# Anthony Johnson reminds me so much of GSP!!



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Wow, I thought I was watching GSP fighting tonight. 

Similar striking style based on "karate" leg kicks to do damage and keep the distance, very quick hands, light on his feet, same posture and stance, good cardio, same weight/body type (but taller), very athletic, kinda mediocre head movement too, can get caught when he gets in the inside, good wrestling base, explosive TDs, ability to pass the guard, same GnP/elbow work in the opponent's guard. He throws leg kicks in a very similar way. His last leg kick to Burns reminded me of the one GSP threw to Hughes at UFC 65 to knock him down. Even the little break dance move at the end of the fight was pure GSP style, unbelievable! Are these 2 guys long lost brothers or something? The only thing I'm wondering is how AJ pronounces the word "rhythm" lol. 

The only difference IMO is BJJ, Johnson doesn't seem to have great BJJ defense ATM, he's been in bad situations a couple of times tonight (triangle, kimura). I think he could have avoided these situations if he had better BJJ defense. However AJ is IMO more powerful and has way more KO power than GSP. 

I'll elaborate more on this thread later and try to establish a parallel between the 2 fighters. 

Man I'm starting to like Johnson! 



And I'm glad he got to avenge this ugly lost by a sick leg kick KO.



































Do you agree? How would a fight go between these 2?

*I'm fully aware (my boy) GSP is a way more technical, established fighter and IMO would easily beat Anthony ATM, just trying to point out the similarities in style, see if you guys agree and also see how you guys think a fight would go between these 2 in the future as they are in the same division and will IMO be facing each other one day.*


----------



## Judoka (Feb 23, 2007)

I think Georges St Pierre would win quite dominantly but Johnson is a fantastic fighter.


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

thats what i mean by saying that aj is little over rated


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

dontazo said:


> thats what i mean by saying that aj is little over rated


LOL! Okay, now I get it. AJ reminds you of GSP really? Because they are ripped and both happend to throw leg kicks? No, no way.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Johnson is very powerful and athletic.

And I disagree I thought his submission defense looked very good however I disagree about him and GSP being similar.

GSP is a more techinical striker with much less power and their wrestling and submission games really aren't similar at all.


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

everyone reminds of gsp, Philippe, aj ... lol


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

Um no, I don't see a comparison. GSP is canadian for starters and Rumble is not canadian. 


I don't think I need to say more than that.


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

u mean he is black ? lol


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

dontazo said:


> u mean he is black ? lol


No, I mean not canadian you freakin racist SOB!!! What are you from alabama or something? I thought we got past all that when we elected obama, but no... you ******* racists have to keep bringing up the race card!!

plus, since the internet doesn't really convey sarcasm that well, I'm just joking around

Nover on the other hand... he reminds dana of GSP. Which is funny because GSP is from Cananda and Nover is from Guam or Korea or papua new guinea or something. Plus he likes eating duck babies, and I remember GSP saying he doesn't really like duck babies all that much.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

bbjd7 said:


> Johnson is very powerful and athletic.
> 
> And I disagree I thought his submission defense looked very good however I disagree about him and GSP being similar.
> 
> GSP is a more techinical striker with much less power and their wrestling and submission games really aren't similar at all.


If he had BJJ at the same level as GSP he would have never been in those bad situations. When was the last time you saw GSP in in the same kind of situation?

GSP is more of a technical striker and AJ a powerful/explosive one but it doesn't mean they can't have similarities in their style and in other aspects of their game. Indeed they really do IMHO. 

EDIT for others: let's keep this thread serious and on topic for a bit please.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Nover is nothing like GSP either.

GSP is very different then all of these guys. He is not only skilled but amazingly athletic and use that well.

Johnson doesn't have BJJ on the level of GSP not close I'm just saying his submission defense is good.


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Nover is nothing like GSP either.
> 
> GSP is very different then all of these guys. He is not only skilled but amazingly athletic and use that well.
> 
> Johnson doesn't have BJJ on the level of GSP not close I'm just saying his submission defense is good.


Well I was just saying what dana was saying.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

imo johnson is more athletic than gsp ....wrestling and striking probably about even....but bjj goes to gsp


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Yea but he doesn't seem to understand how to translate it to MMA like GSP does.

He's a crazy athlete but IDK it's just not the same IMO.


----------



## Ebc_Kyle (Sep 24, 2006)

The only comparison I can make between Anothony Johnson and GSP is they have similiar skin color.


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

lol. and term Good athlete is over rated and over used


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Don't really think they're all that similar really. GSP is a lot lighter on his feet, his striking is more versatile, and Johnson has more 1-strike KO power. GSP also mixes everything a lot better, the only similarity is they're huge athletic guys for 170.


----------



## Dtwizzy2k5 (Jul 7, 2008)

I wish people would stop comparing fighters to GSP...there is only ONE Georges St.Pierre! 
But one thing i will say though is that AJ looked great in the fight tonight and i truly believe he could be the next big thing in the UFC. He displayed pretty good all-around skill and is clearly an amazing athlete with a ripped body. And if im not mistaken, hes only 24 years old which means he has plenty of time to keep improving and working on his technique. Remember, not even Anderson Silva was who he is today at age 24, so give AJ some time. 
I truly believe Anthony Johnson has the potential to be the next elite UFC fighter and one of the best p4p fighters in the world.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

yeh but he's also 3 years younger than gsp...and only has 8 fights


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Thanks for your contribution F>A. How about the "karate" style leg kicks, fast hands, explosive TDs and Gnp/elbow work on the ground?

EDIT: exactly Aaron, very good point. AJ could have a very very bright future at WW. He shows so much potential IMO.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

IDK GSP doesn't have the power or strength that Johnson has but in a way that helps him because he can be so fast.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Xerxes said:


> Thanks for your contribution F>A. How about the "karate" style leg kicks, fast hands, explosive TDs and Gnp/elbow work on the ground?


Their ground and pound inside the guard is similar, except Anthony's more content to just stay inside, whereas GSP uses his strikes more to create passing opportunities. Anthony's got sick power, but I don't think he throws tight combinations, he's very standard---but effective---with his boxing.

Anthony's definitely got potential, I look forward to seeing more of his fights.


----------



## Wise (Oct 8, 2006)

I guess you missed the part where he said he just started training kicks like 2 months before that fight.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

Wise said:


> I guess you missed the part where he said he just started training kicks like 2 months before that fight.


yet it was a headkick that put tommy spear on queer street....i'm not really sure how to take this from him


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Yea maybe it's the style of kick? idk It probably had something to do with training with Cung Le.


----------



## Jundon! (Sep 10, 2008)

I'm not sold on him until he beats a Top 5-10 WW.

Even then tho...


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

give the man his props and shut up...dammit.


*Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*




Im well tired of Black fighters having to prove themself to get half as much respect. Only Anderson Silva (and sometimes Rampage) has been subjected to no real scrutiny and criticism in terms of Black fighters. 


You can pretend and try to bury your head in the sand, but this is a reality alot of people choose to ignore.




there I said it.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Sekou said:


> give the man his props and shut up...dammit.
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*
> ...


Please tell me you're joking.


----------



## Jundon! (Sep 10, 2008)

Sekou said:


> give the man his props and shut up...dammit.
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*
> ...


Most people on this board are picking Rashad > Forrest. The only real hated black fighters are AJ & Guillard IMO.


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

Fedor>all said:


> Please tell me you're joking.


see this is what I mean....the dismissive type of mentality



you know...really as an adult, I get tired of some thing and learn the importance of standing for some things. They can ban me if they want, but this is something I notice all the time...of course its of little importance to you, judging by your response


----------



## SpoKen (Apr 28, 2007)

Sekou said:


> give the man his props and shut up...dammit.
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*
> ...


Insanely ballsy.. you'll probably get neg-repped. But in a sad way.. I kinda agree..


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Sekou said:


> give the man his props and shut up...dammit.
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*
> ...


Excuse me but you're talking like there are 30 black fighters out there and "MMAforum posters" haven't shown enough respect to 28 of them. In terms of black fighters that are established or getting their way to the top who else do you see besides Rampage, A. Silva, Rashad and Kongo (in the UFC)? 

I totally agree with you that Rashad and Kongo are some of the most underrated fighters in the UFC, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Many white or "yellow" (lol) fighters are underrated too. Look at Kimbo and see how overrated he was just a few months ago.

I respect your opinion but I really think you're being biased. 

PS: I'll bet betting 10/15 bucks on Rashad FYI. TKO early rounds or UD.


----------



## Jundon! (Sep 10, 2008)

Why do you think people hate Guillard? 

Because he's a trash talking, ghetto mentality, coke sniffing, no ground game, wild but powerful hands, and because he ******* sucks donkey balls when he's on camera. You could also add because he's the only black fighter so far in the LW division that holds the (Me = BJ nuthugger) precious BJ Penns/Spencer Fisher's/Roger Huertas/etc.

For Anthony Johnson... Well you can blame that on the overhyped shit people make him out to be online & in real life.


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

Jundon! said:


> Why do you think people hate Guillard? Because he's a trash talking, ghetto mentality, coke sniffing, no ground game, wild but powerful hands, and because he ******* sucks donkey balls when he's on camera. You could also add because he's the only black fighter so far in the LW division that holds the (Me = BJ nuthugger) precious BJ Penns/Spencer Fisher's/Roger Huertas/etc.



yes and Melvin Guillard represents 80% of Black fighters :thumbsdown:

spare me....


----------



## Jundon! (Sep 10, 2008)

Xerxes said:


> Excuse me but you're talking like there are 30 black fighters out there and "MMAforum posters" haven't shown enough respect to 28 of them. In terms of black fighters that are established or getting their way to the top who else do you see besides Rampage, A. Silva, Rashad and Kongo (in the UFC)?
> 
> I totally agree with you that Rashad and Kongo are some of the most underrated fighters in the UFC, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Many white or "yellow" (lol) fighters are underrated too. Look at Kimbo and see how overrated he was just a few months ago.
> 
> ...


I agree with Rashad. (He KO'd Liddell. He's legit.)

Kongo hasn't fought anyone yet with a good BJJ game & a GNP wrestling set. You can see why he gets trashed on a lot.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Jundon! said:


> I agree with Rashad. (He KO'd Liddell. He's legit.)
> 
> Kongo hasn't fought anyone yet *with a good BJJ game* & a GNP wrestling set. You can see why he gets trashed on a lot.


Heath Herring maybe?

That wasn't really my point anyway. I meant when you are 5-2 in the Octagon and you're only 2 losses are due to very close/controversial split decisions, you deserve to be fighting better opponents than Evesern or whatever the hell his name is or Mustafa "Photo coming soon, height and weight n/a" Al Turk. That's what I meant by underrated and not enough respected for Cheick Kongo.

EDIT: you know what I mean http://tinyurl.com/6guj7y


----------



## SpoKen (Apr 28, 2007)

I think the whole thing is, about the black fighters not getting respect.. it's more then just them. I wouldn't bring it down to just black fighters.. I'd more say.. all races of fighters.. it's hard for people to be considered a contender and move up in ranks because, "They have to fight a top ten king of the world fighter before I respect said fighter"

I just think, for some stupid reason, black fighters doing the same thing all fighters do in terms of climbing up, is getting more attention for it.

Maybe it's because of Obama being a presidential elect.. and we're still in the black lash.

I'm going to get neg repped soooo hard for this post I'm sure.


----------



## Entity (Aug 18, 2008)

Anthony Johnson has no ground game whatsoever. He doesn't even know what to do from side control. His GnP sucks, and he's got no submissions.

He's a B level fighter at best, and GSP would absolutely demolish him.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Sekou said:


> see this is what I mean....the dismissive type of mentality
> 
> you know...really as an adult, I get tired of some thing and learn the importance of standing for some things. They can ban me if they want, but this is something I notice all the time...of course its of little importance to you, judging by your response


I'm dismissing it because your reasoning is absolutely faulted.

Why do you think Anderson Silva and Rampage aren't criticized? It's because they've PROVEN themselves against top competition.

Rashad Evans drew with Tito Ortiz---and would have lost that fight had Tito not been deducted a point in the second. He only won a split decision over a middleweight (Michael Bisping), and he KO'd Chuck Liddell in a fight he was losing on the score cards.

Anthony Johnson is questionable because his biggest win is Kevin Burns, who is really a B-level Welterweight, and he was beaten by Rich Clementi (a guy who fights at LW).

Stop pulling out the race card when we're criticizing these guys based-on what they've shown in the cage. In order to earn praise, you need to prove yourself and the reason both those guys are ragged on is because they just haven't shown they're that great.

It's not about being an "adult", it's about evaluating fighters based-on their skills. If Rashad beats Forrest decisively there will be less reason to question his ability, and if AJ beats a few top 10 WWs he won't face nearly as much scrutiny either.

