Thread Tools

Display Modes

**SideWays222** · 12-04-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roflcopter

Too bad he didn't.

He didn't have his hands connected behind Anderson's hips either and wasn't very deep on the double...I could just as arbitrarily use that as a reason he didn't get the takedown.

But considering this coming from the best poster on this site, it's no surprise such a fine excuse would be made.

Also, short grabbing is a minor foul and no one cares about it unless it's excessive. It really shouldn't be illegal at all and it was so benign that even Chael's coach admitted that Sonnen grabbed Silva's shorts as well at one point in the fight.

If Chael supporters have any legit gripe, it's that Anderson clearly hit him with a technically illegal strike. He didn't hit his head with his knee as the point of his knee clearly drove into Chael's chest, but the top of his thigh deflected off of Chael's face and according to him made him "bite his lip". I suppose this would be an illegal kick....but if Chael supporters are so ardent in their support that they think their hero should've been gifted a win off of a technicality(even though Chael was clearly hurt to the body and the thigh to the mouth did almost no real damage), more power to you....I don't think most will agree or take you seriously...especially when it's defending a known steroid cheat.

Actually Chael had some GREAT takedown attempts that were only stopped due to the shorts holding. There were alot more then just 1 occasion of the shorts holding.

Iv already had this discussion with plenty of people who all agreed that its likely Chael would have gotten the takedown had Anderson not held the shorts. Once they were shown the evidence that is.

But im not gonna waste my time having this discussion with someone like you. The biggest troll around. Quiet frankly i cant even get myself to read past the first 2 sentences of any of your posts. After having read so many of your posts i realized they are mostly just a waste of time reading.

Feel free to have the last word. I probably wont read it anyway.

evzbc · 12-04-2012, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SideWays222

Actually Chael had some GREAT takedown attempts that were only stopped due to the shorts holding. There were alot more then just 1 occasion of the shorts holding.

So you'd hope for Anderson vs Chael 1?

Are you in denial that Anderson Silva is the greatest fighter of all time????

LoL

**Roflcopter** · 12-04-2012, 11:04 PM

Anyone who would even stoop as low to have a conversation with you likely knows nothing about wrestling.

So once again, your anecdotal inanities fail to make an impact.

Much like the old "But I know guys who have bigger wrists than me and are smaller than me" argument that also was a miserable failure.

Also considering Chael only attempted about 2 takedowns in the 2nd round...."alot" which is two words by the way, clearly shows your inability to properly quantify things. And Chael held Anderson's shorts ..so it's likely he also could've benefited by fouling.

Nor do I care if you read my posts...I mainly post just to demonstrate and prove that pretty much nothing you say is valid anytime I take precious time out of my precious day to write a response to one of your posts.

**SideWays222** · 12-04-2012, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evzbc

So you'd hope for Anderson vs Chael 1?

Are you in denial that Anderson Silva is the greatest fighter of all time????

LoL

I do think Anderson is the greatest.

I wouldnt even say that the result would be different.

Im just pointing out something that took place. Sometimes people here dont seem to understand that concept.

**duckyou666** · 12-05-2012, 12:30 AM

Dolce is 100% correct. Diaz did beat Penn, who is a natural LW and is notorious for preparation and motivation issues, then lost to Condit. Diaz nuthuggers, don't even bother arguing that he won that fight, it's in the books as a loss, get over it. Being 1-1 and coming off of a loss does not warrant a number 1 contender fight. Hell, at this point, him being considered top 5 is almost laughable. Hendricks has won 5 in a row, the last 3 were against top 10 contenders, (at the time) Pierce could have been considered a top 10'er, so it can be said that he's beat 4 top 10 fighters. Let's see, 1-1, coming off a loss against 5-0, 3, 4 against top contenders? How is this even an argument?

**SideWays222** · 12-05-2012, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roflcopter

Anyone who would even stoop as low to have a conversation with you likely knows nothing about wrestling.

So once again, your anecdotal inanities fail to make an impact.

Much like the old "But I know guys who have bigger wrists than me and are smaller than me" argument that also was a miserable failure.

Lol you troll quiet a bit dont you??

I do know people who are smaller then me but have bigger wrists. That isnt an argument thats just a fact. Something like that can only be a failure in your mind. Maybe it helps you sleep at night or maybe it makes you feel smarter. Whatever the reason is though you need to get a grip.