can rick story take down thiago alves?

[MMAdisciple]

I feel you know that every single point you made got proved wrong, and you have no rebuttal.

Most of this a matter of perception and opinion. idk how you're going to "prove" that wrong with your own perception and opinion. I'd absolutely love to give your "proof" a "rebuttal", but it was as I labeled it - a passive aggressive rant...sorry.

Story of your life.

That line is a story of the late 90's. Give it back.

And you don't know me, fool.

It was hard for me to be concise and kind

Lol, so you can't afford me the combination of "concise and kind".

Your ramblings are layered with forced & ridiculous looking prose, you're a try-too-hard snob. So if you want to be that lame and assume "internet respect" amongst mostly gamblers/frauds/trolls is such a highly regarded thing (lol), you might want to look at yourself first.

when you said so many absurd things which highlighted a glaring lack of MMA knowledge.

"Highlighted a glaring lack of MMA knowledge", huh? Lol, more prententious, elitist snobbery.

My money says different. My money in my time doing this says different. The real top fight bettors aren't bums with threads on a forum, like you, "Ladle". The real top fight bettors don't whore out their strongest picks to the public, and they don't ever say "look at me". So if your "MMA knowledge" overflows (lol) but you're still a flea/cockroach/ant on a forum trying to maintain a thread, stfu and play your part.

Five different posters (not including myself) ridiculed you for your absolutely ridiculous posts in my thread. But, of course, you know that. You obviously checked and then went back to cowering beneath your keyboard.

Since you're so good at "proving" things, why don't you prove how your last assertion is "obvious"? Did you know what I did after I commented in your thread the first time? I watched the event and forgot you existed. I wasn't hanging around on the internet. A month later I clicked again and the first thing I saw was your blunderous, stupid (or amatuer at best) "wager" on Brilz and decided to do a little laughing at you (which you probably can admit you deserved). Then I responded to what you said (since you police your thread around the clock and replied right away) - then I went back to doing what I did the first time - "not clicking".

Those 5 posters can think what they'd like, but you might be forgetting that was an if discussion with the if clearly stated - and you should also know that I seek their approval as much as I seek yours

[bogbat]

If you're a high volume gambler I think +175 is definitely worth a shot on Story. You have to also consider that at this stage of his career he is vastly improving from fight to fight. This could be a breakout performance for him.

I also like Travis Browne at + money.

[Ladle]

"MMAdisciple": First of all, I find it funny that your response contains nothing which is relevant to any of the points I made about MMA.

Most of this a matter of perception and opinion. idk how you're going to "prove" that wrong with your own perception and opinion.

I was criticising your stupid perceptions and opinions; it's your job to provide a rebuttal to prove that your opinions and perceptions aren't stupid. However, because you were too scared/ignorant to give a response, everyone will consider your opinions and perceptions to be stupid.

I'd absolutely love to give your "proof" a "rebuttal", but it was as I labeled it - a passive aggressive rant...sorry.

It's very obvious to everyone here that you're running away from a debate which you can't win. Are you seriously telling me that you're not going to provide a rebuttal to any of my points based on the grounds that you perceive what I said to be a "rant"? That is absolutely absurd. Hell, it wasn't even a rant; I quoted each section of your inane post separately and totally discredited it, bit by bit. The vast majority of my post was strictly pertaining to MMA. Sure, I occasionally pointed out the fact that you're a moron, but is that really a good enough reason for you to run away? If you're above that, why don't you offer up a response to the points I made about MMA (which was clearly the bulk of the post)? I'll tell you why you don't: because you can't. Just like you couldn't when you claimed that Mario Miranda's best chance of beating Simpson was by TKO. Just like when you couldn't when you claimed that Rogerio won the first round against Brilz. You were too dumb to respond, so you ran like a pussy.

That line is a story of the late 90's. Give it back.

And you don't know me, fool.

I can gauge a lot about you as a person from your pathetic actions on these forums. You were butt-hurt that you got destroyed by me in three debates, so you decided to come to my thread and mock me about a prediction regarding a fight which had already taken place (even though you had also stated that you believed Jason Brilz would win that fight in another thread). That makes you the lowest form of troll. You're not worth a penny on this earth.

Lol, so you can't afford me the combination of "concise and kind".

Why on earth would I afford that combination to a piece of dog sh*t like you? I'll be harsh, and I'll be harsh in detail.

Your ramblings are layered with forced & ridiculous looking prose, you're a try-too-hard snob. So if you want to be that lame and assume "internet respect" amongst mostly gamblers/frauds/trolls is such a highly regarded thing (lol), you might want to look at yourself first.

I find it funny that you accuse me of trying too hard, yet you go and use the phrase "layered with forced and ridiculous looking prose". I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Where do you come up with this sh*t? Are you trying to sound smart? Because you just sound like a total retard. Stop wasting my time with your nonsense, you pretentious scumbag.

