Atrain over Tavares?

[v1y]

All I ask is that you understand that there are different levels of contenders. There are guys higher up on the ladder, and those lower on the ladder.

The reality is that right now the UFC is rich with talent. At one point in time, Joe Riggs got a UFC title shot (which ended up not being a title fight of course). If he was a contender then, Rich Attonito is a contender now. (And since he got a title shot, presumably he was a contender under your definition.)

[Ladle]

All I ask is that you understand that there are different levels of contenders. There are guys higher up on the ladder, and those lower on the ladder.

There are different levels of UFC fighter. Please, for the love of God, stop using the word "contender" as a synonym for "UFC fighter". The word contender exists for a reason. It is used to describe those in contention for something - in this instance, a shot at the championship. Not every UFC fighter is in contention for a shot at the championship at this moment in time. The guys in contention for a shot at the championship at 170 are Diaz and the Kim/Condit winner. They're the contenders because they are in contention. Rich Attonito is just a UFC fighter who's trying to make his way towards contention.

The reality is that right now the UFC is rich with talent. At one point in time, Joe Riggs got a UFC title shot. If he was a contender then, Rich Attonito is a contender now. (And since he got a title shot, presumably he was a contender under your definition.)

Completely inappropriate comparison. The overall quality of UFC fighters has completely changed since Joe Riggs got a title shot. The criteria for being a contender back then is completely different to the criteria for being a contender now.

Trying to talk some sense into you is like doing this:

[MMAbetMASTA]

Damn... you guys went at it hard lol.... Not taking sides!

With regard to van1ty's mma betting knowledge though (I saw this was in question somewhere in the arguments), I know this guy wasn't lying when he says he wins big money consistently.. because he does - like me He's posted parlays on sherdog a lot (before the fight) and one of them he hit huge, won about $1200 off $100 6 fight if I remember correctly, right? I actually email V1y before I place most my bets to get an last minute opinion; he's swayed me from a couple that could have been disastorous!!!

Anways, with regard to the topic of the thread, I am staying away from Atrain/tavares...

Too many 'iffs' after I've really broke it down and done research. If I had seen tavares fight more I would be all over it, but I haven't.

GL! WAR DOMINATOR CRUZ!!!!

[v1y]

Never once have I said that all UFC fighters are contenders. Then again, if you're stupid, you might have made that inference.

Here are some guys in ufc ww division who are not contenders in my book, as I do not see any of them realistically entering the title picture: Shamar Bailey, Matt Brown, Chris Cope, Justin Edwards, TJ Grant, Clay Harvison, John Howard, Damarques Johnson, Duane Ludwig, Matt Riddle, Daniel Roberts, James Wilks.

Again, you're right, the Joe Riggs comparison isn't apt because the division is DEEPER, and there are more people who qualify as these things called "CONTENDERS".

[Ladle]

Never once have I said that all UFC fighters are contenders. Then again, if you're stupid, you might have made that inference.

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.

Anyone in the UFC is arguably a contender since they are all ultimately competing for the UFC title.

Oops! Looks like you're the stupid one! Your argument is absolutely laughable and full of inconsistencies, as the above quotes illustrate.

Again, you're right, the Joe Riggs comparison isn't apt because the division is DEEPER, and there are more people who qualify as these things called "CONTENDERS".

More potential contenders. More fighters who are always improving, and competing with other fighters to prove their worth as contenders for the title. I can't believe you still refuse to admit your definition is stupid. You made a mistake in calling Rich Attonito a contender at 170, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you went to obscene and hilarious lengths to try to justify a claim which was obviously absurd. You've displayed an unbelievable level of stubbornness and belligerence, and now you're a laughingstock. Congratulations.

Here are some guys in ufc ww division who are not contenders in my book, as I do not see any of them realistically entering the title picture: Shamar Bailey, Matt Brown, Chris Cope, Justin Edwards, TJ Grant, Clay Harvison, John Howard, Damarques Johnson, Duane Ludwig, Matt Riddle, Daniel Roberts, James Wilks.

