Atrain over Tavares?

[Educ8d Degener8]

...Who you beat will always be more important. Case in point: Jason Reindhart has been destroying cans in very impressive fashion for eleven years, yet he's obviously not UFC level and will be cut when he inevitably loses his next fight.

Jason Reinhardt is a freakin' contender...

[v1y]

Jason Reinhardt is a freakin' contender...

And how much money did you win on Zhang?


I'm not saying level of competition has no relevance. I'm just saying impressively beating a proven B level fighter is a much bigger achievement than barely beating a B+ level fighter.

Beating D level fighters has no relevance to anything, unless of course you barely beat them, in which case it's very relevant.

[Educ8d Degener8]

And how much money did you win on Zhang?


I'm not saying level of competition has no relevance. I'm just saying impressively beating a proven B level fighter is a much bigger achievement than barely beating a B+ level fighter.

Beating D level fighters has no relevance to anything, unless of course you barely beat them, in which case it's very relevant.

I didn't bet that fight. It was two contenders fighting and I only wager on fights when a contender fights a non-contender. So I only bet on fights when Edward Faaloloto, Matt Riddle, Ed Herman and Vagner Rocha are fighting.

[Ladle]

Under this explanation, there is no way to justify how Jones was the favourite over Shogun.

There was nothing about the stylistic matchup that said Jones would win, and Shogun had beaten the much bigger names.

The only explanation is HOW jones won his fights.

Really? You don't think his athleticism, frame, height, reach, and wrestling ability helped make him the favorite?

Bingo. Plus, Shogun has the takedown defense of a toddler on Xanax and didn't seem to have the kind of technical striking ability to get past Jones' reach and put him in jeopardy on the feet. The line was very prominently informed by the style match-up, and if you can't see that, you're probably not too bright.

If you would really like, I could list off all the non contenders in each division currently signed by the UFC?

If you consider Rich Attonito to be a contender at 170, I'd really hate to see who else you have listed as a contender in that division. Duane Ludwig for the win!!11

I didn't bet that fight. It was two contenders fighting and I only wager on fights when a contender fights a non-contender. So I only bet on fights when Edward Faaloloto, Matt Riddle, Ed Herman and Vagner Rocha are fighting.

Beating D level fighters has no relevance to anything, unless of course you barely beat them, in which case it's very relevant.

Peter Sobotta and DaMarques Johnson are D level fighters by UFC standards, yet Sadollah is still a fringe contender in your opinion.

[v1y]

So you think Duane Ludwig would be a favourite over Attonito? I don't. Or are you just saying random shit to be a moron.

My definition of a contender is clearly more inclusive than yours. Get over yourself.

[v1y]

I didn't bet that fight. It was two contenders fighting and I only wager on fights when a contender fights a non-contender. So I only bet on fights when Edward Faaloloto, Matt Riddle, Ed Herman and Vagner Rocha are fighting.

I have no idea what you're saying in this post.

People who like this thing called "money" bet when there is this thing called "value" in the line, which is completely independent from whether one, both, or neither fighter is a "contender" (which really has no set definition anyways).

What a terrible betting strategy you have. (Or more accurately, what a terrible joke.)

[Vaughany]

So you think Duane Ludwig would be a favourite over Attonito? I don't. Or are you just saying random shit to be a moron.

My definition of a contender is clearly more inclusive than yours. Get over yourself.

It's not tht black and white, you're talking as if there are contenders then non-contenders. Yes Attonito should clearly be the favourite against somebody like Ludwig but tht doesnt mean Attonito is a contender. There are more than 2 levels of fighter, I'd say at least three or four.

[Ladle]

So you think Duane Ludwig would be a favourite over Attonito? I don't. Or are you just saying random shit to be a moron.

Lol. I'm taking a very blatant jab at your ridiculously inane definition of a contender by implying that Duane Ludwig - an absolute bottom of the barrel UFC welterweight - could be a contender. That was obvious to everyone but you.

My definition of a contender is clearly more inclusive than yours. Get over yourself.