Also, I don't consider "internet respect" as something of great significance; I just like sharing my opinions with other like-minded, intelligent folk. It makes sense that we'd have an appreciation for one another. It also makes sense that we'd find ignorant scumbags like you intolerable.

"Highlighted a glaring lack of MMA knowledge", huh? Lol, more prententious, elitist snobbery.

Nope, pretty sure it highlighted you to be an enormous moron. You don't understand that defensive and offensive wrestling are two different skills; you made an inane comparison about Diego Sanchez and implied that he's a good offensive wrestler; you don't understand the fundamental concept of looking at fighters' skill sets and comparing them; and you believe that a guy's pre-fight talk has implications on the fight itself.

Yup, you're definitely ignorant. On top of that, you misquoted me and called someone who would beat your pathetic ass into oblivion a "knockout dummy".

The real top fight bettors aren't bums with threads on a forum, like you, "Ladle". The real top fight bettors don't whore out their strongest picks to the public, and they don't ever say "look at me". So if your "MMA knowledge" overflows (lol) but you're still a flea/cockroach/ant on a forum trying to maintain a thread, stfu and play your part.

Who are these top bettors you speak of? And how do you know they're more successful than I am, or Vaughany is, or Eccocide is, or anyone else with a betting thread? Also, what part is this you expect me to play? You're scarcely making any sense.

If I'm an "ant", then what does that make you? I'll tell you: you're somebody who lost to an ant in a debate three times in a row, and was then ridiculed by other ants in this ant's own betting thread. That must make you an amoeba. Or maybe a waterlogged piece of cardboard. Or maybe a *insert painfully inconsequential, non-sentient matter here*.

My money says different. My money in my time doing this says different.

I'd be willing to wager on the fact that you're not even turning a profit. Your knowledge is laughable, and the fact you still expect to be taken seriously after being embarrassed so many times is hysterical.

Since you're so good at "proving" things, why don't you prove how your last assertion is "obvious"? Did you know what I did after I commented in your thread the first time? I watched the event and forgot you existed. I wasn't hanging around on the internet.

Your history on this site is all the proof I need. You ran away on multiple occasions before like a little b*tch when you realised you were outmatched, and you did it again.

A month later I clicked again and the first thing I saw was your blunderous, stupid (or amatuer at best) "wager" on Brilz and decided to do a little laughing at you (which you probably can admit you deserved).

You also predicted that Jason Brilz would win that fight in another thread! I didn't think it was possible, but you're actually making yourself look even worse. You might be doing a better job than I am.

By the way, "blunderous" isn't a word. Stop trying to sound clever. How many times do I need to tell you that you're f*cking stupid before you truly accept it?

And no, I didn't deserve that. Did I ridicule you after Aaron Simpson didn't gas and didn't get tagged and completely manhandled Mario Miranda for three rounds? No. Also, I criticised your opinion before the fight. For you to come onto my thread afterwards and start discrediting my opinion is an absolute b*tch move. It's the lowest thing you could have done, and five different posters agreed with that.

Then I responded to what you said (since you police your thread around the clock and replied right away) - then I went back to doing what I did the first time - "not clicking".

Yeah, of course you did. You don't leave snide remarks like you did - with the clear intention of provoking a response - and then never check the thread again. Not only are you a low-life, but you're also a liar.

Those 5 posters can think what they'd like, but you might be forgetting that was an if discussion with the if clearly stated - and you should also know that I seek their approval as much as I seek yours

I don't care if you seek my approval, and I'm sure they don't care either. We're gonna let you know that you're a piece of sh*t either way.

[bjpenn85]

It seems like it isnt possible to be a high gambler. I have now been restricted at the three bookies. You cant win big money against them. It is just not possible. They either fix the line, or limit your wager and so on. Im thinking about quitting...

[Vaughany]

It seems like it isnt possible to be a high gambler. I have now been restricted at the three bookies. You cant win big money against them. It is just not possible. They either fix the line, or limit your wager and so on. Im thinking about quitting...

Sucks I know! Which three books? Are u with Pinnacle?

[sirchadwick1]

It seems like it isnt possible to be a high gambler..

Not at all impossible... just roll up a good one, inhale and hold in for 15-20 seconds.
Then bet away! Works for me.

[Vaughany]

Not at all impossible... just roll up a good one, inhale and hold in for 15-20 seconds.
Then bet away! Works for me.

[Chairib]

I knew all you guys were a bunch of pole smokers.

[bjpenn85]

I had problems with payout from pinnacle. In a couple of month after deposited 50 dollars, i won shitloads of dollars, and they just didnt answered my emails, told me they never got my documents that i gave them. All just excuses to avoid giving me my payout. They were inpossible to make contact with. Now on paddy, max bet is 18 euros at best. 5dimes, after my last winning this weekend has limited me to 100 dollars max bet. Expekt, does rarely accept more than 20% of my wager, and i am just wondering whats next. Its such a pain in the ass... i dont know if its worth it. At the same time, **** what a sport and what a hobby!