I just read what you're saying as an insult to the integrity of people who post on this forum.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

Impressive fight and well deserved win. After all he would have most likely won the their first encounter via decision. I'm sure he's liking this win. Highlight reel...

Got knocked out cold and a hammer fist for insurance.

Looks like Cung Le taught him well!


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

Spoken812 said:


> I think the whole thing is, about the black fighters not getting respect.. it's more then just them. I wouldn't bring it down to just black fighters.. I'd more say.. all races of fighters.. it's hard for people to be considered a contender and move up in ranks because, "They have to fight a top ten king of the world fighter before I respect said fighter"
> 
> I just think, for some stupid reason, black fighters doing the same thing all fighters do in terms of climbing up, is getting more attention for it.
> 
> ...



you and I have had some bumps and scrapes int he past, but as a man I respect your position. You took time (however little it was) to actually evaluate this area of the topic and give somewhat of a coherent response, in the face of whatever type of backlash that will come your way (mods or fellow posters)

You get my respect for that.


my only point was Black fighters tend to be scrutinized and tend to work their azz off before even getting a milligram of respect/recognition

As an adult youcan lie to people, but the worst thing you can do it lie to your own brain. I visit about 5 of the prominent MMA forums and the same mentality persists.

Cheick Kongo....considered a joke

Bobby Lashley...man didnt even fight and had steriod allegations and "he'll never be as good as Lesnar" affixed to his name

Randleman....laughed at and dismissed as a joke

Rashad Evans.....no respect, just hated all around

Anthony Johnson....people know he's a damn good fighter, but they grit their teeth and nitpick about all the things he needs to improve (I noticed Phillipe Nover was getting more respect and a brighter horizon set for him than Rumble)

Maurice Smith.....man proved himself on more occasions than Mark Coleman and Ken Shamrock, considered a nobody nowdays

Soukoudjou.....damn good fighter, but of course he got cut before people like inconsistent ass Sakara



accuse me of "race card playing" if you'd like, Im just offereing my perspective....and this will be my last post in this thread.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Sekou said:


> give the man his props and shut up...dammit.
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*
> ...


Bro saying that Anthony Johnson isn't GSP isn't saying he isn't a great talent he is.

I like Anothony Johnson he has a bright future. He just to me looks nothing like GSP.

I mean Melvin Guillard is a fantastic athlete and he doesn't remind me of GSP either.

In fact no one reminds me of GSP.

It has nothing to do with him being Black in fact I like a lot of Black fighters there is a young black fighter named Phil Davis a D-1 wrestler who has a very bright future.


----------



## deanmzi (Oct 15, 2006)

Johnson needs get some more BJJ training under his belt if he wants to compete w/ the likes of GSP


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Sekou said:


> you and I have had some bumps and scrapes int he past, but as a man I respect your position. You took time (however little it was) to actually evaluate this area of the topic and give somewhat of a coherent response, in the face of whatever type of backlash that will come your way (mods or fellow posters)
> 
> You get my respect for that.
> 
> ...


Kongo is a joke because his ground game is ass. He's gets takendown at will and has never faced a guy with submission skills don't say Herring.

Bobby Lashley is thought to be on steroids because of all the weight he put on between his amateur wrestling career and his pro one. Also people say Brock who is white was on roids to.

Randleman is a joke if you debate that you are just being silly

Rashad hate is something I disagree with but that has a lot to do with his rep as a boring fighter and the fact he KO'd a beloved fighter. Serra was hated after he KO'd GSP, same for Gonzaga.

Anthony Johnson is a young fighter who hasn't reached his potential yet so people poke holes in his game they do the same thing to White Prospects.

Mo Smith IMO is a UFC HOF. And loved by a lot of hardcore fans there isn't much reason to mention his name nowdays though because he and Frank Shamrock are basically banished from UFC telecasts

Sokky got cut because he made a shit load of money and I love Sokky so do a lot of other people around here

Dont be that guy who makes a post and then runs away man up u made a wild statement defend it.


----------



## Jundon! (Sep 10, 2008)

Xerxes said:


> Heath Herring maybe?
> 
> That wasn't really my point anyway. I meant when you are 5-2 in the Octagon and you're only 2 losses are due to very close/controversial split decisions, you deserve to be fighting better opponents than Evesern or whatever the hell his name is or Mustafa "Photo coming soon, height and weight n/a" Al Turk. That's what I meant by underrated and not enough respected for Cheick Kongo.
> 
> EDIT: you know what I mean http://tinyurl.com/6guj7y


Heath Herring? No. All he tried to do was deliver knees and punches to the body from north/south position. 

You clearly don't understand WHY the UFC is getting him these fights... to build him back up from that Herring fight he was SUPPOSED to win. If you want the UFC to give him opponents like Nogueira, Carwin, Lesnar, or even Velasquez he'll have a losing record in the UFC. Kongo with his physic and striking ability is someone to keep as long as he stays away from the opponents that I mentioned.


----------



## Jundon! (Sep 10, 2008)

Sokoudjou could dish out the pain but couldn't take it. Plus he had a losing record in the UFC and was getting paid more than he was worth. getting KO'd by Cane doesn't help. 

Randleman had 2 great wins against Cro Cop & Ninja than faded into a string of multiple losses.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

How do these threads keep turning into debates about race?


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Because if someone disagrees with you, it's much easier to attack something people are much more sensitive about than deal with the topic at hand.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

*I would like to apologize in advance for the length of this post but this is a "touchy" subject and I'd rather spend some time and be clear so we can avoid any misunderstandings*




Fedor>all said:


> I'm dismissing it because your reasoning is absolutely faulted.
> 
> Why do you think Anderson Silva and Rampage aren't criticized? It's because they've PROVEN themselves against top competition.


TBH, Sekou is neither totally wrong nor totally right. He (she?) is actually right to some extent when he says black fighters don't get the amount of respect they should be getting and I'm posting this long thread to try to explain you why. He's wrong by taking the short path to explain his POV and I'll also explain why later. IMO he is also wrong to narrow his opinion to black fighters only, because his point could actually be valid for any other fighter that would be part of a "visible minority" (aka "non-caucasian").

Now think for sec about the fans, or what we could call the target market of the UFC: 18 to 30 years old *caucasian type* males. Viewers become fans mainly because they appreciate a fighter's skills but also because they can identity to/relate to/establish an emotional connection with their favorite fighter(s) for bunch of different reasons, *including ethnicity, nationality or religion of the fighter*. So basically this is how fighters build a fan base, and in a profit-driven MMA organization, the bigger your fan base, the bigger you get paid, the more leverage you have within the organization, the more bargaining power you have to turn down/pick your opponent (to get good match-ups), the faster you'll get a title shot (i.e. Lesnar) etc, etc. All these different aspects (fan base+salary+"power"+shots) go together and are what fighters (and myself btw) consider to be "getting respect" from the fans and from the organization.

Now imagine we have a fighter Y = black and a fighter Z = white. They have the exact same skill set, same personalities, just one is black and the other one is white. Basically you'd have "a black and a white version of the same person". Anyway, you get the idea. 

Given what I've explained above, we can say: *all things being equal (for 2 exact same fighters)*, fighter Y, fighting for a US-based organization mainly targeting a white public, will get less "respect" (salary, leverage, shots, etc.) than fighter Z, because he will always have a smaller/weaker fan base than fighter Z, as the (white) fans will more identify to/relate to/establish an connection with Z than they'll ever do with Y. As a consequence, we can say black fighters get less respect than what they would get if they were the exact same fighters but white.

Think about a 33 y o white american born and raised fighter named Jeff Grahamson for example. He possesses the exact same skills as Anderson Silva, he ktfo's of everybody in his division in less than 2 rounds in the most spectacular, nastiest fashion just like the Spider does. Honestly, don't you think this fighter would have waaaay more *fans than Silva has? 
*think casual fans

A. Silva is the best and the most spectacular fighter in the UFC by far, but why isn't he the biggest or at least one of the biggest draws in the UFC? Answer is 1) he doesn't speak English, so he can't build a strong emotional connection with the fans and 2) he is black and many white fans (main target market) will have a harder time identifying/connecting with him. 

So we can say considering the fighter that he is, Anderson Silva doesn't get the amount of "respect" as he would be getting as if he was "Jeff Grahamson". This is somehow what Sekou was pointing out I believe. 

Same thing goes for Rampage but just on a smaller level as he speaks English and he's type is more "familiar" to the North American public. But "more" doesn't mean "as much as" a Chuck, a Randy or a Brock type. 

So as you said Fedor>All, Anderson Silva and Rampage have proven themselves, they are amazing and spectacular fighters thus very marketable, good draws for the UFC. However, they'd be even more marketable and big of a draw if they were white. 

Now back to Sekou as promised in the intro. He is right to some extent but also wrong if he thinks Rashad Evans or Cheick Kongo don't get the amount of respect they deserve only because they are black. No, it's because they are harder to market. Rashad seems a bit of a shy dude and he's not the most charismatic, impressive looking fighter out there *+* being black makes him even harder to market among the (white) fans. 

Kongo's pretty charismatic but I'd consider his case even worse as he has poor English ("gimee teetel" lol) and just as Silva, he'll struggle establishing a connection, build a big and strong fan base within the UFC caucasian american target market.

We have to face it. In most cases it has nothing to do with racism, it's just how human psychology works: the more somebody resembles you in terms of ethnicity, nationality, religion and culture the more likely you are to connect with them and like/adore them. As a business, the UFC has no other choice than just following this natural human trend when they establish the salaries, title shots, main events, other words for "giving respect" to fighters. When Dana White says "We want to put on fights that fans want to see the most" he thinks "We want to put on fights that can generate the most PPV buys". Point is everything's up to the fans, it all comes down to the fan base (back to this concept again), which will depend on how many followers the fighter can have (quantity) + how "hard" they'd follow him (quality/strength), which both depend on what I've described above (connection etc.). 
Just slightly off-topic, many people on this forum are always talking about how "fair" or "unfair" it is for fighter A to get a shot instead of fighter B because B deserves it more etc. -> Dude, why blame it on the UFC, blame it on the fans that would pay more to see A fighting than B fighting. So this "deserve" or "do not deserve" debate is just pointless and irrelevant considering the UFC's just doing its job as a business, which is basically make the most fans happy (fan base) to make the most money they possibly can with each event.

So your ethnicity only, can and does determine how much "respect" you get as a fighter, from the fans and from your organization. Sekou is not so wrong after all, he's just wrong for taking the short path. 




> Rashad Evans drew with Tito Ortiz---and *would have lost that fight had Tito not been deducted a point in the second*.


Well, he's been deduced a point for a reason right? Rashad could have very well won both 1st and 2nd round 10-9 if Tito didn't grab the fence 1-2 times in each of those rounds to avoid the TDs. If he didn't do what is considered to be "illegal", Rashad could have won the bout by UD 30-27 or at least 29-28 (or eventually finishing him on the ground). 

If you question these possibilities, then why are fighters getting a 1 point deduction for grabbing the fence? -> because doing so can change the outcome of a fight, and it will change it even more the scorecards if it's done 1-2 times in 2 rounds like Tito "aren't tryin enough" did, than 5 times in one round only. 



> Rashad *only* won a split decision over a *middleweight* (Michael Bisping)


Only? Rashad actually achieved something no other man on earth ever achieved: beat Bisping lol. I know what people say, Bisping hasn't been tested yet, he's overrated etc. but I don't agree with everything, he's faced some decent fighters and fact in 17 bouts, he's got only 1 loss on his record and it's a loss to Rashad. 

Now about size. Rashad's considered by many to be a small LHW, he's broad but short for a LHW (5'11). He could easily cut to MW. Bisping's a pretty broad 6'1" tall dude. He's got a big frame and I'm not even sure he should be considered smaller than Rashad when they fought at LHW. But in any case, they are really about even. Why taking any credit away from him on these aspects (SP win+size)?

Even being a small LHW, Rashad had a few fights at HW and he's always won despite having a huge size disadvantage against his opponents. He's pretty much all the time been fighting at a size disadvantage in the ring and he continues to be by fighting at LHW. Point is, you really shouldn't criticize him over size. 



> he KO'd Chuck Liddell in a fight he was losing on the score cards.


He lost the first round on the score cards by a few punches (close round). He lost it because the 1st round was for him to "feel out" and try to figure Chuck's timing which is what made him dominate round 2 until he got that sick KO. He stated KO'ing Chuck was his plan and from how round 1 and 2 went you could clearly if wasn't lying: all he wanted to do was stand and bang and KO Chuck, even though is got a much shorter reach than him. This right hook was no fluke, it came after a long feeling out process in round 1 and pretty much everything just worked as planned. 
+ he KO'd Chuck in a way nobody ever did before. Again, I no reason to take any credit from him. 