If by "inclusive" you mean "idiotic and completely unsubstantiated", then yes. Absolutely. The fact you consider Attonito a contender at welterweight after beating Daniel Roberts speaks volumes about the stupidity of your definition. The fact you consider Amir Sadollah a fringe contender at welterweight despite having only beaten D level UFC fighters also speaks volumes about the stupidity of your definition. The fact you can't possibly begin to justify either of those absurd claims also speaks volumes about the stupidity of your definition. Want me to continue?

People who like this thing called "money" bet when there is this thing called "value" in the line, which is completely independent from whether one, both, or neither fighter is a "contender" (which really has no set definition anyways).

But only an invalid would say that a single win at welterweight over Daniel Roberts defines a contender.

[v1y]

How on earth would one go about justifying what makes someone a contender or not a contender?

My definition happens to be more inclusive. Anyone who is relevant in the division is a contender in my book. If you haven't been demonstrated to be irrelevant and you're fighting in a big promotion, you're probably a contender. Amir is 5-2 in the UFC, with both of his losses coming to very strong contenders. I'm not saying he's a high level contender, but he is not irrelevant in the welterweight division.

Attonito is the same way. I'm not saying he's a high level contender, in fact I'll be shocked if he wins his next 3 fights (or 2 fights even). However, by beating up Daniel Roberts the way he did (you know, the whole HOW you beat someone thing which you can't seem to wrap your head around), he's shown that he's definitely NOT on the level of Daniel Roberts, and certainly on a "higher level". How high that level is is impossible to know, but it's enough to push him into relevancy -- and therefore contender status.

Btw, your betting thread says you're up 92 units this year. How much is a unit for you? Wouldn't it be funny if this invalid has made more than you betting on MMA in the last 6 months. I mean, if I'm an invalid, and you can't even make as much money as me, what would that make you? (Hey, I didn't start the personal attacks.)

[Ladle]

How on earth would one go about justifying what makes someone a contender or not a contender?

Rankings. Firstly, who you beat. Secondly, how you beat them. By looking at those two things, we can construct a very clear hierarchy of talent. Guys at the top end of that hierarchy are the contenders (the guys in contention for a title shot). It's really a very simple concept, but apparently you can't grasp it.

My definition happens to be more inclusive. Anyone who is relevant in the division is a contender in my book. If you haven't been demonstrated to be irrelevant and you're fighting in a big promotion, you're probably a contender. Amir is 5-2 in the UFC, with both of his losses coming to very strong contenders. I'm not saying he's a high level contender, but he is not irrelevant in the welterweight division.

So your definition of a contender is someone who isn't irrelevant? That might be the most ludicrous definition for the word "contender" that I've ever heard. If someone is truly a contender in the UFC, they're at the top end of the division. Nick Diaz is a contender at 170. The winner of Condit/Kim will be a contender at 170. Why on earth would you put Rich Attonito in the same category as those guys? What's the point of making the word so inclusive that someone like Rich Attonito is described in the same terms as Nick Diaz? It's just stupid.

Attonito is the same way. I'm not saying he's a high level contender, in fact I'll be shocked if he wins his next 3 fights (or 2 fights even). However, by beating up Daniel Roberts the way he did (you know, the whole HOW you beat someone thing which you can't seem to wrap your head around), he's shown that he's definitely NOT on the level of Daniel Roberts, and certainly on a "higher level". How high that level is is impossible to know, but it's enough to push him into relevancy -- and therefore contender status.

This is just laughable. How many times do I have to tell you that Daniel Roberts is not a UFC quality fighter? Therefore, beating him in ANY fashion does not make you a title contender even under the most extenuating circumstances. It makes you more relevant in the welterweight division than you would have been if you hadn't beaten Daniel Roberts, but a contender at 170 pounds? Rich Attonito is a contender in a division where I can easily think of over 20 UFC welterweights who I would rank above him at this point in time? Honestly, your entire argument seems like some elaborate troll job. I don't care how "inclusive" your definition of a contender is; if 20 or more guys out-rank you in terms of accumen, you are not a contender. To say otherwise is quite frankly retarded.

(you know, the whole HOW you beat someone thing which you can't seem to wrap your head around)

I was the one who informed you that HOW comes second to WHO. You should be thanking me for that information. If you keep it mind, you'll look less ridiculous and ill-informed in the future.

