be more clear about what you mean or I'll keep needing to ask for your meaning? Hypothetically if Superman came down to Earth, would he not be the best at fighting, regardless of whether he had any MMA fights? This is clearly true, and why you're clearly wrong...

Don't pull a muscle from all that running.

True. So is the OP.

You've contradicted yourself. You said "fights that have happened are the fights that could happen most of the time". So why did you pick the guy who lost the first fight, if you believe he loses most of the time? This fighter you picked, he wasn't the best fighter in the division at doing...

Possibly.

Stupid post. No he wasn't. And even if he was, that's irrelevant to my post.

Me and anyone who can score fights properly. DETAILS

Masvidal arguably beat Usman. Burns, a good all-rounder but far from elite on the feet, and wasn't a top LW, badly hurt Usman on the feet. Considering how Masvidal and Burns fared against Usman, Conor and Dustin both have a very good chance against Usman.

Make an effort when you post. Ensure your posts have content. At no point did I claim my liking of Conor was why I awarded him the points. Nor did you demonstrate that it's the case. If it's a "clownshoe premise", then demonstrate it. Anyone can say that about anyone's post, but not everyone can...

Slight correction: Advocating for the ranking of fighters based on speculation via real fights that already happened. Yeah, that's the best way for rankings to be meaningful and useful in MMA.

So presumably you've never picked any fighter to win a rematch when they lost the first time? Some crazy shit. And you're proven wrong by so many examples from the past. Too many to even list. Ah so you were just talking about human bias. I've demonstrated less bias than most people in this...

yeh. watch masvidal fight