So you think Amir Sadollah could realistically be considered for a crack at the title? That is absolutely mind-boggling. Who would you favour him against in this division, other than the Sobottas and the Ludwigs of the world? You think he can challenge for a title in a division filled with excellent wrestlers, when his defensive wrestling is awful? Does he beat Brenneman, Condit, Ebersole, Elleberger, Fitch, Hendricks, Hughes, Jonhson, Story, Kampmann, Kim, Alves, Koscheck, MacDonald, Patrick, Pierce or Penn? If you favour him against even half of those guys, you're a moron. If you favour him against a quarter of those guys, you're still a moron.

Seriously now. Stop wasting my time with this ******* nonsense.

[v1y]

Uhh... how am I being inconsistent?

All of those guys were contenders at some point, just by losing fights in the UFC they lose their contender status, despite still being signed by the UFC.

Also, the line you quoted me saying was me making the natural inference of what the dictionary definition was saying, not what I was saying. I was using it say that the dictionary definition is more inclusive of what a contender would be than my definition. Way to take things out of context.

I favour Amir over Sanchez, that's for sure, who is no doubt a "contender" in most peoples' books.

Again, you don't even consider Shields a contender. That's laughable stuff. Not to mention, you've got your panties in a bunch over semantics.

[Ladle]

All of those guys were contenders at some point, just by losing fights in the UFC they lose their contender status, despite still being signed by the UFC.

What?

Also, the line you quoted me saying was me making the natural inference of what the dictionary definition was saying, not what I was saying. I was using it say that the dictionary definition is more inclusive of what a contender would be than my definition.

Bunkum.

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

NO DOUBT crossed the CONTENDER LINE in MY BOOK. Not the dictionary. YOUR BOOK. Your idiotic definition isn't even consistent.

I favour Amir over Sanchez, that's for sure, who is no doubt a "contender" in most peoples' books.

Sadollah automatically becomes a contender because you favour him over one guy who's not even in the title equation? Sadollah is a contender for the title even though you wouldn't favour him against Brenneman, Condit, Ebersole, Elleberger, Fitch, Hendricks, Hughes, Jonhson, Story, Kampmann, Kim, Alves, Koscheck, MacDonald, Patrick, Pierce or Penn - 17 guys in the division? Jesus Christ. There is no hope for you. There is no way that Sadollah could REALISTICALLY challenge for a title in that division with all those strong wrestlers. So, even by your retarded definition, he's not a contender.

Again, you don't even consider Shields a contender. That's laughable stuff.

Pathetic deflection. Not gonna bother replying to your bullshit when I've already explained this. Here:

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.

[v1y]

I honestly don't know what to say.

"The moment you get signed to a big promotion you become a contender" is not inconsistent with, "not all people signed to a big promotion are contenders" assuming people can lose their contender status by losing fights. (Which I clearly stated).

If you don't understand that, then you can not be reasoned with.

And again, I don't see how my amir/sanchez example is off at all. If a sufficient amount of people consider fighter Y a contender (which I assure you, people do in regards to Sanchez), and you favour fighter X over fighter Y, then it's not an untenable position to say that you believe fighter X is also a contender.

"Sanchez is not in the title picture". According to who? Mmaweekly ranks him top 10. Get over yourself.

[Ladle]

"The moment you get signed to a big promotion you become a contender" is not inconsistent with, "not all people signed to a big promotion are contenders" assuming people can lose their contender status by losing fights. (Which I clearly stated).

Oh, okay. So Vinicius "Spartan" Queiroz was a contender in the UFC before he lost to Rob Broughton? Spartan would have been described by you in the same terms as Cain Velasquez before that loss?



Brilliant. Absolute comedy gold.

You can not be reasoned with.

I'm not reasoning with someone who once considered VINCIUS QUIEROZ to be a UFC contender. You're a joke.