Btw, your betting thread says you're up 92 units this year. How much is a unit for you? Wouldn't it be funny if this invalid has made more than you betting on MMA in the last 6 months. I mean, if I'm an invalid, and you can't even make as much money as me, what would that make you? (Hey, I didn't start the personal attacks.)

Judging by your inability to understand very simple concepts, I doubt that very much. Start up your own thread and let's see how you do. Screenshots don't cut it in a world where Photoshop exists.

[Educ8d Degener8]

I have no idea what you're saying in this post.

People who like this thing called "money" bet when there is this thing called "value" in the line, which is completely independent from whether one, both, or neither fighter is a "contender" (which really has no set definition anyways).

What a terrible betting strategy you have. (Or more accurately, what a terrible joke.)

NO... I did not bet on Tiequan Zhang -314 over Reinhardt...

ps. Use all of this money you are winning to buy a sarcasm detector.

[v1y]

Jeez, we don't even agree on how to construct rankings, this is seriously hopeless.

And again, just because you disagree with my definition of a contender does not make it ludicrous, especially since the definition of a contender is completely irrelevant to any analysis.

If anything, your definition of a contender is clearly the ludicrous one. You honestly believe that anyone who is not in the "top 20" is not a contender? What a joke.

Please answer. Who on this list of welterweights do you not consider to be a contender? GSP, Shields, Koscheck, Diaz, Woodley, Askren, Ellenberger, R. Mcdonald, Pyle, Hathaway, Hendricks, Pierce, Fitch, Penn, Marquardt, Condit, Kim, Kampmann, Sanchez, Hughes.

There's 20 guys who I would absolutely consider CONTENDERS in the welterweight division. Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is no case that guys like Saffiedine, Patrick, Daley, Alves, Story, Brenneman, Rocha, and Anthony Johnson are not contenders?

Your definition of a contender is way under inclusive, and you need to get over yourself.

[Educ8d Degener8]

Jeez, we don't even agree on how to construct rankings, this is seriously hopeless.

And again, just because you disagree with my definition of a contender does not make it ludicrous, especially since the definition of a contender is completely irrelevant to any analysis.

If anything, your definition of a contender is clearly the ludicrous one. You honestly believe that anyone who is not in the "top 20" is not a contender? What a joke.

Please answer. Who on this list of welterweights do you not consider to be a contender? GSP, Shields, Koscheck, Diaz, Woodley, Askren, Ellenberger, R. Mcdonald, Pyle, Hathaway, Hendricks, Pierce, Fitch, Penn, Marquardt, Condit, Kim, Kampmann, Sanchez, Hughes.

There's 20 guys who I would absolutely consider CONTENDERS in the welterweight division. Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is no case that guys like Saffiedine, Patrick, Daley, Alves, Story, Brenneman, and Anthony Johnson are not contenders?

Your definition of a contender is way under inclusive, and you need to get over yourself.

God, I was just having a laugh earlier, but you REALLY DO consider every freaking fighter a contender. Wow.

Tarec Saffiedine as an example... seriously??? Solid and scrappy fighter, heck yeah. Contender... not so much. I mean, maybe he's a contender in Dream...

[v1y]

So wait, presumably you consider Mike Pierce a contender, but his best win is over Brock Larson.

But you don't consider Saffiedine a contender who beat Larson much more impressively?

I thought WHO you beat was important? You guys aren't even consistent.

Unless you mean to tell me it's HOW pierce looked against Fitch which gives him his contender status? But no, we've already established that can't be right either. (When of course in reality, both are important to establishing that Pierce and Saffiedine are contenders.)

Seriously, if you guys don't think Saffiedine is a contender, we're hopeless.

[Ladle]

Jeez, we don't even agree on how to construct rankings, this is seriously hopeless.

Once again: who you beat, then how you beat them. That's how it's always been done.

And again, just because you disagree with my definition of a contender does not make it ludicrous, especially since the definition of a contender is completely irrelevant to any analysis.