Rashad's a very well rounded, solid fighter that has a good chin and amazing KO power. Do you realize in his last 5 fights only, he's got 3 "put to sleep"/"don't get up right away" KOs. And as I said he's not even a big LHW, imagine what he'd do at MW. 

For someone as knowledgeable as you to underestimate and give him so little credit makes me think he's even more underrated than I thought. I'll be posting a thread about him before UFC 92 to explain why he should deserve more "respect" indeed, more credit and why he is underrated. 



> Anthony Johnson is questionable because his biggest win is Kevin Burns, who is really a B-level Welterweight, and he was beaten by Rich Clementi (a guy who fights at LW).


He puts on the table some very interesting tools and shows great potential IMO. He's only 24 y o and debuted his MMA career just 2 years ago. So far, most of his wins are by KOs, which is something we don't see a lot at WW, as 170ers naturally have less KO power than heavier fighters. 

I agree on Clementi size. TBH I haven't seen this fight yet but from what I've heard/read, he was doing fine until he lost his contact and got subbed. Not sure though :dunno:

Even though I just posted a thread pointing out what I believe to be similarities between him and GSP, I'm not saying "He is the next GSP". He's very far from being at GSP's top P4P fighter level but my point is he possesses the tools and potential to be a force at WW one day if he keeps working hard. That won't be because he shares some similarities with GSP but rather because he shows lots of potential IMO.



> Stop pulling out the race card when we're criticizing these guys based-on what they've shown in the cage. In order to earn praise, you need to prove yourself and the reason both those guys are ragged on is because they just haven't shown they're that great.


I agree that Sekou has lots of these kind of posts but he has the right to give his opinion as long as they don't insult, offend anybody. No one is totally right or totally wrong and with logics and reasoning I believe I showed you that Sekou wasn't as wrong as you and other members no this thread seemed to be thinking. 



> It's not about being an "adult", it's about evaluating fighters based-on their skills. *If* Rashad beats Forrest *decisively* there will be less reason to question his ability, and if AJ beats a few top 10 WWs he won't face nearly as much scrutiny either.


Sounds like Rashad could beat Forrest in 2 weeks but you'd still be questioning his ability like you are today. He's the challenger and the underdog coming into this fight and just winning should already give him lots of credits but I'm really starting to wonder what the hell he'd have to do for people to recognize his skills as a fighter, maybe kill Forrest in the Octagon? I'm not even sure that'd be enough...

This IMO confirms again Rashad is tad underrated and he might actually be the most underrated fighter in the UFC ATM (I'll post my thread for sure)



> I just read what you're saying as an insult to the integrity of people who post on this forum.


Unfortunately it is what it is F>A. Black or other "visible minority" fighters would get more respect/credit if they had the same look as the people that pay to watch and admire them to a certain degree. Just listen to the boos of the public many times when they're showing a black fighter on the big screens. Just this tells you there is something wrong and Sekou is not just being "paranoid". Being a foreigner doesn't help either and If you still don't believe me, just listen to the chant for USA every time a non-american fighter mixes it up with an American fighter. Chant for USA says it all, no need for this post actually.. 

Would you like to bet credit that Rashad will get more boos than Forrest and Cheick will get some boos from the public on UFC 92?
I don't have lots I can bet but we could bet 2K if you want (in the case you don't agree with me)


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

I mean why do you think so many white people like rap music? It's because it's filled with people who look, talk and have had the same experiences as them.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

See but what you aren't noticing is that this is MMA every fighter has people who discount their accomplishments.

Forrest Griffins win over both Shogun and Rampage have been overlooked by some.

Keith Jardines wins over Forrest and Chuck are overlooked by certain people(ME)

Same with every fighter. Some people don't buy into Rashad.

It doesn't help that he comes off very cocky to some and early in his career wasn't exciting.

Anderson Silva isn't a star because and only because he doesn't speak english. Fedor isn't a star for the same exact reason.

Rampage was being hyped a huge amount till he went crazy and got locked up I saw him on ESPN all the time just like when Chuck was champion. and considering his last 2 PPV's have done huge numbers I would say he's a draw.

People discount fighters skills it happens all the time and yea People cheer for people who they can relate to and who look like them a lot of the time. However I don't see Black Fighters having a tougher time getting title shots then White Fighters.

Guys who don't speak English have had a tougher time but thats different.

Look I'm half black and I live in a mostly white Suburb I know about racism but a lot of the time people just go looking for it.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> I mean why do you think so many white people like rap music? It's because it's filled with people who look, talk and have had the same experiences as them.


If this was ironic, I'd like to tell you something. Why do you think they produced Eminem and he got so much success so fast (not counting his skills)?

-> Because many people of the "white public" you're talking about couldn't relate enough to other black hip hop singers out there. There was many white hip hop fans that needed an artist like Eminem to produce and rap on songs they could better identity to. With Eminem, they've filled what they call "a gap in the market". Smart move.


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

bbjd7 said:


> *u made a wild statement *defend it.


....wild statement?

It not from your perspective, therefore you dismiss it as "wild" or illogical or whatever....and automatically jump to the stance of everybody is jugded the same and all fighters are on the same plane of criticism.


Look at the way you nit and cherry picked apart my analysis of each fighter. People are ready to discredit Melvin Guillard all together as a fighter because he sniffed coke....but people like Stephen Bonnar get a pass for steroids because he happens to be an "exciting fighter" with "good ground game"

I got a nice bridge for sale, homeboy....


yeah....most Black fighters suck and deserve miniscule respect (and little UFC promotion) because they arent "exciting" and have "weak ground game"....sure, whatever, buddy.:laugh:


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> See but what you aren't noticing is that this is MMA every fighter has people who discount their accomplishments.
> 
> Forrest Griffins win over both Shogun and Rampage have been overlooked by some.
> 
> ...


fixed it for ya

jardine beating whitehead gets no love, but if babalu beat him, omg he's awesome....jardine beating vera gets no love, but when werdum beat him, it was against a top ufc hw....and jardine lost the fight to wilson


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Sekou said:


> ....wild statement?
> 
> It not from your perspective, therefore you dismiss it as "wild" or illogical or whatever....and automatically jump to the stance of everybody is jugded the same and all fighters are on the same plane of criticism.
> 
> ...


You threw out a statement that would stir up a shit storm and then decided to not post anymore.

Melvin Guillard is a drug addict with an attitude problem and a bad ground game I like Melvin but it's not because he's black that people dislike him.

Rampage Jackson was the most promoted UFC fighter for awhile until he lost his title.

Most of the guys you listed biggest problem is they either don't speak english or are assholes.

I agree Rashad doesn't get a lot of love and he should but that has to do with the fact top fighters get nitpicked by everyone.

And Aaronyman come on now do you even want to talk about his fight with Vera it was a horrible performance Werdum mounted him and beat him in round 1. Babalu beating Whitehead isn't a OMG performance it's just that he won a fight striking for the most part which is weird for him.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> And Aaronyman come on now do you even want to talk about his fight with Vera it was a horrible performance.


his best? no.... but horrible is too strong of a word....he was moving forward the whole fight...a horrible performance was his fight against wanderlei where he basically did exactly what wanderlei wanted him to do


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

I edited my post to answer yours more btw but it was a very bad fight which both guys looked bad and neither really did much to win.


----------



## SpoKen (Apr 28, 2007)

Is it just me.. or is every black fighter considered an "amazing athlete?"

Anyways. Rashad (My favorite fighter) doesn't get the amount of respect he deserves.

But the same can be said about Forrest, He's the champ with wins of Shogun (worst shogun in history.. but still shogun) and Rampage. He still doesn't get the respect he rightfully deserves (I love the guy, But I like Rashad more, so this excludes me).

Black fighter, and a white fighter.

I think that, because there are few black fighters compared to whites and asians, they are subjected to this hate, and it gets noticed a lot more.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Agree but honestly most of the black fighters are great athletes I mean Rashad is a D-1 wrestler, Johnson and Guillard are freakish athletes, Rampage is crazy strong and Kongo just looks huge.

But yea I mean Forrest doesn't get the credit he deserves for being a great athlete.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

it's not that easy spoken812

what do mean he doesn't get the respect he deserves? forrest has been a huge fan favourite since his amazing fight w/ bonnar in the finale, which jumpstarted the ufc into the mainstream....hell he was a huge star in Ireland at UFC 72 and the fans were clearly on his side for his the rampage fight

ok listen, the best guys fight in the ufc....any good fighter can be brought in....

african americans are only 1/10th of the US remember....but that doesn't necessarily mean they will 1/10th of the fighters in the UFC....especially when you are dealing with a sample size of 140 fighters...


----------



## spaulding91 (Sep 23, 2007)

every single fighter get subjected to nit picking. thats what these forums are for, open debate. hell even the champs get hated on. gsp has bad head movement and no chin, a. silva has no tdd, bj has no cardio, lesnar has no sub defense and crappy striking. 

this is what we do. we break down fighters, defend our favorites, and try to discredit to ones we dont like. but you have to do it with facts that you can back up and knowledge of the game. 

pulling the race card is like sneaking out the back door and saying your done posting in this thread confirms it. you made a radical comparison, then a radical claim to everyone in this forum without seeing our faces or knowing what color we are, and then you try flee out the backdoor.

neg repped


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Sekou said:


> my only point was Black fighters tend to be scrutinized and tend to work their azz off before even getting a milligram of respect/recognition


That's the thing, ALL fighters are scrutinized if they haven't proven themselves, it has nothing to do with race.



Sekou said:


> Cheick Kongo....considered a joke


He's not considered a joke. He's considered an average HW fighter with an abysmal ground game and good kickboxing. 



Sekou said:


> Bobby Lashley...man didnt even fight and had steriod allegations and "he'll never be as good as Lesnar" affixed to his name


Not sure where you're reading this.



Sekou said:


> Randleman....laughed at and dismissed as a joke


He's dismissed as a joke because of his steroid use, and his total waste of athletic ability.



Sekou said:


> Rashad Evans.....no respect, just hated all around


Bullshit. He's hated because of what people perceive to be his cocky attitude. I don't like his personality, but I certainly give him plenty of respect. 



Sekou said:


> Anthony Johnson....people know he's a damn good fighter, but they grit their teeth and nitpick about all the things he needs to improve (I noticed Phillipe Nover was getting more respect and a brighter horizon set for him than Rumble)


He is a good fighter, but it's pretty obvious there are visible holes in his game. He hasn't faced an A-level welterweight either, which is why a lot of people aren't convinced by his ability.



Sekou said:


> Maurice Smith.....man proved himself on more occasions than Mark Coleman and Ken Shamrock, considered a nobody nowdays


You must post on Sherdog, because no one here consider Mo Smith a "nobody". It appears to me that you're taking comments made by A) Total noobs, or B) trolls as general consensus opinion, which is a terrible, terrible idea.



Sekou said:


> Soukoudjou.....damn good fighter, but of course he got cut before people like inconsistent ass Sakara


Everyone was all over Sokoudjou's nuts until the Machida fight, he's talented and no one is disputing that. We criticize his conditioning and his versatility, and that has nothing to do with his ethnicity, it has to do with his work ethic---a fundamental quality of MMA fighters.



Sekou said:


> accuse me of "race card playing" if you'd like, Im just offereing my perspective....and this will be my last post in this thread.


Your perspective is founded on broad generalizations. If you're going to make such claims, you'd better back it up.



Xerxes said:


> TBH, Sekou is neither totally wrong nor totally right. He (she?) is actually right to some extent when he says black fighters don't get the amount of respect they should be getting and I'm posting this long thread to try to explain you why. He's wrong by taking the short path to explain his POV and I'll also explain why later. IMO he is also wrong to narrow his opinion to black fighters only, because his point could actually be valid for any other fighter that would be part of a "visible minority" (aka "non-caucasian").
> 
> Now think for sec about the fans, or what we could call the target market of the UFC: 18 to 30 years old *caucasian type* males. Viewers become fans mainly because they appreciate a fighter's skills but also because they can identity to/relate to/establish an emotional connection with their favorite fighter(s) for bunch of different reasons, *including ethnicity, nationality or religion of the fighter*.
> 
> ...


Listen man, I respect the fact that you've taken the time to write all this, but this is speculative research. This isn't addressing the issue of the absurd claim that Sekou is making about black fighters being disrespected and forced to prove themselves more than any other. EVERY single fighter gets criticized for what they accomplish, it has very little to do with race.



Xerxes said:


> A. Silva is the best and the most spectacular fighter in the UFC by far, but why isn't he the biggest or at least one of the biggest draws in the UFC? Answer is 1) he doesn't speak English, so he can't build a strong emotional connection with the fans and 2) he is black and many white fans (main target market) will have a harder time identifying/connecting with him.


What does this have to do with him receiving respect? You're talking about an entirely different issue altogether. Anderson Silva has proven himself to be the real deal, that's why he's not scrutinized.



