The idea that people's momentums are mostly based on their current streak and that title shots usually shouldn't go to people off a loss? What a unique and ridiculous brand of thinking I use. I must be the only person who imagines shit should work like that.
If you lose to someone, you fall behind them. If you continue to win afterwards and they lose, then you can pass them. (If i haven't lost you yet, I can slow down, just let me know.) Ok, so..
He did lose to Izzy. Then he beat 2 high rank guys and Izzy has 2 losses since, including his last fight. Again, I'll pause here so you can take a breath and get some oxygen to that.. well, let's call it a "brain."
You'll harp on "decisive" losses to Izzy and Rob, yet ignore that they weren't "robbed" of anything in their decisive losses. And speaking of robbing, think about this question for a second while trying not to overload yourself: If Sean was robbed by DDP, then who is the current champ? That's right. It's DDP. Because we don't change fight results based on our feelings. And that's why Jared has a win over him too. (Also, hilarious you refer to two 50-50 fights as "robberies and expect to be taken seriously).
Then you list current booked fights when the whole conversation started with where Jared was nearly a year ago and act like Jared's lack of marketability is reason enough against him in an argument that is where he should be based on some sense of meritocracy. Did you miss that this revolved around the concept of 'should'? Are you incapable of that kind of thought or did you just forget to check your spectrum at the door?