It informs analysis though, and clearly it's totally warped your perception of how fighters should be ranked. Earlier you were saying that Rich Attonito should be ranked the same - if not higher - than Claude Patrick because he beat Daniel Roberts more impressively, as if Claude Patrick's ranking is singularly defined by his win over Roberts.

If anything, your definition of a contender is clearly the ludicrous one. You honestly believe that anyone who is not in the "top 20" is not a contender? What a joke.

They're not title contenders yet, so the joke's on you, mon ami.

Please answer. Who on this list of welterweights do you not consider to be a contender? GSP, Shields, Koscheck, Diaz, Woodley, Askren, Ellenberger, R. Mcdonald, Pyle, Hathaway, Hendricks, Pierce, Fitch, Penn, Marquardt, Condit, Kim, Kampmann, Sanchez, Hughes.

There's 20 guys who I would absolutely consider CONTENDERS in the welterweight division. Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is no case that guys like Saffiedine, Patrick, Daley, Story, Brenneman, and Anthony Johnson are not contenders?

The vast majority of guys you listed are not title contenders. Could many of them potentially be contenders and be in the discussion of fighting for a title? Absolutely. Could many of them potentially be described in the same terms as the likes of Nick Diaz, or the winner of Diaz/Kim? Absolutely. But as of right now, the majority of the fighters you mentioned are probably three or four wins away from title contention in such a talent dense division. Someone three or four wins away from title CONTENTION is not a title CONTENDER. It's such a numbingly simple concept, and I really don't understand why you haven't grasped it yet.

Your definition of a contender is way under inclusive

My definition of the word actually bestows it with some meaning, and is semantically correct in that I define contenders as fighters who are in contention for the title. On the other hand, your definition of the word places Rich Attonito and Nick Diaz in the same category. I think it's pretty obvious whose definition is superior.

and you need to get over yourself.

Hypocritical coming from a guy who prances around these forums needlessly calling perfectly valid posts "stupid", in what seems like some pointless attempt to provoke a confrontation. If anyone else had spouted the nonsense you did, I might have just let it slide. But you deserve to be taken down a peg or two, hence why I'm making you look stupid in this debate right now, and hence why several other people have chipped in to make you look stupid too. Trying to act like some provocative, tough guy MMA poster brings you zero credibility. Saying that Rich Attonito is a contender at 170 diminishes any existing credibility you had.

[v1y]

I've never used this term 'title contender'. Please do not insert words into my mouth.

How does my definition of contender not carry meaning? Anyone who could realistically contend for a title is a contender in my book. I don't see how logical inconsistencies follow from it in any way shape or form.

Just because it is unlikely that someone will contend for a title does not eliminate them from the possibility that they are a contender.

Way too much time debating semantics with you.

And the worst part of all? You couldn't even answer my question. (Instead you dodge it by saying "many" when clearly every single one i listed is arguably a contender under a reasonable definition.)

[Educ8d Degener8]

So wait, presumably you consider Mike Pierce a contender, but his best win is over Brock Larson.

But you don't consider Saffiedine a contender who beat Larson much more impressively?

I thought WHO you beat was important? You guys aren't even consistent.

Unless you mean to tell me it's HOW pierce looked against Fitch which gives him his contender status? But no, we've already established that can't be right either. (When of course in reality, both are important to establishing that Pierce and Saffiedine are contenders.)

Seriously, if you guys don't think Saffiedine is a contender, we're hopeless.

Homez -- I don't have time to address every fighter on your list... I have this whole "life" thing preventing me from doing so...

I'm tapping out of this thread, as I don't have time to have this type of circular dialogue. According to you, Dana might as well give every fighter a belt...


ps.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contender

"Definition of CONTENDER

: one that contends; especially : a competitor for a championship or high honor"

[v1y]

Homez -- I don't have time to address every fighter on your list... I have this whole "life" thing preventing me from doing so... I'm tapping out of this thread, as I don't have time to have this type of circular dialogue. According to you, Dana might as well give every fighter a belt... ps. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contender "Definition of CONTENDER : one that contends; especially : a competitor for a championship or high honor"

Uhh... I said to give me one.

And that definition of contender fits in perfectly with my reasoning. Anyone in the UFC is arguably a contender since they are all ultimately competing for the UFC title. The dictionary definition is broader than mine.