Xerxes said:


> So we can say considering the fighter that he is, Anderson Silva doesn't get the amount of "respect" as he would be getting as if he was "Jeff Grahamson". This is somehow what Sekou was pointing out I believe.


That's pure speculation, and I really don't think it had much to do with Sekou's original point. You're talking about popularity based-on race, not criticism as an athlete.



Xerxes said:


> Same thing goes for Rampage but just on a smaller level as he speaks English and he's type is more "familiar" to the North American public. But "more" doesn't mean "as much as" a Chuck, a Randy or a Brock type.


Once again, this has nothing to do with his credibility as a fighter, you're looking into this as a racial marketing study which isn't the point of this whole debacle.



Xerxes said:


> So as you said Fedor>All, Anderson Silva and Rampage have proven themselves, they are amazing and spectacular fighters thus very marketable, good draws for the UFC. However, they'd be even more marketable and big of a draw if they were white.


Once again Xerxes, this isn't addressing the claim of racial criticism as athletes, this is your attempt at arguing non-white fighters aren't as marketable. 



Xerxes said:


> Now back to Sekou as promised in the intro. He is right to some extent but also wrong if he thinks Rashad Evans or Cheick Kongo don't get the amount of respect they deserve only because they are black. No, it's because they are harder to market. Rashad seems a bit of a shy dude and he's not the most charismatic, impressive looking fighter out there *+* being black makes him even harder to market among the (white) fans.
> 
> Kongo's pretty charismatic but I'd consider his case even worse as he has poor English ("gimee teetel" lol) and just as Silva, he'll struggle establishing a connection, build a big and strong fan base within the UFC caucasian american target market.
> 
> ...


Xerxes, this isn't what we're talking about man. 



Xerxes said:


> So your ethnicity only, can and does determine how much "respect" you get as a fighter, from the fans and from your organization. Sekou is not so wrong after all, he's just wrong for taking the short path.


Like I said, every fighter faces criticism based-on what they've proven inside the octagon. It has very little to do with race, when we're talking about evaluating the fighter himself, not his marketing value. 




Xerxes said:


> Well, he's been deduced a point for a reason right? Rashad could have very well won both 1st and 2nd round 10-9 if Tito didn't grab the fence 1-2 times in each of those rounds to avoid the TDs. If he didn't do what is considered to be "illegal", Rashad could have won the bout by UD 30-27 or at least 29-28 (or eventually finishing him on the ground).


The point is Tito lost himself the fight, had he not been deducted the point in the second he would have won. He wouldn't have been deducted a point each time, it was the one deduction that cost him the fight. 



Xerxes said:


> If you question these possibilities, then why are fighters getting a 1 point deduction for grabbing the fence? -> because doing so can change the outcome of a fight, and it will change it even more the scorecards if it's done 1-2 times in 2 rounds like Tito "aren't tryin enough" did, than 5 times in one round only.


I know the function of grabbing the fence, but there is a warning system in place. Tito was warned plenty of times prior to the deduction, and he voluntarily gave the ref the opportunity to deduct the point. 



Xerxes said:


> Only? Rashad actually achieved something no other man on earth ever achieved: beat Bisping lol.


And guess what? Bisping's another fighter who has been criticized for not proving himself, and you know what's even more shocking? *HE'S WHITE*. *GASP*



Xerxes said:


> I know what people say, *Bisping hasn't been tested yet*, he's overrated etc. but I don't agree with everything, he's faced some decent fighters and fact in 17 bouts, he's got only 1 loss on his record and it's a loss to Rashad.


THIS is the basis of criticizing any fighter. Like I said, and like you just said, it has to do with what's been done in the cage. Bisping wasn't a top LHW, and Rashad only beat him by split-decision. That's why I'm still skeptical of Rashad, not because he's a *****.



Xerxes said:


> Now about size. Rashad's considered by many to be a small LHW, he's broad but short for a LHW (5'11). He could easily cut to MW. Bisping's a pretty broad 6'1" tall dude. He's got a big frame and I'm not even sure he should be considered smaller than Rashad when they fought at LHW. But in any case, they are really about even. Why taking any credit away from him on these aspects (SP win+size)?


Because he didn't look especially good in that fight. He struggled to keep Bisping down, and Bisping's not even a great wrestler. Bisping was just as unproven as Rashad at the time, which is why I don't look at that fight as measuring stick of either fighter's ability.



Xerxes said:


> Even being a small LHW, Rashad had a few fights at HW and he's always won despite having a huge size disadvantage against his opponents. He's pretty much all the time been fighting at a size disadvantage in the ring and he continues to be by fighting at LHW. Point is, you really shouldn't criticize him over size.


What are you talking about? I haven't been criticizing him over size. Where are you getting this from? :confused02:



Xerxes said:


> He lost the first round on the score cards by a few punches (close round). He lost it because the 1st round was for him to "feel out" and try to figure Chuck's timing which is what made him dominate round 2 until he got that sick KO.


So you agree, until the KO he was losing the fight.



Xerxes said:


> He stated KO'ing Chuck was his plan and from how round 1 and 2 went you could clearly if wasn't lying: all he wanted to do was stand and bang and KO Chuck, even though is got a much shorter reach than him. This right hook was no fluke, it came after a long feeling out process in round 1 and pretty much everything just worked as planned.


Every fighter enters the cage wanting to finish his opponent, and yes round one was a feeling out process. He still was behind on the scorecards until that point in the fight. It was an awesome knockout, but until that point in the fight he didn't look particularly good. Also, it was an overhand right, not a hook.



Xerxes said:


> + he KO'd Chuck in a way nobody ever did before. Again, I no reason to take any credit from him.


Yes, that was impressive, I'm not denying that. Sokoudjou killed Arona and Little Nog too, but everyone was still skeptical of him. There are still a lot of questions left regarding Rashad, that I'm sure will be answered in his next fight.



Xerxes said:


> Rashad's a very well rounded, solid fighter that has a good chin and amazing KO power. Do you realize in his last 5 fights only, he's got 3 "put to sleep"/"don't get up right away" KOs. And as I said he's not even a big LHW, imagine what he'd do at MW.


Sean Salmon gets KTFO by everyone, the only KO I consider relevant is the one over Liddell. Rashad's submission defense is questionable, judging by the Tito fight when he was almost submitted at the end of the second.



Xerxes said:


> For someone as knowledgeable as you to underestimate and give him so little credit makes me think he's even more underrated than I thought. I'll be posting a thread about him before UFC 92 to explain why he should deserve more "respect" indeed, more credit and why he is underrated.


I'm knowledgable because I'm critical of everyone, not just black fighters. Rashad may very well be the next LHW champion, but until he proves himself against more top competition I'll remain skeptical of him.



Xerxes said:


> He puts on the table some very interesting tools and shows great potential IMO. He's only 24 y o and debuted his MMA career just 2 years ago. So far, most of his wins are by KOs, which is something we don't see a lot at WW, as 170ers naturally have less KO power than heavier fighters.


No one is claiming he doesn't have potential, we're pointing out where he obviously needs work. 



Xerxes said:


> I agree on Clementi size. TBH I haven't seen this fight yet but from what I've heard/read, he was doing fine until he lost his contact and got subbed. Not sure though :dunno:


It had to do with his conditioning, where are you getting this BS about a contact lens? lol



Xerxes said:


> Even though I just posted a thread pointing out what I believe to be similarities between him and GSP, I'm not saying "He is the next GSP". He's very far from being at GSP's top P4P fighter level but my point is he possesses the tools and potential to be a force at WW one day if he keeps working hard. That won't be because he shares some similarities with GSP but rather because he shows lots of potential IMO.


Once again, no one's denying his potential. I just don't think they're as similar as you seem to believe, beyond athleticism. :dunno:



Xerxes said:


> I agree that Sekou has lots of these kind of posts but he has the right to give his opinion as long as they don't insult, offend anybody. No one is totally right or totally wrong and with logics and reasoning I believe I showed you that Sekou wasn't as wrong as you and other members no this thread seemed to be thinking.


You made an effort, but I don't think you answered the issue we were discussing. You were discussing marketing, rather than evaluating his abilities and accomplishments. That's what I base my opinions of fighters on, what I see in the cage, not the colour of their skin which Sekou seems to believe. 




Xerxes said:


> Sounds like Rashad could beat Forrest in 2 weeks but you'd still be questioning his ability like you are today. He's the challenger and the underdog coming into this fight and just winning should already give him lots of credits but I'm really starting to wonder what the hell he'd have to do for people to recognize his skills as a fighter, maybe kill Forrest in the Octagon? I'm not even sure that'd be enough...


He very well could, but I will remain skeptical of him until I see his entire MMA game. Has he faced an amazing grappler? No. Has he faced a technical striker? No. Has he faced an equally good wrestler? Yes, but he was losing that fight until a deduction. I'm sold on his power, but I'm not sold on his completeness.



Xerxes said:


> This IMO confirms again Rashad is tad underrated and he might actually be the most underrated fighter in the UFC ATM (I'll post my thread for sure)


Believe what you like, I'm skeptical by nature.




Xerxes said:


> Unfortunately it is what it is F>A. Black or other "visible minority" fighters would get more respect/credit if they had the same look as the people that pay to watch and admire them to a certain degree. Just listen to the boos of the public many times when they're showing a black fighter on the big screens. Just this tells you there is something wrong and Sekou is not just being "paranoid". Being a foreigner doesn't help either and If you still don't believe me, just listen to the chant for USA every time a non-american fighter mixes it up with an American fighter. Chant for USA says it all, no need for this post actually..


I get what you're saying, but this doesn't have much to do with evaluating a fighter based-on his achievements and abilities inside in the cage.



Xerxes said:


> Would you like to bet credit that Rashad will get more boos than Forrest and Cheick will get some boos from the public on UFC 92?


No, because I think Rashad's a less likeable person than Forrest. The fact you're assuming he'll get more boos because he's black isn't giving much credit to MMAfans. 



Xerxes said:


> I don't have lots I can bet but we could bet 2K if you want (in the case you don't agree with me)


Even if I did make the bet with you, how could you prove it was based-on race, not personality? Seems like a silly proposition IMO.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Great post Fedor>ALL and the contact lens thing is true. Rogan talked about it during the fight and it's been mentioned in post fight interviews.

Johnson lost a contact lens in that fight.

He also took it on short notice.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Great post Fedor>ALL and the contact lens thing is true. Rogan talked about it during the fight and it's been mentioned in post fight interviews.


lol, that's funny. I train with contact lenses when I'm rolling/sparring or else I'm blind, and sometimes they get knocked out. Either way though, Johnson was gassed when he fought Clementi, which cost him more than a lack of visibility in one eye.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

longest post ever


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Aaronyman said:


> longest post ever


I should get a belt or something for that, eh? :laugh:


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Fedor>all said:


> lol, that's funny. I train with contact lenses when I'm rolling/sparring or else I'm blind, and sometimes they get knocked out. Either way though, Johnson was gassed when he fought Clementi, which cost him more than a lack of visibility in one eye.


Which to be fair has to do with him taking the fight on short notice.

In fact I believe it was a catchweight fight because Johnson didn't have enough time to cut down.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Which to be fair has to do with him taking the fight on short notice.
> 
> In fact I believe it was a catchweight fight because Johnson didn't have enough time to cut down.


That's true, but Jim Miller came in on short notice and beat a very tough Matt Wiman. :dunno:

Johnson's ground game didn't look so hot against Clementi either, which is another reason people are still skeptical of him.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

Fedor>all said:


> That's true, but Jim Miller came in on short notice and beat a very tough Matt Wiman. :dunno


jim miller, from what rogan says, is a gym rat....his cardio wasn't great but it wasn't bad which is really good considering he took it on short notice

and given johnson's style, if he didn't have time to prepare, he would gas very fast...it's not really fair to compare him to jim miller


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

I agree about his ground game it looked bad against Clementi which is why I thought he looked much improved against Burns.
Miller to be fair was gassed during that fight he's just IMO a much better fighter at this point then Anthony Johnson is who doesn't have the submission skills or wrestling Jim has.

I don't think Johnson is a top WW yet obviously. However the guy has talent he just needs to keep growing improving his stand up with Cung is a great idea he just needs more BJJ work and he'll be an impact fighter.

He's one of these guys that is being overrated by some and because of that others are being overly critical of him.

He'll be a good one he's just not all the way there yet.


----------



## eric2004bc (Apr 27, 2008)

seriously do some people think everyone reminds them of GSP :confused02:


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> I agree about his ground game it looked bad against Clementi which is why I thought he looked much improved against Burns.


His ground game looked improved, his sub defense is a little concerning still though, seeing as he put himself into a triangle lol.



bbjd7 said:


> Miller to be fair was gassed during that fight he's just IMO a much better fighter at this point then Anthony Johnson is who doesn't have the submission skills or wrestling Jim has.