[RaiderNation MMA]

i think alves wins flat out, he has great takedown defense and a destructive stand up

[MMAdisciple]

It's very obvious to everyone here that you're running away from a debate which you can't win.

"Running away" but "responding"...hows that work?

Are you seriously telling me that you're not going to provide a rebuttal to any of my points based on the grounds that you perceive what I said to be a "rant"?

Key words in the post you failed to comprehend = "passive", "aggressive".

Just like you couldn't when you claimed that Mario Miranda's best chance of beating Simpson was by TKO.

I claimed that and that's all I needed to claim. I believed Simpson was the rightful favorite so me thinking Miranda's best chances to win was by TKO really doesn't matter. It's not really important, "Ladle", calm down. While you hyperventilate, just remember: I thought if he would win it would be by TKO, you thought submission...neither happened.

Just like when you couldn't when you claimed that Rogerio won the first round against Brilz. You were too dumb to respond, so you ran like a pussy.

Uh...I clearly told you how Brilz didn't deserve to win the fight. I also reminded you that 2 of 3 judges agreed. Again...this is all you need to know. I don't understand what you're trying to cling to here.

You were butt-hurt that you got destroyed by me in three debates

Lol, you are an idiot. And if "butt-hurt" is what describes me...what describes your soreness? I'm sure it's much more explicit.

(even though you had also stated that you believed Jason Brilz would win that fight in another thread). That makes you the lowest form of troll. You're not worth a penny on this earth.

Whoa, whoa...easy, guy! Your anger has reached a new height. You ask to "debate" me but again...this kind of passive aggression makes it hard (and usually tells me I'm wasting my time with an inferior poster). I believed Brilz had a slight edge but that has nothing to do with calling your ridiculous bet "ridiculous".

Why on earth would I afford that combination to a piece of dog sh*t like you? I'll be harsh, and I'll be harsh in detail.

More anger! I guess I really got to you. And that second sentence is very dumb looking/sounding. Just say it out loud, lol, I would laugh in your face.

I find it funny that you accuse me of trying too hard, yet you go and use the phrase "layered with forced and ridiculous looking prose". I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Where do you come up with this sh*t? Are you trying to sound smart?

"layered"..."ridiculous"..."prose"...whi ch word is "trying to sound smart"? Or was it the structure that impressed you? I described you perfectly and you basically said "I know you are, but what am I?"

Because you just sound like a total retard. Stop wasting my time with your nonsense, you pretentious scumbag.

Quoted for (yet again) more (low, weird) e-aggression and lack of depth. I say "pretentious" then you say "pretentious"...yes I am running from your debating style (which can be summed up as, "no, you!") as fast as I can

It also makes sense that we'd find ignorant scumbags like you intolerable.

Another "try saying that dumb shit out loud" remark. Who can't "tolerate" me? Just you.

you called someone who would beat your pathetic ass into oblivion a "knockout dummy".

Lol...what does a professional fighter (possibly) being able to beat a non-pro up have to do with anything? Your anger is making you say some stupid things in this post

Who are these top bettors you speak of?

I was reminding you that you weren't one...refocus.

And how do you know they're more successful than I am, or Vaughany is, or Eccocide is, or anyone else with a betting thread?

Name-dropping 101, huh. Lol, I was reminding you...

Also, what part is this you expect me to play?

Why, the biggest part you have here...the guess thread, the snobbery (and awful, forced prose), and now added to the list is your new found anger that sticks out like a sore thumb.

you're somebody who lost to an ant in a debate three times in a row...

Simpson/Miranda - no TKO, no sub, no significance.

Brilz/Nog - no need to rehash an argument you lost, Nog won and for clear reason. Close fight, yeah, but Brilz was/is the inferior fighter - slightly or not...and lost.

Now - Lol? Is that what you mean? You kinda went crazy on us/me, "Ladle". It's not really normal to "debate" with rage & hate, sorry that I'm not interested

I'd be willing to wager on the fact that you're not even turning a profit.

Wager what...your virtual e-units by way of passive aggressive bluff? Lol.

(repeating himself, anger still clear)

You also predicted that Jason Brilz would win that fight in another thread!

You're stuck on repeat. Yeah, stupid "didn't think first" post from you today.

By the way, "blunderous" isn't a word.

Really? This proves where you are in the pecking order of prose/usage/vocab etc (all the stuff your pathetic front aims to excel at)...I knew the definition before I looked it up! Lol. Confident writers (or speakers, for that matter) aren't afraid to use it. http://www.wordnik.com/words/blunderous

Stop trying to sound clever. How many times do I need to tell you that you're f*cking stupid before you truly accept it?

Is this supposed to be "originality"? I'm getting bored (and this is after I woke up from your nap-inducing repetitions). Yes "Ladle" we respect your intellect the most, and your anger makes you look so mentally competent/stable.

And no, I didn't deserve that.

Stop crying - be a man. You made a thoughtless, idiotic bet and what I had to say was more proper than " bro you'll come back". You're welcome.