[Ladle]

I've never used this term 'title contender'. Please do not insert words into my mouth.

How does my definition of contender not carry meaning? Anyone who could realistically contend for a title is a contender in my book. I don't see how logical inconsistencies follow from it in any way shape or form.

So now someone who could POTENTIALLY SOME DAY contend for a title is a contender?

Hey, you want to know what I categorise those fighters as? Potential contenders.

Very, very simple semantics.

You see, the great thing about having the terms "contender" and "potential contender" is that we can now differentiate the Nick Diazes of the world from the Rich Attonitos of the world. Much more informative, isn't it?

No? You'd rather carry on calling Amir Sadollah a contender? A guy who could maybe, someday, somehow miraculously defeat a string of great wrestlers at the top of the division, and perhaps enter title contention?

Sure. Okay. You keep saying that.

And the worst part of all? You couldn't even answer my question. (Instead you dodge it by saying "many" when clearly every single one i listed is arguably a contender under a reasonable definition.)

Your definition isn't reasonable. It's poor and uninformative. The majority of those you listed are at least three fights away from title contention. Take your pick of any single one of them and there's a good chance they fall into that category.

Shields, Koscheck, Diaz, Woodley, Askren, R. Mcdonald, Pyle, Hathaway, Hendricks, Pierce, Marquardt... and that's not all of them.

Also, don't accuse me of dodging things. You've failed to respond to the vast majority of my points. You lost this debate a long time ago.

[v1y]

But there are no such things as potential contenders. Anyone who becomes a contender always WAS a contender. That's the point. There can be no "magical" fight where someone becomes a contender. It's a slow progress, and the moment you get signed to a big promotion, you've no doubt crossed the contender line in my book.

Think about it, if you have to beat a certain person to become a contender, then how did the initial contender list get established? Seriously, think hard.

[Vaughany]

Jeez, we don't even agree on how to construct rankings, this is seriously hopeless.

And again, just because you disagree with my definition of a contender does not make it ludicrous, especially since the definition of a contender is completely irrelevant to any analysis.

If anything, your definition of a contender is clearly the ludicrous one. You honestly believe that anyone who is not in the "top 20" is not a contender? What a joke.

Please answer. Who on this list of welterweights do you not consider to be a contender? GSP, Shields, Koscheck, Diaz, Woodley, Askren, Ellenberger, R. Mcdonald, Pyle, Hathaway, Hendricks, Pierce, Fitch, Penn, Marquardt, Condit, Kim, Kampmann, Sanchez, Hughes.

There's 20 guys who I would absolutely consider CONTENDERS in the welterweight division. Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is no case that guys like Saffiedine, Patrick, Daley, Alves, Story, Brenneman, Rocha, and Anthony Johnson are not contenders?

Your definition of a contender is way under inclusive, and you need to get over yourself.

You're either trolling or somehow think that "contender" is a synonym for "fighter"!

[Ladle]

you're either trolling or somehow think that "contender" is a synonym for "fighter"!

+1000.

But there are no such things as potential contenders.

I lol'd.

Anyone who becomes a contender always WAS a contender.

Let me introduce you to another concept which is foreign to you. It's known simply as "improvement". Was Rich Attonito also contender when he fought his first professional fight?

It's a slow progress, and the moment you get signed to a big promotion, you've no doubt crossed the contender line in my book.

A "line" which you set far, far too low, as we've already proved.

Think about it, if you have to beat a certain person to become a contender, then how did the initial contender list get established? Seriously, think hard.

This is one of the most bizarre things you've said so far.

[v1y]

You're either trolling or somehow think that "contender" is a synonym for "fighter"!

You either are trolling, don't know what a synonym is, or are misunderstanding my definition of a "contender".

I can list 100 welterweights for you who are not contenders. Would that help you? (Even though technically I'd only need to list one to demonstrate that you are misunderstood.)

[Educ8d Degener8]

Uhh... I said to give me one.

And that definition of contender fits in perfectly with my reasoning. Anyone in the UFC is arguably a contender since they are all ultimately competing for the UFC title. The dictionary definition is broader than mine.