Yeah, but Miller was fighting a guy the same weight as him, Rich Clementi is a tiny welterweight and he was fighting an average sized MW in Johnson. If anything Clementi should have been more tired than Johnson, seeing as he was facing a much larger opponent, yet his conditioning was better than Anthony's at the time.



bbjd7 said:


> I don't think Johnson is a top WW yet obviously. However the guy has talent he just needs to keep growing improving his stand up with Cung is a great idea he just needs more BJJ work and he'll be an impact fighter.
> 
> He's one of these guys that is being overrated by some and because of that others are being overly critical of him.
> 
> He'll be a good one he's just not all the way there yet.


I see him the same way, tonnes of potential that simply needs to be nurtured.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

I think you are a little harsh on the Clementi fight.

Rich is a tough guy for anyone and with Johnson stepping in on short notice it's tough for him.

Plus look at the styles of Jim and Anthony.

Jim is a submission guy with good stand up.

Anthony is a big power puncher with good wrestling.

It's hard to be a power puncher when you have a small gas tank.

His submission defense is getting better I wouldn't put him in there with Hazelett just yet but with Diego leaving to 155 and BJ not likely to hang around unless he wins submission guys aren't all over the place at 170 right now.

That of course could change if they bring in Shields and Condit but for now it is a wrestler/striker divison.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> I think you are a little harsh on the Clementi fight.


I don't think I'm being harsh, I just think crediting the defeat to a loss of a contact lens is silly. He showed holes on the ground in that fight, and was clearly out of shape coming in. His conditioning looks worlds better though in his last two bouts with Burns.



bbjd7 said:


> Rich is a tough guy for anyone and with Johnson stepping in on short notice it's tough for him.


Rich isn't a tough match-up for most welterweights, that's why he's in the LW division. :dunno:



bbjd7 said:


> Plus look at the styles of Jim and Anthony.
> 
> Jim is a submission guy with good stand up.


You just said yourself that Jim has better wrestling skills? :dunno:



bbjd7 said:


> His submission defense is getting better I wouldn't put him in there with Hazelett just yet but with Diego leaving to 155 and BJ not likely to hang around unless he wins submission guys aren't all over the place at 170 right now.


That's true.



bbjd7 said:


> That of course could change if they bring in Shields and Condit but for now it is a wrestler/striker divison.


Hopefully, although I think Johnson would KO Shields. I also find Carlos Condit to be a little over-rated.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

I don't think the contact lens is the reason he lost but I think the fact he took the fight on short notice had a very tough cut obviously since he couldn't make weight made that a very tough fight for him.

And while Clementi is a LW he is a expierenced vet. With good submissions and kickboxing.

A very tough match up for anyone especially a younger guy.

I just didn't put that Jim is a good wrestler I stand by it. My point was Johnson is swinging for the fences it's his style and it takes a lot out of you. Jim can take a guy down and control him since his submission game is excellent. Both are wrestlers but they are two different fighters.


----------



## Nick_Lynch (Feb 3, 2008)

AJ was not dominating the stand-up in his fight last night so no maybe in a few years he will be contender but no time soon.


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

actually Xerxes hit the nail right on the head witht he human psychology comment.


Oh, I see Im back to a single red dot by my name....must be a bad thing.


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

sooo can anyone tell me how aj's ballz taste? lol


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

johnson is a better wrestler than miller...

his shots are way better....but his overall grappling isn't as good


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

GSP is a total freak of nature. He makes great fighters look bad. Hell, he makes it look so easy. 

Anthony Johnson is just a solid prospect. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

I disagree Aaronyman Miller has very good shots some of them against Wiman where crap but he was also gassed.

Miller is a very good wrestler. He was d-1 at Va tech(at least I heard that I can't find it anywhere)


----------



## A.Silva (Dec 11, 2008)

Sekou said:


> give the man his props and shut up...dammit.
> 
> 
> *Disclaimer: the following statement may offend MMA posters*
> ...





dude a.silva is brazilian not black


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

A.Silva said:


> dude a.silva is brazilian not black


Just like Rampage Jackson is American, not black?


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> I don't think the contact lens is the reason he lost but I think the fact he took the fight on short notice had a very tough cut obviously since he couldn't make weight made that a very tough fight for him.


Yeah most likely, just sounded like Xerxes was using the contact lens thing as an excuse.



bbjd7 said:


> And while Clementi is a LW he is a expierenced vet. With good submissions and kickboxing.


He is an experienced vet, and rather under-rated at that. But I still think Anthony made mistakes even going to the ground with him. He had the wrestling to keep the fight on the feet, but for some reason he dabbled with Clementi's guard which is a terrible gameplan. Why play into your opponent's strength unless you're trying to prove something?




bbjd7 said:


> I just didn't put that Jim is a good wrestler I stand by it. My point was Johnson is swinging for the fences it's his style and it takes a lot out of you. Jim can take a guy down and control him since his submission game is excellent. Both are wrestlers but they are two different fighters.


Eh, I don't think the styles make a difference. Conditioning is conditioning, Jim Miller came in guns-a-blazing against Wiman even when he was gassed. Johnson kind of just gave-up once Clementi had him in a bad position when he was tired.

Also bbjd, I was looking at the event stats for TUF8 finale on MMAplayground and noticed you lost $12000 in the wagers. Who did you lose that on?


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Damn I was hoping no one would look there I was looking at the odds and since I hadn't been on MMAplayground much this season I figured I would bet it all on Shane Primm since he was like +900 and Krystof is a bit overrated.

If I won I would've been top 10 in money lol.

However my smart bets on the forum I went from 28,000 to 70,000 by beating on Bader and Efrain.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Damn I was hoping no one would look there I was looking at the odds and since I hadn't been on MMAplayground much this season I figured I would bet it all on Shane Primm since he was like +900 and Krystof is a bit overrated.
> 
> If I won I would've been top 10 in money lol.
> 
> However my smart bets on the forum I went from 28,000 to 70,000 by beating on Bader and Efrain.


Should have bet on Gouveia like I did haha, he was +180. That would have been awesome if your risk had worked out though.


----------



## simtom (Oct 23, 2007)

Seriously why do people even bring up colour of fighters skin all the time :/

If its a black dude getting hate its racist.. But when people hate on guys like Hughes, Tito, Sylvia, Koscheck its fine because they're no black.

Now tell me who's the ones being racist here?



> Dude a.silva is brazilian not black


This made me laugh bad


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

A.Silva said:


> dude a.silva is brazilian not black


So Black = African American?


hmmm...interesting perspective...weird, but interesting


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Fedor>all said:


> Should have bet on Gouveia like I did haha, he was +180. That would have been awesome if your risk had worked out though.


Yea I didn't think Primm would win but he shouldn't have been that much of an underdog.

I mean It would've taken me from 12,000 to 100,000 in one bet so I went for it lol.

Should've just match my bets on the forum which went great.

Gotta love people overhyping guys after TUF.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Yea I didn't think Primm would win but he shouldn't have been that much of an underdog.
> 
> I mean It would've taken me from 12,000 to 100,000 in one bet so I went for it lol.
> 
> ...


Haha yeah. I personally wish that TUF finals were 5 rounds, I mean they are technically fighting for the "title" of TUF Champ. Escudero/Nover was a great fight too, I would have loved to see it go another two.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Yea I would've loved to see round 4 and 5 of Efrain vs Nover since Phillipe seemed to get comfortable with Efrain's style in round 3.

It'll never happen because the NSAC or any governing body won't let it be 5 rounds unless a belt is on the line and since you can't defend TUF title i believe it doesn't work.

I honestly think all main events should be 5 rounds.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Yea I would've loved to see round 4 and 5 of Efrain vs Nover since Phillipe seemed to get comfortable with Efrain's style in round 3.
> 
> It'll never happen because the NSAC or any governing body won't let it be 5 rounds unless a belt is on the line and since you can't defend TUF title i believe it doesn't work.
> 
> I honestly think all main events should be 5 rounds.


Yeah, no kidding. I'd love to see a rematch with Phillipe and Efrain, they're both going to be major forces in the UFC LW division.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Yea personally the LW division is so loaded only Joe Silva could struggle to make match ups in this division.

I mean They have off the top of my head 20 LW's who are excellent and who I would consider potential top 10 guys if they go on a run.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> Yea personally the LW division is so loaded only Joe Silva could struggle to make match ups in this division.
> 
> I mean They have off the top of my head 20 LW's who are excellent and who I would consider potential top 10 guys if they go on a run.


Definitely, if only they could bring in some of the WEC guys, like Varner and Cerrone. The UFC LW division is so stacked that if you put all the fighters names in a hat and made matches that way, almost every single match-up would be stellar. Even Junie looked a lot sharper last night.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Yea I mean I'm not sure why they keep some of the lesser LW's around they don't need them.

I mean between TUF 5 TUF 8, The great young wrestlers that came out in 07 (Griffin, Guida, Huerta and Edgar), and then the guys who were already established it's crazy and I'm sure I'm forgetting people.

I want Huerta vs Edgar right now.

I was having this argument awhile ago and I stand by what I said in MMA the LW Division has 10x more talent then any other division.

There are about 30 or 40 fighters who are excellent.


----------



## SpoKen (Apr 28, 2007)

Chuck Liddell reminds me SO MUCH of GSP!

The way he throws punches.. and he sometimes uses his legs to kick!

They are so similiar!

(throwing some lame comedy into this thread)

EDIT: Didn't see the other thread. My bad.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

*Assignment #2 (final hopefully)*

Fedor>All, 

After a very long post where I've tried to be as clear as I could, you clearly missed my point by saying it doesn't answer Sekou's original point. This is an even longer thread, readapted to your answer, and to re-explain my point again. If you've read a bit between the lines at some places, IMO you wouldn't be thinking my post wasn't addressing Sekou's issue. Please read carefully. 

*Very important: 
To understand my analysis, you have to think globally at all times, from the overall casual fans' POV, not from your own "hardcore fan" individual POV. If you fail to do that while reading my post, you'll fail understanding and getting my point.*

First of all, Sekou was saying (UFC) black fighters don't get the same amount of "respect" as they should from the fans and from the UFC because they are black. 

What I've done in my previous post was first to define what this notion of "respect" was for a fighter and try to figure out where it originates from. My answer was in a profit-driven MMA organization like the UFC, fan base (because it drives profit) is the main force driving most business decisions, therefore it will affect this notion of "respect" THE COMPANY will give to a fighter (salary, bonuses, leverage, title shots etc.). Then I explained why for fighters having a similar skill sets ("all things being equal"), fighters from "visible minorities" and foreigner fighters don't get the same amount of "respect" as white American born and raised fighters, because they would have a harder time to establish an emotional connection with the caucasian public, get popular and be able to build a strong fan base therefore they would get less "respect" from the organization.

Now from the CASUAL FANS POV, "respect" from the fans is the amount of credit each fighter should be getting given their skills, ability, performance only and nothing else. However, this respect to the fighters will always be biased and will lessen or increase according to many other parameters and criteria which in turn, will affect the fans' overall perception of a fighter. As humans, we are all affected by that to a certain degree and the more a fan will give importance to who, what, how the fighter is as a person in his private life or in public, the more he'll be biased in his perception of him skill-wise, thus in the amount of credit he should be giving to the fighter or "respect".

Let me give you a life concrete example that happened just 2 days ago. Do you remember how Aaronyman was saying he doesn't understand the love for Monson and to explain his point, one of the reasons he provided (and btw the first one on his list) was "- he's a communist"? Aaronyman was then explaining how much he cares about what athletes think/do in their private lives outside of the ring and also how much it can affect his opinion (think perception) of a fighter just based on that? Aaron did indeed have skill-based reasons for not liking Monson but his perception of Monson as a MMA fighter, the amount of respect and credit he should be giving him only as a fighter, are lower than they would be if he happened to be neutral towards/approve Monson's political/private life views. If you've noticed, he seemed to be the poster that didn't like him the most as a fighter, when most posters think he's a good fighter and showed excitement for him returning to the UFC. And if Aaron's perception of Monson wasn't biased by him being a communist, why would he type it in a post, and on top of that put it the #1 reason of why he doesn't like Monson? Obviously Monson's persona disturbs him because "he's a communist" and for some other non-sport related reasons he provided later (all TBH). 

Fedor>All, this whole "misperception" that Aaron is experiencing with Monson, is what I've been trying to describe all throughout my analysis and what my whole point was for. We are not emotionless robots and our perception of public figures will always be affected and biased by "non-competence based" criteria. It might just be to a smaller extent for you based on what you've told me, or to a bigger one for Aaronyman and for many other people. 