And again, I don't see how my amir/sanchez example is off at all. If a sufficient amount of people consider fighter Y a contender (which I assure you, people do in regards to Sanchez), and you favour fighter X over fighter Y, then it's not an untenable position to say that you believe fighter X is also a contender.

You're stupid if you think that's true when Sadollah would be a considerable underdog against at least 17 guys in the division. Yet he's still a "contender" for the title. It was fun for a while, but you really need to drop this nonsense.

[NickBaragona]

I'm going with Simpson...hopefully he gets this to the ground where he should have a significant advantage.

[v1y]

Seeing as vinicius Quieroz got jobbed by the referee in his fight by Broughton through repeated unjustified referee standups which gassed him out causing to lose the fight, I actually think that was a really poor choice of example by you. (Although I'm actually going to guess you never watched that fight.) And yes, he would have been as big a contender as Cain Velasquez when Velasquez fought Brad Morris. (Which would be a low level contender.) What's the problem? Like seriously, Queiroz showed an awesome ouchigari in that fight... really sucks he tested positive for steroids.

Again, I don't see your fascination with numbers. I don't see how the fact that there may be 17 people in the world who are better than you would automatically disqualify you from contender status. It sure as hell didn't stop Patrick Cote from getting a title shot.

[Ladle]

Seeing as vinicius Quieroz got jobbed by the referee in his fight by Broughton through repeated unjustified referee standups which gassed him out causing to lose the fight, I actually think that was a really poor choice of example by you. (Although I'm actually going to guess you never watched that fight.)

Lol. Apparently you haven't seen Quieroz's pre-UFC fights. There's a very good reason that, upon hearing about his signing, all the former Chute Boxe burst out in laughter. If you actually knew anything about Quieroz's career prior to getting signed, you'd know it was a very appropriate example. Come correct next time.

Like seriously, Queiroz showed an awesome ouchigari in that fight... really sucks he tested positive for steroids.

Defending Spartan as a UFC caliber fighter. You just keep getting more hilarious.

And yes, he would have been as big a contender as Cain Velasquez when Velasquez fought Brad Morris. (Which would be a low level contender.) What's the problem?

You're totally missing the point. You're describing the Cain Velasquez of 2010 - the guy who, at that point in time, had knocked out Rodrigo Nogueira in two minutes and annihilated Ben Rothwell - in the same terms as Vinicius Quieroz. That is ******* stupid.

Futhermore, Cain Velasquez was clearly much more of a promising potential contender upon entering the UFC. To mindlessly lump both of them into the same category is totally undermining Velasquez's skills.

Again, I don't see your fascination with numbers. I don't see how the fact that there may be 17 people in the world who are better than you would automatically disqualify you from contender status.

Because he has to go through many of those 17 guys to reach title contention and therefore become an actual contender for the title. You really are an idiot.

[v1y]

I will not retreat from the position that without the referee standups, Spartan very likely would have won the Broughton fight, which at least tenably would qualify him as a "UFC level fighter" (especially with how terrible the UFC heavyweight division is). I mean jeez man, we live in a world where Stefan Struve is a UFC level fighter.

"Yoiu're describing the Cain Velasquez of 2010", uhh, I'm pretty sure I explicitly said "The Cain Velasquez who fought Brad Morris".

Velasquez' skills? Wait wait wait, what happened to ranking someone based on WHO they beat? Please try to stay consistent. (Again, the real answer is that Cain Velasquez was a contender the moment he signed with the UFC, as anyone in his camp would have told you.)

But... the only top 10 (or 17) guy Cote beat was Almeida, which would be the equivalent of Sadollah beating Sanchez. I really don't see how it's so hard for you to see the parallel.

[Ladle]

I will not retreat from the position that without the referee standups, Spartan very likely would have won the Broughton fight, which at least tenably would qualify him as a "UFC level fighter" (especially with how terrible the UFC heavyweight division is).