/thread

Everyone is a contender.

And by contender, I mean "fighter"...

v1y doing a superb troll job here... well done. Had some good laughs.

ps. Will be great watching two contenders in Bader and Tito battle it out Saturday...

[Ladle]

Yeah Vaughany! Don't you know there's a difference between "title contender" and "contender"?! They're totally different things dude! All UFC fighters are contenders! Rich Attonito to beat GSP! Woop!

[Ladle]

/thread

Everyone is a contender.

And by contender, I mean "fighter"...

v1y doing a superb troll job here... well done. Had some good laughs.

ps. Will be great watching two contenders in Bader and Tito battle it out Saturday...

I am literally in stitches right now. This is too much.

[v1y]

I must say, you have an interesting sense of humour if you've actually LOL'ed at any point during this thread.

I mean, you don't consider Shields a contender, and my definition is ridiculous?

I try to pick the most retarded thing you say out of each post to refute. Addressing everything would drive me mad.

[illmatick]

time to throw in the towel V1y.

what are your plays for tomorrow?

[v1y]

Big on cruz.

And how does one throw in the towel in a debate they've remained completely logically consistent with. The fact that lots of people disagree with me tells me that lots of people are stupid, not that I'm wrong.

I'm not saying that Ladle's definition of a contender is necessarily wrong. He just doesn't understand how to keep an open mind, and thinks it's somehow an absurd notion that there might be more than 20 people in the world who are legitimate contenders.

[Vaughany]

I must say, you have an interesting sense of humour if you've actually LOL'ed at any point during this thread.

To be fair I LOL'd when you didn't get Edu's sarcasm!

[v1y]

To be fair I LOL'd when you didn't get Edu's sarcasm!

My completely sincere response was my way of being sarcastic.

Looks like you got trolled.

[Ladle]

I must say, you have an interesting sense of humour if you've actually LOL'ed at any point during this thread.

Watching you attempt to defend your ridiculous definition has been hilarious. And the very concept that Tito is a contender in the UFC is funny to anybody.

I mean, you don't consider Shields a contender, and my definition is ridiculous?

Given that he lost a fairly lopsided decision to a champion who Zuffa have no interest in rematching him against, that's not unreasonable. He's not in title contention right now. That said, Shields will probably always be competing against the top guys in the division, so I wouldn't totally object to someone calling him a contender on that merit (even though he isn't a contender in the truest sense of the word right now). The type of stuff I object to is calling the Amir Sadollahs and Rich Attonitos of the world contenders.

I try to pick the most retarded thing you say out of each post to refute. Addressing everything would drive me mad.

Prototypical response from someone losing a debate.

Translation: you had no rebuttal for the vast majority of the things I was saying, because you were aware of the fact that your opinion was flawed and nonsensical.

The fact that lots of people disagree with me tells me that lots of people are stupid, not that I'm wrong.

I hear this is what stupid people tell themselves to make them feel better about their stupidity.

He just doesn't understand how to keep an open mind, and thinks it's somehow an absurd notion that there might be more than 20 people in the world who are legitimate contenders.

Once again, potential contenders. Not contenders right now. By defining it this way, we can now stop putting Nick Diaz in the same category as Rich Attonito. That's a very good thing.

[Camdemonium]

I clicked on this to get some thoughts on Simpson-Tavares, instead I was entertained. Bravo gentlemen.

[v1y]

We can't even agree that Jake Shields is a contender in the UFC welterweight division. You can not be reasoned with.

[Ladle]

We can't even agree that Jake Shields is a contender in the UFC welterweight division. You can not be reasoned with.

I don't wholly object to that, as I said. I won't criticise anyone for calling him a contender, even though it's not strictly true right now (he isn't in the title picture anymore, which means he's not in contention for the title right now - so it's not the most appropriate term we can use to describe his situation). But still, you want to call Shields a contender at this current moment in time? Okay. It's not 100 percent accurate, but I'm not definitely not going to lambaste you for it. It's cool.

All I ask is for you to stop defending your ridiculously foolish and preposterous idea that the likes of Rich Attonito and Amir Sadollah are contenders, and everything will be fine.