These are all logics, how we behave as humans and unless you aren't one of us you also fall under this, maybe to a smaller extent but you still do. Please don't call it speculation because it's not. I'm just trying to logically describe human behavior and psychology, backed up with real life situations. If you keep calling it speculation, I'll go ahead and spend some more time to find links and send them to you. BTW talking research, did you know in some research they've realized that between 2 students handing the exact same exam or assignment, one will in average get a lower mark only because he has a "geekier, less cool name" (i.e. Dick vs. Mike) and one would get an even lower mark with a "foreigner sounding" name. 

In France and in a few other European countries, people put their name and can also put a photo of themselves on their resume when they apply to any type of job. There are studies proving that for a very similar resume sent to the exact same companies, "visible minority" people won't be called in for an interview as much as "caucasian type" people just based on the photo and/or name. I'm pretty sure you've heard about these kind of stories. 

Non-competence based criteria DO affect performance, rather the perception of performance. Many research prove it and you can see it every day around you. It will just be to a smaller or bigger extent given different individuals. 

*Answer to Sekou's and your point about how race can affect perception of performance/skills in MMA* 

--> The same kind of human behavior will also translate into MMA among the fans whose perceptions of a fighter will be affected by who he is, his views, his personality and again, to a smaller or bigger extent depending on the individual. And one of those criteria like it or not, are race, nationality, religion and culture. This misperception on the fighter's skills will be due to the fact that the fans can hardly identify or relate to the fighter because of his race, nationality, religion and/or because they disapprove his views or other private life activities (as a communist, rightist, gay, animal activist, etc). 

On the other hand, these criteria could also have a positive impact on the fighter's skill set perception among the fans if he managed to build a strong fan base (=popular fighter). 

Now think about Bisping. He is what many fans consider to be tad overrated for different reasons. Notice how on this forum, you'll more often see Bisping in UK MMA fans sigs than you'll see him in NA MMA fans sigs. It's because UK fans tend to support him more because they can identity and relate to him better and they will show more support to him when he fights than they would to many other skill-wise "superior" fighters. It goes without saying that in average, Bisping will be less criticized among UK MMA fans than among NA MMA fans because he is more popular over there. 

So basically: 

*Strength of emotional connection with a fighter = more/less support = positively/negatively biased perception of fighter's skill set = more/less criticism of his performance and skills = more/less credit from fans given the actual fighter's skills == more/less respect to the fighter*

Now back to what was Sekou's original point: 
considering the UFC's main target market demographics (18-30 yo caucasian males), *all things being equal*<-(very important) the fans as a whole, will have a harder time relating to a black fighter and will therefore show less support, criticize more and give less credit than they would give to the exact same fighter but white. 

--> Therefore we can say that a black fighter will always get more criticism and less credit than what he should be getting given his ability and than what he would get from the same fans if he was white. This is only because the "white fans" will have a harder time relating to him. 

In one of your points, you're bringing personality up but this criteria only is far from being the only one affecting this whole thing. Here are a few other examples. 

Think about about Razak Al-Hassan last week. Did the people in the public know his personality enough for them to boo him so much as soon as they showed him on the big screen? 

==> Why was he the only fighter to get booed out of 20 fighters, when the public don't know much about him (case for many of the fighters on that night) and cheered and showed respect to all the other fighters to thank them for "fighting" for them??

Just face it:
--> Because he is black + because he has a muslim sounding name which doesn't help at all. But still, despite being (most likely) muslim and his "people" getting bombed by we both know who, he's accepted to fight on this card and support this charity cause. Why don't people give him the f*ing respect he deserves for doing so? If they don't like him for some justified reason (I really doubt they had any), at least SU and don't show support but don't boo for what are IMO "ugly" reasons. Razak was just getting what I've been explaining you in my 2 long posts, nothing else and this certainly didn't happen because he has a stinky personality (classy to fight for the cause+they don't know him anyway). 

==> Rampage is basically the funniest, most awesome fighter out there, not as big of a star as Chuck but still very well known and popular among the UFC fans, especially the Pride/hardcore fans. Given all that why did he get booed so much by the public every time he was shown on the big screen in his fight against Chuck? Were the people attending the show find him being a douche and not like his personality? right.. 

==> Now how about in his fight against Forrest. He was the 2 times defending LHW champion, he just beat Chuck, beat Henderson and is IMO a way more talented/established fighter (fighter skill set concept) as Forrest. In terms of personality he is more charismatic, fun and interesting than Forrest but despite all that, if you carefully listen to the intro with headphones 1) you'll hear more cheers from the public for Forrest and 2) you'll hear more boos for Quinton and less cheers. How do you explain that? I'm curious to read what reasons you'll provide. Weird isn't it. 

==> Again, doesn't just the chant for USA proves you that just based on the fighters' nationality, fans can support and give more credit and "respect" to who could be a weaker fighter skill wise against a better fighter? What happened to the fans judging the fighters only on skills and performance, why do they support their home boy even though he could suck? --> Bisping lol. 

======>>If something clearly stands for nationality, why wouldn't it also stand for ethnicity, race or religion (to a certain extent)? 




> What does this have to do with him receiving respect? You're talking about an entirely different issue altogether. Anderson Silva has proven himself to be the real deal, that's why he's not scrutinized.


"Respect" from the fans as I defined earlier is the amount of credit you get from them. Anderson Silva is the best, most spectacular fighter the UFC has ever signed. Still he fails to be a big draw for the UFC because casual fans are not willing to pay to watch him as much as they would to watch several other fighters fight. A. Silva, despite all his skills, hasn't been able to build the fan base he deserves because he can't speak English, he's black and Brazilian (think non-American). 

As soon as Silva won't be putting on a good show (Cote) or lose, the fans will start bitching a lot on him. Look at Chuck, 3 losses in his last 4 fights, but how much heath did he really get for his last performances? Not much TBH, because he is Chuck. 

--> Skill wise Silva>>Chuck
--> Popularity wise Chuck>>Silva

If what I explain here is wrong then please explain to me why Silva, marketed as the best P4P fighter in the world by the UFC, is not the biggest draw or at least one of the biggest draws in the UFC? His personality stinks also? He's actually a very classy, funny, awesome dude outside of the ring. 

Just notice how the biggest draws in the UFC have always been caucasian american born and raised fighters: #1 Chuck, #2 Tito, #3 Randy and now #4 Brock. 



> That's pure speculation, and I really don't think it had much to do with Sekou's original point. You're talking about popularity based-on race, not criticism as an athlete.


It's common sense and logic based on what I've described, how is it pure speculation? Such an unbelievable fighter would definitely be one of, if not the UFC's biggest draw because he's exceptional as a fighter thus he can potentially build a huge fan base (bigger than A.Silva's ATM). 

I explained enough why race, just as nationality, political views or religion can affect a fan base and also cause a positive or negative misperception in the fan's mind in judging the skills/performance of a fighter in a "fair" way. 



> Once again, this has nothing to do with his credibility as a fighter, you're looking into this as a racial marketing study which isn't the point of this whole debacle.
> 
> Once again Xerxes, this isn't addressing the claim of racial criticism as athletes, this is your attempt at arguing non-white fighters aren't as marketable.


Please see above. 



> Like I said, every fighter faces criticism based-on what they've proven inside the octagon. It has very little to do with race, when we're talking about evaluating the fighter himself, not his marketing value.


So you also agree it has something to do with race when you say "very little". Even if it's very little, it still has some impact. 

My opinion is- race has a lot to do with it. Again, a caucasian fan base will tend to show less support to a black fighter as it will be harder for them to establish an emotional connection with the black fighter. Less support, less popular, more criticism, less credit and less respect than if they were white with the exact same skill set. Therefore we can say black fighters in the UFC do not get the amount of respect they should be getting (as other similar fighters are getting) based on their color, which was pretty much Sekou's original point. 




> The point is Tito lost himself the fight, had he not been deducted the point in the second he would have won.


Tito didn't lose himself the fight but Rashad made him lose by attacking and trying to take him down several times. Tito's only way of winning this fight would have been: cheat like he did + the referee failing to penalize him for what would have to do several times. 

Ironically, Tito "won" the 2 rounds he got to cheat, then he had to stop cheating in round 3 and guess what, he lost it. Based on what happened in round 3 only, I can say if Tito didn't cheat in round 1 and 2, he'd have lost both of them 10-9. Speculation but could have been possible considering how the 3rd round went (not considering that Rashad might have been able to finish him on the ground if he got his TDs in rd 1 and 2).

Tito cheated because he needed to, he knew he had to cheat to avoid a loss to a not so well known, underrated opponent (not to look bad with the fans). 

so basically Tito got a draw after cheating and Rashad got the same result after being cheated on. Which fighter do you think should get the most credit in this fight?



> He wouldn't have been deducted a point each time, it was the one deduction that cost him the fight.I know the function of grabbing the fence, but there is a warning system in place


And rightfully so. 



> And guess what? Bisping's another fighter who has been criticized for not proving himself, and you know what's even more shocking? *HE'S WHITE*. *GASP*


Just BTW, IMO Rashad is a more superior fighter than Bisping (and I'm neither black nor British lol). 




> THIS is the basis of criticizing any fighter. Like I said, and like you just said, it has to do with what's been done in the cage.


But what doesn't belong to the cage counts to. I'm not saying it's right, that's just how we behave as humans. See my analysis above. 



> Bisping wasn't a top LHW, and Rashad *only beat him by split-decision*. That's why I'm still skeptical of Rashad, not because he's a *****. Because he didn't look especially good in that fight. He struggled to keep Bisping down, and Bisping's not even a great wrestler. Bisping was just as unproven as Rashad at the time, which is why I don't look at that fight as measuring stick of either fighter's ability.


I think that you, like many other people are CONSTANTLY looking at the negative side of things when talking about Rashad, it's insane and shows lots of bias: "only won by SD", "he would have lost the fight to Tito without this 1 point deduction", "yeah but he was losing the first round to Chuck", etc. 

How about instead of saying "he only beat him by SD" you say "he's the only fighter to ever beat Bisping in his 17 MMA fights" and give him the credit he deserves for that? Don't you think it would be more fair to him?

(I explained the Tito criticism above and Chuck is later)



> What are you talking about? I haven't been criticizing him over size. Where are you getting this from? :confused02:


This is where I got it from, I'm quoting you: "Rashad only won a split decision *over a middleweight* (Michael Bisping)"

From the way you worded your sentence you are obviously criticizing him on size, by saying he "only" got a SD "over a middleweight" (=small) + like everybody on this forum I know who Bisping is and which division he currently fights at so why wording it this way and bringing up his current weight class to imply his a smaller fighter when anyway they fought together at LHW? 

And Bisping is not just "a MW", same way as Andy is not just "a MW". They are both fighter that could fight at MW and LHW but more frequently fight at MW to get the most size advantage when fight. BJ fought at LHW before but I doubt you would have called him LHW at that time. Fighters just move up and down in weights, IMO it's wrong to qualify them by their weight class unless you add something like "ATM" but that's not important F>A, it's just me. 

Just in case you weren't trying to criticize Rashad on size, then I misunderstood you and I apologize. 



> So you agree, until the KO he was losing the fight.


When did I say anything like that? I'm not sure but I think you just misread me. When I said "he lost round 1 and was dominating round 2 until he *got* the KO...", I was talking about Rashad and I clearly meant that he was ahead on the scorecards in round 2 and then he got the KO and *not got KO'd* (talking about Chuck lol). I'm talking about Rashad getting the KO, not Chuck getting KO'd. 

Anyone saying until the KO he was losing the fight would be wrong because Rashad was clearly winning round 2, not even close. 

Just let me know if there was anything wrong with my wording here, maybe you just you read too fast lol. 



> Every fighter enters the cage wanting to finish his opponent, and yes round one was a feeling out process. *He still was behind on the scorecards until that point in the fight*. It was an awesome knockout, but until that point in the fight he didn't look particularly good. Also, *it was an overhand right*, not a hook.


Unbelievable... you actually believe Chuck was winning the fight before he got KO'd. How about round 2? Rashad was definitely ahead on the scorecards in round 2, you can't question that. I don't understand why people are always giving to Chuck what was a very close 1st round but fail to give to Rashad what was a very one sided 2nd round. Somebody explain please. 

My bad, thanks for rectifying  Just my point was, that punch was no fluke, it was being set up for over a round: 1st round to figure out Chuck's timing and range which lead to more connecting shots in 2nd round and got the KO. 



> Yes, that was impressive, I'm not denying that. *Sokoudjou* killed Arona and Little Nog too, but everyone was still skeptical of him. There are still a lot of questions left regarding Rashad, that I'm sure *will be answered* in his next fight.
> 
> 
> > Lol Sokky, nice parallel with Rashad. just kidding
> ...


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

Xerxes said:


> Fedor>All,
> 
> After a very long post where I've tried to be as clear as I could, you clearly missed my point by saying it doesn't answer Sekou's original point. This is an even longer thread, readapted to your answer, and to re-explain my point again. If you've read a bit between the lines at some places, IMO you wouldn't be thinking my post wasn't addressing Sekou's issue. Please read carefully.
> 
> ...