Oh my God. So now you're saying beating Rob Broughton solidifies you as a "contender"? You do know that the Broughton/Spartan fight was widely regarded by analysts as one of the worst examples of matchmaking on a UFC card in recent memory? Neither of those guys are UFC quality, even by heavyweight standards.

"Yoiu're describing the Cain Velasquez of 2010", uhh, I'm pretty sure I explicitly said "The Cain Velasquez who fought Brad Morris".

Wrong again. Upon being signed to the UFC, you considered Quieroz a "contender". At that moment in time, Velasquez had just knocked out Rodrigo, so he was also a "contender". You described Quieroz and Velasquez in the same terms at one point in time. That is very, very embarrassing for you.

Velasquez' skills? Wait wait wait, what happened to ranking someone based on WHO they beat? Please try to stay consistent.

Missing the point again. To put Velasquez in the same category as Quieroz is undermining Velasquez, just as putting Rich Attonito in the same category as Nick Diaz is undermining Diaz. That's one of the reasons why your definition of "contender" is ******* stupid. It results in you describing awesome, accomplished fighters in the same terms as fighters who haven't even won a ******* fight in the UFC. You're essentially making the word useless. Contender means in contention. You seriously gonna sit there and tell me that Vincius Quieroz was in contention for the UFC heavyweight title? Jesus Christ.

But... the only top 10 (or 17) guy Cote beat was Almeida, which would be the equivalent of Sadollah beating Sanchez. I really don't see how it's so hard for you to see the parallel.

Inane, laughable comparison. Middleweight has been a bastardised division since its inception and is still pretty thin in terms of talent today. Totally different to the 170 division of today, which is stacked with awesome fighters (awesome wrestlers) who would beat Sadollah easily. Sadollah could not realistically challenge for a title at 170, so even by your stupid definition, he's not a contender. Even if he was miraculously matched up with Sanchez, that wouldn't earn him a title shot. He'd lose to the next guy he faced because they'd almost definitely be a great wrestler. Sadollah challenging for a title is not feasible. End.

[v1y]

Dude, you're reading what you want to read, and aren't addressing anything that I've actually said. We are done.

[Ladle]

Dude, you're reading what you want to read, and aren't addressing anything that I've actually said. We are done.

Ladies and gentleman, we have a submission! I addressed everything you said SPECIFICALLY and FAIRLY. Everyone here can see that, including you.

Nice try. It'll be easier to admit you're wrong next time. I just hope you've learned something from this and will at least think twice about how you define a contender in future. Describing awesome, accomplished fighters in the same terms as fighters who haven't even won a fight in the UFC is just something which will get you embarrassed by superior minds.

[v1y]

Dude:

You: Someone is a contender who is close to a title shot.
You: Amir Sadollah is disqualified form being a contender because there are 17 people who would be favourites over him.
Me: But Patrick Cote got a title shot, and there were arguably 17 people who would have been favourites over him. Therefore under your definition he is both a contender and not a contender.
You: Oh, it was different back then!

You have said that my definition of a contender is incoherent, and yet mine is stable and fits the facts. Your definition needs to change over time to fit the facts, which makes it by definition incoherent.

You completely failed to address this argument, which is why I gave up.

lol @ "superior minds". What's your metric? Who's had a higher % return betting on MMA? Who has the better education? Or how many people agree with you on an internet forum. I'll concede #3, but I don't care about popular opinions. I care about being consistent.

[Ladle]

Dude:

You: Someone is a contender who is close to a title shot.
You: Amir Sadollah is disqualified form being a contender because there are 17 people who would be favourites over him.
Me: But Patrick Cote got a title shot, and there were arguably 17 people who would have been favourites over him. Therefore under your definition he is both a contender and not a contender.
You: Oh, it was different back then!

You have said that my definition of a contender is incoherent, and yet mine is stable and fits the facts. Your definition needs to change over time to fit the facts, which makes it by definition incoherent.

You completely failed to address this argument, which is why I gave up.