Did I ridicule you after Aaron Simpson didn't gas and didn't get tagged and completely manhandled Mario Miranda for three rounds?

Did you ridicule me after Simpson completed one of my parlays? No, you didn't/couldn't, so please, shut up about it now.

For you to come onto my thread afterwards and start discrediting my opinion is an absolute b*tch move. It's the lowest thing you could have done, and five different posters agreed with that

yes, you're right (but not about "afterwards" being a word, since we're nitpicking now). We should only look at opinions before fights, not after the results of those fights come! Whoa.

Not only are you a low-life, but you're also a liar.

I told you how it went. Going on to say it was the opposite (by guessing) is making you look stupid.

(I'm) gonna let you know that you're a piece of sh*t either way.

Fixed.

[illmatick]

10-8 round for disciple.

Ladle still up 2 points.

[Chairib]

10-8 round for disciple.

Ladle still up 2 points.

lulz

[Ladle]

Stop crying - be a man. You made a thoughtless, idiotic bet and what I had to say was more proper than " bro you'll come back". You're welcome.

I find this statement hypocritical after you admitted on this board that you "can't wait to die" because your girlfriend's dog died. You scarcely qualify as a man at all. Here's what was said:

I know some people don't think it's normal to grieve hard over a pet, but since she died, I haven't been the same. And I don't want to be. I can't wait to die. I feel guilty for doing the things I enjoy, how could I smile and laugh when my princess is gone? So I (mostly) started skipping UFC events, stopped talking to friends, and started heavy on the weed. Life sucks.

You're pathetic. I actually feel sorry for you. Is a dead mutt the reason you came to my thread and tried to pointlessly provoke me? Is your life really that awful? I didn't want to have to make this personal, but your belligerence made it necessary.

Really? This proves where you are in the pecking order of prose/usage/vocab etc (all the stuff your pathetic front aims to excel at)...I knew the definition before I looked it up! Lol. Confident writers (or speakers, for that matter) aren't afraid to use it. http://www.wordnik.com/words/blunderous

That's not a proper dictionary, you moron. You're not going to find "blunderous" in the Collins or Oxford Dictionary. It's not even listed on Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blunderous

"Running away" but "responding"...hows that work?

You're running away from the MMA debate because you thought it was "passive aggressive", yet you're choosing to respond to my other statements (not concerning MMA) which are blatantly aggressive. Can you understand the flaw in that logic?

And, since we're nitpicking, it's "how's", not "hows".

I claimed that and that's all I needed to claim. I believed Simpson was the rightful favorite so me thinking Miranda's best chances to win was by TKO really doesn't matter. It's not really important, "Ladle", calm down. While you hyperventilate, just remember: I thought if he would win it would be by TKO, you thought submission...neither happened.

It matters because you completely failed to justify why Miranda's best chance of winning was by TKO. I even re-wrote my rebuttal - removing any language which you might think was "aggressive" - so as not to scare you away. Yet you didn't respond, because at that point you realised your opinion was stupid and unsubstantiated.

Uh...I clearly told you how Brilz didn't deserve to win the fight. I also reminded you that 2 of 3 judges agreed. Again...this is all you need to know. I don't understand what you're trying to cling to here.

I discredited every single one of those points. You had no response to anything I said, and therefore you lost the debate. That's how it works.

Whoa, whoa...easy, guy! Your anger has reached a new height. You ask to "debate" me but again...this kind of passive aggression makes it hard (and usually tells me I'm wasting my time with an inferior poster). I believed Brilz had a slight edge but that has nothing to do with calling your ridiculous bet "ridiculous".

You're spending all of this time arguing with me, yet you won't address my points about MMA. I called you a moron a couple of times, but everything else in that post was strictly pertaining to MMA. Not responding on the grounds that you thought it was "passive aggressive" just makes you look pathetic. Of course, the actual reason you're not responding is because you lack the knowledge and debating skills to compete with me. Then again, you did say you were too busy crying over a dead mutt to keep up with UFC events. Maybe that explains your ignorance.

More anger! I guess I really got to you. And that second sentence is very dumb looking/sounding. Just say it out loud, lol

My sentence is "dumb looking". What an astute observation.

I would laugh in your face.

Ah, you're much funnier than I am. Your life is no longer worth living because a dog which you didn't even own died. That's hysterical and tragic in equal measure.

"layered"..."ridiculous"..."prose".. .whi ch word is "trying to sound smart"? Or was it the structure that impressed you? I described you perfectly and you basically said "I know you are, but what am I?"

It didn't impress me. I actually felt embarrassed for you. If you accuse someone of trying too hard then use a verbose, flowery sentence like "layered with forced and ridiculous looking prose", people are going to laugh at you.

Quoted for (yet again) more (low, weird) e-aggression and lack of depth. I say "pretentious" then you say "pretentious"...yes I am running from your debating style (which can be summed up as, "no, you!") as fast as I can

How on earth is that my debating style? Point by point, I discredited every single thing you said with evidence.