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm not smart enough to read that.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Xerxes said:


> Fedor>All,
> 
> After a very long post where I've tried to be as clear as I could, you clearly missed my point by saying it doesn't answer Sekou's original point. This is an even longer thread, readapted to your answer, and to re-explain my point again. If you've read a bit between the lines at some places, IMO you wouldn't be thinking my post wasn't addressing Sekou's issue. Please read carefully.


I didn't miss your point, I very well understand what you're saying so don't over-credit yourself by making a very simple point overly complex. 



Xerxes said:


> Very important:
> To understand my analysis, you have to think globally at all times, from the overall casual fans' POV, not from your own "hardcore fan" individual POV. If you fail to do that while reading my post, you'll fail understanding and getting my point.
> 
> First of all, Sekou was saying (UFC) black fighters don't get the same amount of "respect" as they should from the fans and from the UFC because they are black.
> ...


First of all you're making a broad generalization, when in fact this is what Sekou said;



> my only point was Black fighters tend to be scrutinized and tend to work their azz off before even getting a milligram of respect/recognition
> 
> As an adult youcan lie to people, but the worst thing you can do it lie to your own brain. *I visit about 5 of the prominent MMA forums and the same mentality persists.*


This whole discussion is based-on Sekou's claims regarding internet forums. And guess what? Specified internet forums such as this are inhabited by mostly HARDCORE fans of whatever it is that is being discussed. I'd wager that about 95% of the users that post here would consider themselves "hardcore" MMA fans with varying degrees. 

The casual fans won't sit there and analyze and entire fighter's skillset and formulate their own opinion, they'll take what Joe Rogan and Dana White say as the gospel. That's the first mistake you've made in going off on your unnecessarily long tangent.



Xerxes said:


> Let me give you a life concrete example that happened just 2 days ago. Do you remember how Aaronyman was saying he doesn't understand the love for Monson and to explain his point, one of the reasons he provided (and btw the first one on his list) was "- he's a communist"? Aaronyman was then explaining how much he cares about what athletes think/do in their private lives outside of the ring and also how much it can affect his opinion (think perception) of a fighter just based on that? Aaron did indeed have skill-based reasons for not liking Monson but his perception of Monson as a MMA fighter, the amount of respect and credit he should be giving him only as a fighter, are lower than they would be if he happened to be neutral towards/approve Monson's political/private life views.


Most of Aaron's position was based-on a skill analysis, and to his credit he made valid points about Monson as a fighter which backed-up his argument with what. His tangent on Monson as a communist indicated that the politics are important outside of the ring to some individuals, but ultimately his evaluation of Jeff was based on a critique of his fighting ability. I really don't think whether Monson was an anarchist or communist, or republican would make a difference in assessing his fighting ability. His character yes, but politics are irrelevant in the cage.



Xerxes said:


> If you've noticed, he seemed to be the poster that didn't like him the most as a fighter, when most posters think he's a good fighter and showed excitement for him returning to the UFC. And if Aaron's perception of Monson wasn't biased by him being a communist, why would he type it in a post, and on top of that put it the #1 reason of why he doesn't like Monson? Obviously Monson's persona disturbs him because "he's a communist" and for some other non-sport related reasons he provided later (all TBH).


He has every right to be judgemental of Monson beyond his politics. Not everyone's a fan of certain fighters. Heck, I could be considered an anarchist and I'm not a huge Monson fan either, based-on his fighting skillset.




Xerxes said:


> Fedor>All, this whole "misperception" that Aaron is experiencing with Monson, is what I've been trying to describe all throughout my analysis and what my whole point was for. We are not emotionless robots and our perception of public figures will always be affected and biased by "non-competence based" criteria. It might just be to a smaller extent for you based on what you've told me, or to a bigger one for Aaronyman and for many other people.


You're giving an unnecessarily long lecture on sociology. Of course race, political allegiance and ethnicity will effect certain people's perception of fighters. It happens EVERYWHERE, even beyond sports. What it boils down to, what this entire debate is over, is what Anthony Johnson has shown in the ring being criticized. It had nothing to do with race until Sekou felt the need to point that out, because EVERY fighter as bbjd and Aaronyman pointed-out face criticism for what they show in the cage.



Xerxes said:


> These are all logics, how we behave as humans and unless you aren't one of us you also fall under this, maybe to a smaller extent but you still do. Please don't call it speculation because it's not. I'm just trying to logically describe human behavior and psychology, backed up with real life situations. If you keep calling it speculation, I'll go ahead and spend some more time to find links and send them to you. BTW talking research, did you know in some research they've realized that between 2 students handing the exact same exam or assignment, one will in average get a lower mark only because he has a "geekier, less cool name" (i.e. Dick vs. Mike) and one would get an even lower mark with a "foreigner sounding" name.


Just because a focused case study indicated racial preference in examination assessment turned-up a certain result, doesn't mean you can make broad generalizations, which is the point I'm getting at with you. Your argument is one conceived on a contextual misreading of my longer response to Sekou. I didn't say race/nationality/ethnicity has nothing to do with determing whether a fighter is respected or not. I said it has *nothing* to do with evaluating their abilities as fighters inside the cage. 

Why isn't Anderson Silva booed? Because he's a great fighter.

Why isn't Rampage booed? Because he's a great fighter.

That's what it boils down to when the cage door shuts, and that's what I've been talking about this whole time---in response to Sekou---which you, for some reason, haven't been able to grasp.




Xerxes said:


> *Answer to Sekou's and your point about how race can affect perception of performance/skills in MMA*
> 
> --> The same kind of human behavior will also translate into MMA among the fans whose perceptions of a fighter will be affected by who he is, his views, his personality and again, to a smaller or bigger extent depending on the individual. And one of those criteria like it or not, are race, nationality, religion and culture. This misperception on the fighter's skills will be due to the fact that the fans can hardly identify or relate to the fighter because of his race, nationality, religion and/or because they disapprove his views or other private life activities (as a communist, rightist, gay, animal activist, etc).


I personally disagree with this, because you don't know what Aaronyman's perception of Jeff Monson was prior to finding out he was an anarchist. It's easy to look past race and evaluate a fighter based-on what they do inside the cage, that's what most posters here do. This is why I get so annoyed when I read the race card being pulled because a black fighter is being dogged on, when it happens to every single fighter in the goddamn sport.



Xerxes said:


> Now think about Bisping. He is what many fans consider to be tad overrated for different reasons. Notice how on this forum, you'll more often see Bisping in UK MMA fans sigs than you'll see him in NA MMA fans sigs. It's because UK fans tend to support him more because they can identity and relate to him better and they will show more support to him when he fights than they would to many other skill-wise "superior" fighters. It goes without saying that in average, Bisping will be less criticized among UK MMA fans than among NA MMA fans because he is more popular over there.


I'm not denying nationality as a reason to support a fighter. 



Xerxes said:


> So basically:
> 
> *Strength of emotional connection with a fighter = more/less support = positively/negatively biased perception of fighter's skill set = more/less criticism of his performance and skills = more/less credit from fans given the actual fighter's skills == more/less respect to the fighter*


lol, it just seems like you're attempting to overwhelm me with equations. Try concisely articulating what you're saying instead of rambling, this is a discussion not a powerpoint for a science class.



Xerxes said:


> Now back to what was Sekou's original point:
> considering the UFC's main target market demographics (18-30 yo caucasian males), *all things being equal*<-(very important) the fans as a whole, will have a harder time relating to a black fighter and will therefore show less support, criticize more and give less credit than they would give to the exact same fighter but white.


That's just where I disagree. If a fighter can repeatedly exhibity exemplary skill inside of the octagon, it can over-ride racial boundaries. The USA just elected its first black president, based-on the skills he possesses, his demeanor, and their relation to his personal politics. Despite being the ethnic minority against a typical white politician, Obama won the election because he showed his worth where it counted. This is the exact same reason why guys like Wanderlei, Anderson, Rampage, Nogueira, Fedor, etc, are able to transcend race/nationality boundaries in the sport, it's because of their achievements and abilities where it counts.



Xerxes said:


> --> Therefore we can say that a black fighter will always get more criticism and less credit than what he should be getting given his ability and than what he would get from the same fans if he was white. This is only because the "white fans" will have a harder time relating to him.


That's just a generalization, once again, there are numerous examples of race/nationality/ethnicity being transcended by exhibition inside the cage. Most hardcore fans assess fighters based-on skills, not skin, which Sekou doesn't understand.



Xerxes said:


> In one of your points, you're bringing personality up but this criteria only is far from being the only one affecting this whole thing. Here are a few other examples.


What does that even mean? Personality plays more of a factor in relating to someone than race.



Xerxes said:


> Think about about Razak Al-Hassan last week. Did the people in the public know his personality enough for them to boo him so much as soon as they showed him on the big screen?
> 
> ==> Why was he the only fighter to get booed out of 20 fighters, when the public don't know much about him (case for many of the fighters on that night) and cheered and showed respect to all the other fighters to thank them for "fighting" for them??


Are you actually asking that question? Just look where the event took place, and look who the audience was comprised of. Those members of the armed forces presiding at the event aren't representatives of hardcore MMA fans, which is the demographic Sekou was addressing when he was talking about forum posters.



Xerxes said:


> Just face it:
> --> Because he is black + because he has a muslim sounding name which doesn't help at all. But still, despite being (most likely) muslim and his "people" getting bombed by we both know who, he's accepted to fight on this card and support this charity cause. Why don't people give him the f*ing respect he deserves for doing so? If they don't like him for some justified reason (I really doubt they had any), at least SU and don't show support but don't boo for what are IMO "ugly" reasons. Razak was just getting what I've been explaining you in my 2 long posts, nothing else and this certainly didn't happen because he has a stinky personality (classy to fight for the cause+they don't know him anyway).


There's no question that race/ethnicity had a role in the crowd's reaction to Razak, however, you have to consider these two things:

Firstly, Razak seemed to be very cocky in the pre-fight hype videos. Whenever you're cocky, you're automatically alienating people from you because arrogance is not an attractive quality.

Secondly, as I previously mentioned the event took place in a MILITARY BASE, not in an audience full of hardcore MMA fans. What sort of reaction would you expect from an audience of vets and members of the armed forces when a fighter named "Razak Al-Hussan" is fighting a born-and-raised White American? It was hardly a neutral atmosphere, and I think the reception would have been different had the fight taken place elsewhere.




Xerxes said:


> ==> Rampage is basically the funniest, most awesome fighter out there, not as big of a star as Chuck but still very well known and popular among the UFC fans, especially the Pride/hardcore fans. Given all that why did he get booed so much by the public every time he was shown on the big screen in his fight against Chuck? Were the people attending the show find him being a douche and not like his personality? right..


They were booing him because they like Chuck, not because they dislike him. Where were the boos when he knocked the snot out of the Iceman? Exactly, there were none because he proved himself in the cage which transcends race/ethnic boundaries.




Xerxes said:


> ==> Now how about in his fight against Forrest. He was the 2 times defending LHW champion, he just beat Chuck, beat Henderson and is *IMO a way more talented/established fighter (fighter skill set concept) as Forrest.*


Well then you're wrong, because Forrest clearly showed he's the more developed mixed martial artist; that's why he won.



Xerxes said:


> *In terms of personality he is more charismatic, fun and interesting than Forrest* but despite all that, if you carefully listen to the intro with headphones 1) you'll hear more cheers from the public for Forrest and 2) you'll hear more boos for Quinton and less cheers.


The bolded part is YOUR perception of Forrest, you can't make general assumptions that everyone perceives him the same way. Some may find his sense of humor/personality more endearing than Rampage's, so really, you're signifying your own bias by overlooking Forrest's redeeming flaws for Rampage's.



Xerxes said:


> How do you explain that? I'm curious to read what reasons you'll provide. Weird isn't it.


Other reasons people may have been booing Rampage:

1. He has an abrasive personality, he says what he wants. Not everyone enjoys his sense of humor, and that's up to them. Does that make him a lesser fighter skill-wise? No.

2. Rampage is from Memphis, and Forrest fights out of Las Vegas. Guess where the fight took place? Mandalay Bay Events Center (*LAS VEGAS*).

3. Are you actually wondering why Forrest was cheered for more? Ever heard of The Ultimate Fighter? I really don't think I need to explain it, but he was involved in probably the most significant fight in the UFC's history, especially as a catalyst in firing MMA into the mainstream. He has a likeable personality, and he's always the underdog. Furthermore, I'm not sure if you follow TUF or not, but every season one coach is constructed as the antagonist and one as the protagonist. For Rampage/Forrest, Rampage was put across more or less as the antagonist, especially when he blew-up and told Forrest "Our fight ain't going to no decision". Rampage's personality was constructed differently to Forrest on the show, which ultimately made him seem less relatable as a person.