Thought you were done. You're just full of inconsistencies, aren't ya?

You: If someone can realistically challenge for a title, they are a contender.
Me: Amir Sadollah cannot realistically challenge for a title, because the vast majority of guys at the top of the division will beat him easily. He will have to face at least several of those guys before he fights for the belt. It is not realistic to think he can beat those guys with his wrestling deficiencies.

You: Oh, it was different back then!

Cote is irrelevant in this discussion. Why? Let me spell it out for you: your definition of a contender is predicated on whether or not it is REALISTIC for someone to gain a title shot. It is totally unrealistic to think that Amir Sadollah could challenge for a title at 170, at this time, when 17 other guys in the division - some of whom he must fight - will stomp him. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's realistic. It's possible Sadollah could get a shot at the UFC title. It's possible that I will win a UFC title some day. It's possible I'll become a millionaire. Are any of those things realistic? Of course not. There's a difference between something which is realistic and something which is possible. You've flat-out stated your definition is predicated on whether or not it's REALISTIC. Therefore, even by your peculiar definition, he isn't a contender.

Here's proof:

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.

This is what you said!

Sadollah contending for a title isn't realistic. If Sadollah magically gets matched up with Sanchez, and magically beats him, he will almost definitely lose to the next guy. SADOLLAH IS NOT A CONTENDER, EVEN BY YOUR DEFINITION. It's not feasible. End.

lol @ "superior minds". What's your metric? Who's had a higher % return betting on MMA? Who has the better education? Or how many people agree with you on an internet forum. I'll concede #3, but I don't care about popular opinions. I care about being consistent.

Your shocking inconsistency illustrated above, coupled with your failure to grasp simple terms, tells me that you are drastically inferior here.

[v1y]

Three years ago, I would have said that it was outside the realm of possibilities that Brian Stann would ever be close to contending for a title.

The facts have forced me to conform to this thing called "reality". I consider the possibility of Sadollah contending for a title today to be more realistic than Stann's chances 3 years ago, therefore I have to concede that Sadollah's chances are within the realm of possibilities. It's that simple.

(Then again, you probably don't even consider Stann a contender at -185, despite being ranked top 10 by just about everyone.)

[Ladle]

Three years ago, I would have said that it was outside the realm of possibilities that Brian Stann would ever be close to contending for a title.

The facts have forced me to conform to this thing called "reality". I consider the possibility of Sadollah contending for a title today to be more realistic than Stann's chances 3 years ago, therefore I have to concede that Sadollah's chances are within the realm of possibilities.

It's possible. It's not realistic. Just try saying it out loud: "it's realistic that Sadollah could get a title shot even though 17 or more guys at the top of the division would beat him easily." People are going to absolutely ridicule you if that's your opinion.

Also, you think Sadollah's chances of getting a title shot (when 17 or more guys at the top of the division would own him) are more likely than Brian Stann getting three wins at 185? If you think that's true, you're really not too bright. 185 is infamously weak talent-wise outside of the top 10, and Stann was still decent enough at LHW to go 2-2 in the UFC. Combine that with his marketability, and it's hardly super surprising that he's somewhat close to title contention. If you think that's more surprising than Sadollah potentially beating the Josh Koschecks, Jake Ellenbergers and Jon Fitches of the world, you're insanely deluded.

[v1y]

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "realistic" with "likely". It's very unlikely that Sadollah ever gets a title shot, but that doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to consider it within the realm of possibilities.

And I just love the 20/20 hindsight regarding Brian Stann. I'm sure you called him going 3-0 at MW after he lost to Soszynsky.

[Ladle]

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "realistic" with "likely".

No, I am firmly talking about it being realistic. Please tell me you're not really this dumb. Here's what you said:

Anyone who could realistically contend for a title is a contender in my book.

Now, once again, let's say it out loud: "it's realistic that Sadollah could get a title shot even though 17 or more guys at the top of the division would beat him easily."