I called you pretentious because I feel it does a very good job of describing an enormous hypocrite who pointlessly provokes arguments (in an attempt to feel better about their awful, awful existence).

Lol...what does a professional fighter (possibly) being able to beat a non-pro up have to do with anything? Your anger is making you say some stupid things in this post

The point is that calling him a knockout dummy is very disrespectful and he would beat your ass if you said that to his face.

I was reminding you that you weren't one...refocus.

I was telling you that I'd like to know who is. Refocus.

Name-dropping 101, huh. Lol, I was reminding you...

No, you weren't. You said "the real top fight bettors aren't bums with threads on a forum, like you, "Ladle"". So who are these alleged top bettors who don't have threads on forums? And how can you be certain of their progress if they don't publicly keep track of their bets? I know justifying your argument with evidence is a foreign concept to you, but it'll help you look like less of a moron. Trust me.

Another "try saying that dumb shit out loud" remark. Who can't "tolerate" me? Just you.

Try saying this "dumb shit" out loud:

"I know some people don't think it's normal to grieve hard over a pet, but since she died, I haven't been the same. And I don't want to be. I can't wait to die."

Why, the biggest part you have here...the guess thread, the snobbery (and awful, forced prose), and now added to the list is your new found anger that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Oh, of course, it was guessing which helped me turn a 40 unit profit on the first event I recorded here. Thanks for clearing that up.

I reserve my "dumb looking sentences" (lol) and anger for you, apparently.

Simpson/Miranda - no TKO, no sub, no significance.

Incorrect. To reiterate, here's what I said earlier: it matters because you completely failed to justify why Miranda's best chance of winning was by TKO. I even re-wrote my rebuttal - removing any language which you might think was "aggressive" - so as not to scare you away. Yet you didn't respond, because at that point you realised your opinion was stupid and unsubstantiated.

Brilz/Nog - no need to rehash an argument you lost, Nog won and for clear reason. Close fight, yeah, but Brilz was/is the inferior fighter - slightly or not...and lost.

Your debating style is so impressive. "Nog won for a clear reason which I won't state!" Here's why you're wrong: ultimately, the gap between Brilz's positional dominance and Rogerio's positional dominance was greater than the gap between Rogerio's striking dominance and Brilz's striking dominance. Compound that with the fact that Brilz also did more damage on the ground - in addition to maintaining dominant position for one minute and seventy two seconds - and the round justifiable should have gone to Brilz.

Now - Lol? Is that what you mean? You kinda went crazy on us/me, "Ladle". It's not really normal to "debate" with rage & hate, sorry that I'm not interested

The other debate you lost was the one regarding Alves and Story, which you (laughably) justified not responding to because you thought it was "passive aggressive". Nobody's buying that feeble excuse. Just admit that your perceptions were unsubstantiated and we can both carry on with our lives. Well, I'm not sure you have much of a life to go back to after that mutt died, but yeah. You get the idea.

Wager what...your virtual e-units by way of passive aggressive bluff? Lol.

It was hypothetical. You took it literally. How embarrassing.

You're stuck on repeat. Yeah, stupid "didn't think first" post from you today.

Stop deflecting, it makes you look weak. In Hoff's betting thread, you placed a bet on three fighters, and one of them was Jason Brilz. You were in no position to mock me for also wagering on Brilz. Why didn't you show some integrity and criticise that bet before the fight took place? You didn't because - before the fight - you had absolutely no way of proving it was a bad bet. You're just a pathetic person, who realises his life sucks, and takes out his frustration by mocking random people on the internet. It's about as low as you can get.

Is this supposed to be "originality"? I'm getting bored (and this is after I woke up from your nap-inducing repetitions). Yes "Ladle" we respect your intellect the most, and your anger makes you look so mentally competent/stable.

Anger is a natural response to frustration. Your idiocy frustrates me. Doesn't sound like mental instability to me.

Did you ridicule me after Simpson completed one of my parlays? No, you didn't/couldn't, so please, shut up about it now.

I didn't because there was no record of you even making that bet. There was, however, evidence of you feeling that Mario Miranda represented some value at +175 (you put $100 on that in Hoff's betting thread). I could definitely mock you for that.

yes, you're right (but not about "afterwards" being a word, since we're nitpicking now). We should only look at opinions before fights, not after the results of those fights come! Whoa.

You're wrong again. Afterwards is an accepted alternate to afterward. Without the "s" is perhaps the preferred variant, but both are accepted.

Surely you can at least accept that what you pulled was a bitch move? I made a single bad bet that evening, and you cherry-picked a single line of inaccurate analysis regarding that bet and mocked me for it. That is absolutely pathetic, and you know it is.

Would you have criticised that line of analysis before the fight took place? Of course you wouldn't have. There was no evidence prior to that which suggested that Matyushenko was a such a solid striker. Nobody could have accurately predicted that Brilz was going to get blown out of the water like that (hence the 35 to 1 odds on Vlad having the fastest TKO of the night). As bettors, we can only make wagers based on the evidence we have. Based on what we knew about Brilz and Matyushenko prior to that fight, it didn't seem like a bad bet - hence why nobody told me it was a bad bet before the fight happened.

I told you how it went. Going on to say it was the opposite (by guessing) is making you look stupid.

If you expect anyone to believe that you came to a thread with the intention of provoking an argument, and never checked it again, then you're the one who's going to look (even more) stupid.

Fixed.

Other people think you're a piece of shit too, but I won't speak for them.

10-8 round for disciple.

Ladle still up 2 points.

If that was a 10-8, then this one is the most blatant of 10-7s.

[illmatick]

I need a response first but you may be right.

Unfortunately, I might have to take away a point away for the dead dog comment. Bit of a low blow. It gave me my first genuine laugh of the day so I may let it slide.

[Ladle]

I need a response first but you may be right.

Unfortunately, I might have to take away a point away for the dead dog comment. Bit of a low blow. Funny though so I may let it slide.

[MMAdisciple]

I find this statement hypocritical after you admitted on this board that you "can't wait to die" because your girlfriend's dog died. You scarcely qualify as a man at all.

Not like I have anything to hide - I posted that. But guess what? I'm over it, if you can't tell, I spent yesterday laughing at you.

I didn't want to have to make this personal, but your belligerence made it necessary.

"Belligerence"? Show me. I told you the truth and you didn't like it. Getting that personal (and "dead mutt"? Still lacking originality) is like saying "You win, MMAdisciple, I'm furious". So lol, thanks.

That's not a proper dictionary, you moron. You're not going to find "blunderous" in the Collins or Oxford Dictionary.

I guess you have a beef with authors, congress, journalists, and anyone who uses the word. The only place that word doesn't work is Scrabble, lol. Keep reaching.

You're running away from the MMA debate because you thought it was "passive aggressive", yet you're choosing to respond to my other statements (not concerning MMA) which are blatantly aggressive. Can you understand the flaw in that logic?

Yeah, we can talk about you getting angry over internet stuff. But we can't talk about normal stuff : (

It matters because you completely failed to justify why Miranda's best chance of winning was by TKO. I even re-wrote my rebuttal - removing any language which you might think was "aggressive" - so as not to scare you away. Yet you didn't respond, because at that point you realised your opinion was stupid and unsubstantiated.

You prove that comprehension is everything. I told you twice that after my last comment on Simpson, I didn't see your thread until the silly Brilz bet. I'm so sorry I wasn't "debating" speculation with you during a live event, but you're gonna have to get over it.

(an essay worth of circling repetitions)

I had to quit in the middle, you just keep repeating yourself. You have too much time on your hands, I'm sure you're a very successful person

And you can say a dead dog made me depressed - but I (a stranger over the internet) made you pissed the **** off and emotional. Who's worse? LOL.

[Ladle]

(an essay worth of circling repetitions)

Illmatick, this right here is solid confirmation of the 10-7 round. Nice try "MMAdisciple", but you got f*cking owned.

By the way, the correct phrasing would be "essay's worth". Just a heads up.

Not like I have anything to hide - I posted that. But guess what? I'm over it, if you can't tell, I spent yesterday laughing at you.

You posted that thread and then deleted it out of shame. Unfortunately for you, you neglected to remove it from your SBR blog page. This will teach you to be more diligent when trying to remove evidence of your sad, depressing life.

And yeah, I'm sure you had a good time laughing at me yesterday in between prolonged periods of crying.

"Belligerence"? Show me. I told you the truth and you didn't like it. Getting that personal (and "dead mutt"? Still lacking originality) is like saying "You win, MMAdisciple, I'm furious". So lol, thanks.

You made 25 separate inane comments about 25 segments of my previous post. That's belligerence.

I guess you have a beef with authors, congress, journalists, and anyone who uses the word. The only place that word doesn't work is Scrabble, lol. Keep reaching.

I don't have "beef", but any "author" or "journalist" (we'll use those terms loosely) who says it is using a made up word. You can find all kinds of preposterous "words" on those crappy dictionary websites. Consult a proper dictionary in future.

Yeah, we can talk about you getting angry over internet stuff. But we can't talk about normal stuff : (

Thus proving the flaw in your logic. Surely it's more productive to comment on the stuff actually concerning MMA (given that this is an MMA forum), as opposed to my perceived anger?

You prove that comprehension is everything. I told you twice that after my last comment on Simpson, I didn't see your thread until the silly Brilz bet. I'm so sorry I wasn't "debating" speculation with you during a live event, but you're gonna have to get over it.

Isn't it convenient how you stopped checking the thread immediately after your opinions were exposed as unsubstantiated and I invited you to respond?

http://forum.sbrforum.com/boxing-mma-ufc-betting/997375-ladles-mma-betting-p2.html

Follow this link. At the very top of the page is my argument. It contains zero "passive aggression", so you don't need to be scared of replying. But, of course, you won't reply. You can't, because you know your opinion was totally flawed.