Point made. It's not remotely realistic to think he could beat any of the numerous great wrestlers in the division. If you think it is realistic, your opinion isn't worth very much.

And I just love the 20/20 hindsight regarding Brian Stann. I'm sure you called him going 3-0 at MW after he lost to Soszynsky.

You're one of the worst debaters I've ever had the misfortune of encountering. Stop blatantly dodging my points and admit that you're wrong. I'm not saying I called Stann going 3-0 at middleweight. I'm saying Stann going 3-0 in a poor division like middleweight is a lot more likely than Sadollah getting a title shot at 170 - a far more talent dense division, filled with many, many wrestlers who would easily beat him.

[v1y]

And I'm saying that I consider Amir Sadollah contending for a title to be more realistic than I considered Brian Stann's chances of nearing contendership. (It's called being honest with yourself. Try it some time, opposed to, you know, making stuff up in hindsight like you just did about Brian Stann)

Since I was wrong about Brian Stann, and he has demonstrated himself to be a contender, I was forced to lower my standard of contender to include people like Amir Sadollah.

You are really, really confused.

Oh man, I'm the worst debater ever? Well, I was all sure I was right up until you said that, but that was really the nail in the coffin!

I genuinely believe that you are a liar if you say that you thought that Brian Stann had a realistic chance of EVER coming close to title contention after losing to Soszynsky.

[Ladle]

And I'm saying that I consider Amir Sadollah contending for a title to be more realistic than I considered Brian Stann's chances of nearing contendership. (It's called being honest with yourself.)

You seriously think Stann going 3-0 in a flimsy division like middleweight - when he had success at light heavyweight in the UFC - is more unlikely than Sadollah getting a title shot in one of the most stacked divisions in MMA, filled with guys who would totally own him?

I don't want to get too abrasive here, but I think there might be something wrong with your brain if you think that's the case.

Since I was wrong about Brian Stann, and he has demonstrated himself to be a contender, I was forced to lower my standard of contender to include people like Amir Sadollah.

MY GOD. Please tell me you are trolling here. This is such a desperate attempt to justify something which is clearly ******* stupid. Stann has actually proven his worth as a fringe contender in the context of the 185 division, whereas Sadollah has scarcely proven anything at 170.

Stann hasn't even always been a contender anyway. He is a contender NOW. He has improved massively since his days of getting tapped by Soszynski (otherwise Massenzio would have torn him up on the ground). Fighters improve. That improvement leads to them beating better fighters and gaining a spot as a contender. **** me, this is painfully basic stuff, and you still don't get it. Just because Brian Stann improved, you now feel forced to consider Amir Sadollah a contender, in a different division? That is some wild logic.

You are really, really confused.

I'm confused by your bewildering level of stupidity, and how desperate you are to defend absolutely ridiculous concepts (which you no doubt realise are ridiculous).

Once again, say it loud and see if you don't feel like an idiot: "it's realistic that Sadollah could get a title shot even though 17 or more guys at the top of the division would beat him easily."

Oh man, I'm the worst debater ever? Well, I was all sure I was right up until you said that, but that was really the nail in the coffin!

You know you've been losing the whole time. You know it's stupid to put Rich Attonito in the same category as Nick Diaz. We all know this. You're just stubborn and desperate to defend your mistakes. But you only made yourself look 10 times worse in the process of attempting to do that.

[v1y]

But... you think it's outside the realm of possibilities that Sadollah improves? Oh no, that would be nonsense! There's no way you're serious.

The reality is, I gave you a perfect example of someone who was completely written off, but has demonstrated that he shouldn't have been. I am suggesting that writing Sadollah off at this point would be akin to the way people wrote off Stann. Since the test of time has shown that it was wrong to write off Stann, then it is not unreasonable to say that it might be premature to write off Sadollah.

Unless you want to say that Stann wasn't written off, in which case you're just playing revisionist history. (Or unless you want to say you personally didn't write Stann off, in which case you'd just be a liar.)

And again, I don't see the problem with having levels of contenders. Of course Diaz is a higher level contender than Attonito, this has never been disputed.

[Educ8d Degener8]

Any plays on the main card here v1y?

Like either Guillard or value in Roller -- any bets there?

[v1y]

i've got a tiny bit on roller, kim, siver, wandy, and a ton of cruz.

still up from my plays on rda and njokuani, eek roller just lost.

[Ladle]

Outside the realms of possiblity? That's correct, it's not outside the realms of possiblity. It's also not outside the realms of possibility that I win the UFC welterweight title.

Is it realistic that his defensive wrestling miraculously becomes SO good that he's able to beat the numerous wrestlers in the division who have been wrestling for the best part of their lives? Of course it isn't. It's just not realistic to think that Amir Sadollah could challenge for the welterweight title. To say otherwise is absolutely stupid. Just because it's POSSIBLE that he miraculously improves and somehow beats a string of excellent wrestlers who could currently out-wrestle him with ease doesn't means it's REALISTIC. Lots of things are POSSIBLE.

**** it, I'm a contender in the UFC! It's possible that I will improve so much that I become better than all of the wrestlers at welterweight! Brian Stann was totally written off! He was nothing after he lost to Soszynski! But now he's now a fringe contender, so I can be too! I'm a contender!

The reality is, I gave you a perfect example of someone who was completely written off, but has demonstrated that he shouldn't have been. I am suggesting that writing Sadollah off at this point would be akin to the way people wrote off Stann. Since the test of time has shown that it was wrong to write off Stann, then it is not unreasonable to say that it might be premature to write off Sadollah.

So because one guy surprises you and becomes - in your opinion - a contender, we now must assume that every single fighter is also a contender because it's POSSIBLE (not realistic) that they could surprise you too?

I read that and actually laughed out loud. Such inane, ridiculous logic.

It's POSSIBLE that Duane Ludwig miraculously improves his BJJ (in the same way that Amir miraculously improves his wrestling) and becomes a total killer at 170. So I guess he's a contender too!

Yeah, that's right everyone. Brian Stann was TOTALLY written off, but he came back and is now on a THREE FIGHT WIN STREAK at 185! Man! If that's possible, then Ludwig can definitely improve his BJJ skills and go on a tear! So he's a contender!

Honestly, you're too much. Thanks for the laughs.

[v1y]

Are you serious? Stann's improvement was far more marked than amir's would have to be. He had no takedown defense, no jiujitsu, and was a brawler.

And yes, I am suggesting that it's not unreasonable to not write someone off like Amir because crazier things have happened. Is that too much for you?

Ludwig is an old veteran. It is not within the realm of possibilities that he improves miraculously. I would be willing to bet on that. If you don't see why comparing Sadollah who has 7 professional fights to Ludwig is absurd I don't know what to say. (It might be more reasonable to compare Sadollah to someone who had a similar number of fights at the time of their improvement, like, oh I don't know -- Stann.)

And again, the fact that you're actually insinuating Stann hasn't reached contender status just shows how ridiculously narrow your definition is.

[Ladle]

Are you serious? Stann's improvement was far more marked than amir's would have to be. He had no takedown defense, no jiujitsu, and was a brawler.

To compete with wrestlers at the top of the division, his wrestling would have to improve an INCREDIBLE amount. It's essentially non-existent right now. That would require significantly more improvement than whatever Stann underwent to win three ******* fights in a crap division.

And yes, I am suggesting that it's not unreasonable to not write someone off like Amir because crazier things have happened. Is that too much for you?

This is a world where Matt Serra felled GSP. Anything is ******* possible. Stop clinging to that as some kind of retarded defense for calling Sadollah a contender.

And Ludwig is an old veteran. Horrible comparison.