You have too much time on your hands, I'm sure you're a very successful person

I'm doing pretty well for myself thanks.

I'd ask you how your life is going, but I already know.

I had to quit in the middle, you just keep repeating yourself. You have too much time on your hands, I'm sure you're a very successful person

You made yourself look so pathetic with that sentence. I almost have to pity you. You clearly had no rebuttal to any of the following reasonable points:

Would you have criticised that line of analysis before the fight took place? Of course you wouldn't have. There was no evidence prior to that which suggested that Matyushenko was a such a solid striker. Nobody could have accurately predicted that Brilz was going to get blown out of the water like that (hence the 35 to 1 odds on Vlad having the fastest TKO of the night). As bettors, we can only make wagers based on the evidence we have. Based on what we knew about Brilz and Matyushenko prior to that fight, it didn't seem like a bad bet - hence why nobody told me it was a bad bet before the fight happened.

I didn't because there was no record of you even making that bet. There was, however, evidence of you feeling that Mario Miranda represented some value at +175 (you put $100 on that in Hoff's betting thread). I could definitely mock you for that.

Stop deflecting, it makes you look weak. In Hoff's betting thread, you placed a bet on three fighters, and one of them was Jason Brilz. You were in no position to mock me for also wagering on Brilz. Why didn't you show some integrity and criticise that bet before the fight took place? You didn't because - before the fight - you had absolutely no way of proving it was a bad bet. You're just a pathetic person, who realises his life sucks, and takes out his frustration by mocking random people on the internet. It's about as low as you can get.

The other debate you lost was the one regarding Alves and Story, which you (laughably) justified not responding to because you thought it was "passive aggressive".

Your debating style is so impressive. "Nog won for a clear reason which I won't state!" Here's why you're wrong: ultimately, the gap between Brilz's positional dominance and Rogerio's positional dominance was greater than the gap between Rogerio's striking dominance and Brilz's striking dominance. Compound that with the fact that Brilz also did more damage on the ground - in addition to maintaining dominant position for one minute and seventy two seconds - and the round justifiable should have gone to Brilz.

So who are these alleged top bettors who don't have threads on forums? And how can you be certain of their progress if they don't publicly keep track of their bets? I know justifying your argument with evidence is a foreign concept to you, but it'll help you look like less of a moron. Trust me.

You're wrong again. Afterwards is an accepted alternate to afterward. Without the "s" is perhaps the preferred variant, but both are accepted.

Oh, of course, it was guessing which helped me turn a 40 unit profit on the first event I recorded here. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you expect anyone to believe that you came to a thread with the intention of provoking an argument, and never checked it again, then you're the one who's going to look (even more) stupid.

And finally...

And you can say a dead dog made me depressed - but I (a stranger over the internet) made you pissed the **** off and emotional. Who's worse? LOL.

DEFINITELY you. You wanted your life to end because a dog died which you didn't even own. That is the epitome of pathetic. I'm just someone who got frustrated with someone else's ignorance, which is a perfectly normal, human response. And, in spite of that frustration, I'm still extremely happy.

EDIT: The final nail in the coffin of "MMAdisciple":

But guess what? I'm over it

You posted that pet nonsense on the 6th April 2011. That means - if what you say is true - you've gone from saying you can't wait to die, to being "over it" in just over a month. That means one of two things: you're either emotionally unstable, or my theory about you being a giant liar is true.

[LayingThe$Down]

fwiw, I like Ladle's points concerning the difference between defensive and offensive wrestling. I feel Alves will be able to keep it standing, or be able to get up quickly if taken down. I am not going to bother with a long technical analysis, I just think it's a mistake to be overly critical of Alves' takedown defense by using GSP and Fitch as evidence of such.

I mean, the 2 top wrestlers in the division by a mile? I think comparison between them and Story is a bit premature.

Alves stopped Koscheck from taking him down, and some say it's because of the 2-week notice? Did Koscheck forget wrestling and require a long training camp to remember it? Koscheck has been wrestling his entire life.....

I think we saw a hesitant and safe Alves in his last fight. If he lost, it would have been 3 losses in a row, and no fighter can afford that. Be careful evaluating Alves's last fight for that reason. In this fight, I predict we will see a looser and more confident Alves, with no long layoff and a win behind him, I expect Alves to perform better.

Story's striking won't match-up well with Alves' MT, so if he doesn't get it down he will be in trouble.

I wouldn't put money on Story on being able to accomplish that. Just my 2 cents.

[Ladle]

I mean, the 2 top wrestlers in the division by a mile? I think comparison between them and Story is a bit premature.

Absolutely premature considering what we've seen of Story's offensive wrestling.

Alves stopped Koscheck from taking him down, and some say it's because of the 2-week notice? Did Koscheck forget wrestling and require a long training camp to remember it? Koscheck has been wrestling his entire life.....