How? Amir would need a miracle to get his defensive wrestling up to a level to compete with the top wrestlers at 170, just like Ludwig would need a miracle to get his BJJ to a level where he could go on a tear at 170. Same principle and neither is REALISTIC, just POSSIBLE. You're unbelievable stupid.

[v1y]

Firstly, I actually don't think the Serra/GSP 1 fight was a pure fluke.

Was Matt Serra not a contender either? Jesus Christ. Nobody's a contender with you.

Again, Ludwig improving to the degree we're talking about is not reasonably possible. Amir improving is, and I don't believe it's as big of a leap as you seem to. You're allowed to disagree, but in the event of the unlikely, you will be proven to be wrong. In the event that Amir does not improve markedly, I'll still be right. Don't you want to be right as often as possible?

[Ladle]

Was Matt Serra not a contender either? Jesus Christ. Nobody's a contender with you.

Wasn't a conventional contender. Only got a title shot because he won The Ultimate Fighter.

In the event that Amir does not improve markedly, I'll still be right.

He'll get stomped by great wrestlers if he doesn't improve markedly. He'll prove that he isn't a contender, even in your retarded opinion.

Again, Ludwig improving to the degree we're talking about is not reasonably possible. Amir improving is, and I don't believe it's as big of a leap as you seem to. You're allowed to disagree, but in the event of the unlikely, you will be proven to be wrong. In the event that Amir does not improve markedly, I'll still be right. Don't you want to be right as often as possible?

Okay, so Ludwig improving his BJJ to the extent that he goes on a tear at 170 is not reasonably possible, but Amir Sadollah improving his defensive wrestling to such an extent that he can beat super legit wrestlers, who have been wrestling all their lives, even though his takedown defense is non-existent right now?

Neither is realistic at all, and it's obvious. End.

You're just talking complete bullshit. Stop wasting my ******* time.

[v1y]

Oh, so now we have "conventional" and "unconventional" contenders. How about we just simplify it and call them all contenders? No no, that would be too much for you.

Did you not just watch Siver stop most of Wiman's takedowns for the fight? I'm guessing you thought the possibility of Siver improving his takedown defense would outside the realm of possibilities too. Talk about a guy who started off his UFC career 1-3, and is now on a 6-1 run. Improvements happen all the time. It's not that unreasonable, ESPECIALLY for someone at Amir's stage in his career with only 7 professional fights.

[v1y]

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

Nostradamus right here.

[Ladle]

Oh, so now we have "conventional" and "unconventional" contenders. How about we just simplify it and call them all contenders? No no, that would be too much for you.

He was a totally unique contender. Nobody else got a crack at the title after coming off TUF. It's very important that we specify him as a unconventional contender, as opposed to doing what you do, which is lumping everyone into the same category for no apparent reason. Christ, you described Velasquez and Spartan in the same terms as of UFC 120. That's a ******* joke. One of them is a title contender, one of them is a guy who isn't even UFC level. "Spartan - a contender for the UFC heavyweight title." Say it out loud, and you'll realise you're a total moron.

Did you not just watch Siver stop most of Wiman's takedowns for the fight? I'm guessing you thought the possibility of Siver improving his takedown defense would outside the realm of possibilities too. Talk about a guy who started off his UFC career 1-3, and is now on a 6-1 run. Improvements happen all the time. It's not that unreasonable, ESPECIALLY for someone at Amir's stage in his career with only 7 professional fights.

Your stupidity continues to surprise me, even now. I specifically made a point of saying that NOTHING is outside the realms of possibility. Almost everything is possible in MMA. Everything isn't REALISTIC in MMA though. Apparently you physically can't differentiate between POSSIBLE and REALISTIC. Amir Sadollah challenging for a welterweight title is not a REALISTIC outcome. Your definition of a contender is predicated on whether or not it is REALISTIC, not whether or not it is POSSIBLE. Therefore, YOU ARE WRONG.

Oh, and Sadollah is 30 years old, so lol @ you acting as if he has a huge amount of time to improve.

Now, seriously, shut the **** up.