Spot on. It's also worth noting that you never see Koscheck getting out of shape in between fights.

[LayingThe$Down]

Spot on. It's also worth noting that you never see Koscheck getting out of shape in between fights.

Yep. Most wrestlers are gym rats. Whether they have a fight on the horizon or not, they are in the gym every day. That's what it took to excel at wrestling, and they are creatures of habit.

And when you have wrestled hundreds (or thousands) of matches over many years, it isn't something that you simply forget. It isn't like mis-placing your car keys!

I doubt Story can keep Alves on the ground. Hell, I have doubts he can even put him there in the first place.

I may make a play on Alves, particularly if his odds drop below -200. I admit I am cautious betting above -200, and I almost never go above -280. But I feel relatively confident Alves will take this.

[koscheckbaby]

Me no like Story in this fight. He's upper mid-tier, as indicated by marginally beating Hendricks and his struggles with Hathaway and Osipczak. Remember that Hendricks has lost rounds and struggled in virtually all of his fights. His outstanding college wrestling career isn't indicative of the fighter he is. Story's taking a swim in the deep end against Alves. I feel the odds for Alves are very fair, considering he's already shown he can beat good wrestlers, whether it's through takedown defense or just getting back to his feet.

Story should have tried Diego if he wanted a winnable matchup.

[danso]

yeah, i think alves is the surest thing on the 130 main card

[Hannibal]

Definitely not the popular choice... but im banking on story to pull this one out.
5 units @ +175 to win 8.75 units

Not impressed with alves' grappling. I dont think the fight with kos proved anything. Though he has a wicked fast double that can catch most guys, I dont think kos presented the type of relentless grappling that story will bring.
Hughes was able to take him down, fitch was able to do it easily... do you really think a ridiculously powerful wrestler from this new generation of fighters wont be able to??

I'm expecting Story to bring a high paced grappling game that will wear down Alves. Hopefully winning a comfortable decision from the top, or even winning in flurries on the feet or clinch/fence after Thiago fades.

I could be terribly wrong of course, but +175 seems too good for me.

[Dave--M]

i dont see it happening

thiagos stand up is nothing short of brilliant

combined with serious strength and solid takedown defence, and when he does get taken down he gets back to his feet extremely well, ufc100 vs gsp id never seen anyone get back to their feet as well as thiago did after gsp took them down

thiago has this fight

[Ladle]

Hughes was able to take him down, fitch was able to do it easily... do you really think a ridiculously powerful wrestler from this new generation of fighters wont be able to??

What examples of Story's offensive wrestling lead you to believe that he's going to be able to "win a comfortable decision on top"?

You think he'll have more success than Koscheck in the wrestling department because he's more relentless? Since when does being dogged and determined translate into being a truly effective offensive wrestler? Technical acuity is what gets results (as was the case in the Fitch fight, and to a lesser extent the Hughes fight).

or even winning in flurries on the feet or clinch/fence after Thiago fades.

As illmatick pointed out early, those looping punches of Story will make him easy pickings for Alves' counters.

[Hannibal]

I think alves looked awful spending a round on his back against Hughes. Granted, Hughes made a career off that, but its obvious he's old and worn.
When has dogged determination triumphed over technical superiority? Did u watch sanchez against kampmann?

[Ladle]

When has dogged determination triumphed over technical superiority? Did u watch sanchez against kampmann?

That wasn't the question I posed. I'm saying that a technically acute wrestler is more effective than a wrestler who's simply "relentless".

Anyway, are you trying to suggest that Diego Sanchez deserved to win? The consensus opinion on that fight is that Kampmann got robbed. He consistently lit Sanchez up with clean, hard punches yet the judges decided that Diego's failed takedown attempts deserved to take precedence. It was just another example of whacky judging.

By the way, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Diego Sanchez is not a great offensive wrestler. For all his determination, he has historically had a lot of trouble with taking guys down. Arguably the best part of his game comes into play when he bails out on takedowns, flops to his back and sweeps.

[Hannibal]

Sure koscheck is probably the better wrestler, but I recall less than 2 take down attempts each round, and half of them after he was knocked down from a punch and had the shit kicked out of his legs. He made no attempt to implement an aggressive grappling game. He gave alves too much room to work his style.

I'm expecting story to be all over alves from the get go.

[Ladle]

Sure koscheck is probably the better wrestler, but I recall less than 2 take down attempts each round, and half of them after he was knocked down from a punch and had the shit kicked out of his legs. He made no attempt to implement an aggressive grappling game. He gave alves too much room to work his style.

I'm expecting story to be all over alves from the get go.

If by "all over" you mean attempting takedowns, then those takedowns are probably going to be stuffed (Story hasn't shown any examples of offensive wrestling which suggest that he has the same takedown ability as someone like Koscheck). If by "all over" you mean throwing big, looping punches, then those punches are probably going to be countered. Of course I accept that I could be wrong in those assessments, but the point here is that there's barely any evidence to suggest that this is a favourable match-up for Story.