Once again, I'm not denying race, I just think you're limiting the reasoning people may or may not like certain fighters, when what it ultimately boils down to is an evaluation of skill.



Xerxes said:


> ==> Again, doesn't just the chant for USA proves you that just based on the fighters' nationality, fans can support and give more credit and "respect" to who could be a weaker fighter skill wise against a better fighter? What happened to the fans judging the fighters only on skills and performance, why do they support their home boy even though he could suck? --> Bisping lol.


Once again, you're making generalizations about hardcore fans based-on your the projection of opinion (jeers) by the casual UFC event audience. 



Xerxes said:


> "Respect" from the fans as I defined earlier is the amount of credit you get from them. Anderson Silva is the best, most spectacular fighter the UFC has ever signed. Still he fails to be a big draw for the UFC because casual fans are not willing to pay to watch him as much as they would to watch several other fighters fight. A. Silva, despite all his skills, hasn't been able to build the fan base he deserves because he can't speak English, he's black and Brazilian (think non-American).


Once again, we're not discussing this. We're discussing the evaluation of a fighter's ability as a result of what they show inside the cage. Not why Joe Shmo won't buy pay per view. 



Xerxes said:


> As soon as Silva won't be putting on a good show (Cote) or lose, the fans will start bitching a lot on him. Look at Chuck, 3 losses in his last 4 fights, but how much heath did he really get for his last performances? Not much TBH, because he is Chuck.


If you truly believe Chuck Liddell didn't get heat for his last performances, then you haven't been reading threads here, my friend. 



Xerxes said:


> --> Skill wise Silva>>Chuck
> --> Popularity wise Chuck>>Silva
> 
> If what I explain here is wrong then please explain to me why Silva, marketed as the best P4P fighter in the world by the UFC, is not the biggest draw or at least one of the biggest draws in the UFC? His personality stinks also? He's actually a very classy, funny, awesome dude outside of the ring.


You can't ignore the fact that there aren't as many big fighters that are draws to pit Anderson against at Middleweight for the title. The fact he doesn't want to make a title run because of Machida, also prevents him from fighting the top names in the LHW division.



Xerxes said:


> Just notice how the biggest draws in the UFC have always been caucasian american born and raised fighters: #1 Chuck, #2 Tito, #3 Randy and now #4 Brock.


You're forgetting the mixed martial arts match-up aspect that made those fights interesting in the first place. All three of those match-ups were important to the restructuring of the MMA landscape and its propagation into the mainstream.



Xerxes said:


> It's common sense and logic based on what I've described, how is it pure speculation? Such an unbelievable fighter would definitely be one of, if not the UFC's biggest draw because he's exceptional as a fighter thus he can potentially build a huge fan base (bigger than A.Silva's ATM).


I'm not arguing that there's no logic to what you're saying, I'm pointing out the gross generalizations I'm reading in your posts. This discussion was derived from a statement in relation to the perception of hardcore MMA fans, NOT, I repeat, NOT casual fans which you've made it into.



Xerxes said:


> I explained enough why race, just as nationality, political views or religion can affect a fan base and also cause a positive or negative misperception in the fan's mind in judging the skills/performance of a fighter in a "fair" way.


Yes, but I've also provided reasons why your general statements simply aren't fair representations of what MMA fans (like the ones here) think.




Xerxes said:


> So you also agree it has something to do with race when you say "very little". Even if it's very little, it still has some impact.


Yes, I agree. 



Xerxes said:


> My opinion is- race has a lot to do with it. Again, a caucasian fan base will tend to show less support to a black fighter as it will be harder for them to establish an emotional connection with the black fighter. Less support, less popular, more criticism, less credit and less respect than if they were white with the exact same skill set. Therefore we can say black fighters in the UFC do not get the amount of respect they should be getting (as other similar fighters are getting) based on their color, which was pretty much Sekou's original point.


Once again, I disagree, and I don't think uou don't need to repeat yourself.



Xerxes said:


> Tito didn't lose himself the fight but Rashad made him lose by attacking and trying to take him down several times. Tito's only way of winning this fight would have been: cheat like he did + the referee failing to penalize him for what would have to do several times.


Just look at the score cards, and what ACTUALLY happened in the fight (ie: a single deduction):

Tito won round one 10-9
Tito won round two 10-9, but was deducted a point making it 9-9.
Rashad won round three.

Those are the undeniable facts, that is what the scorecard said. You can't say "WELL IF THE REF GAVE HIM MORE DEDUCTIONS/IF RASHAD GOT TITO DOWN HE WOULD HAVE WON" because that's not what happened in the fight. Basing what we know on what actually happened, Tito's deduction cost him the fight, end of story.



Xerxes said:


> Ironically, Tito "won" the 2 rounds he got to cheat, then he had to stop cheating in round 3 and guess what, he lost it. Based on what happened in round 3 only, I can say if Tito didn't cheat in round 1 and 2, he'd have lost both of them 10-9. Speculation but could have been possible considering how the 3rd round went (not considering that Rashad might have been able to finish him on the ground if he got his TDs in rd 1 and 2).


First of all, it sounds like you haven't watched the fight in a while. 

Tito didn't cheat in the first round at all, and I think it's pretty clear he won it. He took Rashad down, but Rashad couldn't take him down. Tito landed a headkick in the opening of the round, and controlled the pace of the along the cage when they were pummeling for position. Rashad cut Tito with a grazing thumb when momentarily turned his back, but aside from that and a flurry where no punches landed, he didn't mount any major offense in the first.

Second round: 

In the second Tito shot in on Rashad twice and got him down twice. Rashad shot in three times, failing to get Tito to the ground twice, only when Tito grabbed the fence and was deducted did Rashad get him down. However, he ended up in a guillotine choke at the end of the round. Tito landed more shots standing as well. I'm really not sure how you could make the assumption that Tito would have lost the round if he didn't grab the fence.

Third Round:

Rashad starts opening up, Ortiz shoots a double and takes him down. Tito momentarily mounts Rashad, Rashad stands using the fence, Tito goes for a front facelock, hits Rashad with a knee then shoots for a single, while Rashad defends excellently. About a minute to go and Rashad lands some nice punches. Tito returns the favor with two punches of his own. Tito shoots for a double, Rashad stuffs him. Rashad takes down Tito automatically in side control.

10-9 Rashad, no doubt.



Xerxes said:


> Tito cheated because he needed to, he knew he had to cheat to avoid a loss to a not so well known, underrated opponent (not to look bad with the fans).


Lets not pretend like you know what's going on in Tito's head. He would have won that fight had he not been deducted the point, I really don't think this is debatable.



Xerxes said:


> so basically Tito got a draw after cheating and Rashad got the same result after being cheated on. Which fighter do you think should get the most credit in this fight?


Rashad grabbed the fence in the second too, you can hear Big John warning him. You can also hear Big John warning Rashad not to grab Tito's shorts in the clinch, yet he wasn't deducted. Don't be so naive, both fighters cheated, Rashad was lucky to get a draw out of that situation.



Xerxes said:


> Just BTW, IMO Rashad is a more superior fighter than Bisping (and I'm neither black nor British lol).


I'm still not sold on either guy.




Xerxes said:


> I think that you, like many other people are CONSTANTLY looking at the negative side of things when talking about Rashad, it's insane and shows lots of bias: "only won by SD", "he would have lost the fight to Tito without this 1 point deduction", "yeah but he was losing the first round to Chuck", etc.


So my opinion's "insane" because I disagree with you? I thought we respected each other's opinion, despite the fact the conflict with one another? And of course my opinion is going to have "bias" in it, *opinions derived by BIAS*.



Xerxes said:


> How about instead of saying "he only beat him by SD" you say "he's the only fighter to ever beat Bisping in his 17 MMA fights" and give him the credit he deserves for that? Don't you think it would be more fair to him?


Give him credit for beating someone with a padded record in a rather unimpressive performance on the parts of both fighters? No.



Xerxes said:


> This is where I got it from, I'm quoting you: "Rashad only won a split decision *over a middleweight* (Michael Bisping)"
> 
> From the way you worded your sentence you are obviously criticizing him on size, by saying he "only" got a SD "over a middleweight" (=small) + like everybody on this forum I know who Bisping is and which division he currently fights at so why wording it this way and bringing up his current weight class to imply his a smaller fighter when anyway they fought together at LHW?


Size has nothing to do with why I don't like him. I haven't been impressed by any of his performances except for the KO of Chuck. I'm just not sold by what I've been shown. 



Xerxes said:


> And Bisping is not just "a MW", same way as Andy is not just "a MW". They are both fighter that could fight at MW and LHW but more frequently fight at MW to get the most size advantage when fight. BJ fought at LHW before but I doubt you would have called him LHW at that time. Fighters just move up and down in weights, IMO it's wrong to qualify them by their weight class unless you add something like "ATM" but that's not important F>A, it's just me.


Size isn't an issue to me. It's the fact Rashad's skills haven't impressed me. Bisping isn't that great of a fighter in my opinion, he's solid, but not great (especially at LHW). If Rashad's a top contender (which he is) and he struggled to decisively beat Bisping who isn't particularly amazing at anything (especially wrestling), of course I'm going to be left questioning Rashad Evans' ability.



Xerxes said:


> Just in case you weren't trying to criticize Rashad on size, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.


I wish I had read this part before typing my response lol.



Xerxes said:


> When did I say anything like that? I'm not sure but I think you just misread me. When I said "he lost round 1 and was dominating round 2 until he *got* the KO...", I was talking about Rashad and I clearly meant that he was ahead on the scorecards in round 2 and then he got the KO and *not got KO'd* (talking about Chuck lol). I'm talking about Rashad getting the KO, not Chuck getting KO'd.
> 
> Anyone saying until the KO he was losing the fight would be wrong because Rashad was clearly winning round 2, not even close.
> 
> Just let me know if there was anything wrong with my wording here, maybe you just you read too fast lol.


Honestly, I've been writing this response so long that I don't even know what I said to you for you to post this response lol.



Xerxes said:


> Unbelievable... you actually believe Chuck was winning the fight before he got KO'd. How about round 2? Rashad was definitely ahead on the scorecards in round 2, you can't question that. I don't understand why people are always giving to Chuck what was a very close 1st round but fail to give to Rashad what was a very one sided 2nd round. Somebody explain please.


Yeah, he dominated all 1 minute and 51 seconds of it lol. Even if you want to score it that way (one round a piece), Rashad didn't look exceptionally good until the knockout. :dunno:




> Yes, that was impressive, I'm not denying that. *Sokoudjou* killed Arona and Little Nog too, but everyone was still skeptical of him. There are still a lot of questions left regarding Rashad, that I'm sure *will be answered* in his next fight.
> 
> 
> > Xerxes said:
> ...


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

wow this is entertaining...[gets popcorn]


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

I don't know why F>A is arguing with xerxes, the man ruled the entire Persian Empire, he must know something about racism.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Chrisl972 said:


> I don't know why F>A is arguing with xerxes, the man ruled the entire Persian Empire, he must know something about racism.


It's funny because AA looks like Leonidas in your avatar Chris lol.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

Fedor>all said:


> It's funny because AA looks like Leonidas in your avatar Chris lol.


Oh, he does!

Never really noticed that before. 

Want me to take over the fight with xerxes?


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Chrisl972 said:


> Oh, he does!
> 
> Never really noticed that before.
> 
> Want me to take over the fight with xerxes?


Yeah, my fingers and wrists are sore from typing lol. Watch out for his arrows though.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Xerxes, you take yourself much too seriously.

Round 1 = F>A. FLAWLESS VICTORY


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

Fedor>all said:


> Yeah, my fingers and wrists are sore from typing lol. Watch out for his arrows though.



Then I'll type in the DARK!!!!!

(too over the top??)


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

CornbreadBB said:


> Xerxes, you take yourself much too seriously.
> 
> Round 1 = F>A. FLAWLESS VICTORY


To be fair, Xerxes makes some great points. 

I just think that hardcore MMA fans (the ones you find on forums like this one) are able to look past race and judge what they see in a cage. Rashad Evans has shown glimmers of greatness, but I'm not sold because there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered about his abilities. Once he gives me less reason to doubt him, I'll gladly concede to his greatness.




Chrisl972 said:


> Then I'll type in the DARK!!!!!
> 
> (too over the top??)



OH NO YOU DI'NT. I should have seen that coming lol.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

Fedor>all said:


> To be fair, Xerxes makes some great points.
> 
> I just think that hardcore MMA fans (the ones you find on forums like this one) are able to look past race and judge what they see in a cage. Rashad Evans has shown glimmers of greatness, but I'm not sold because there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered about his abilities. Once he gives me less reason to doubt him, I'll gladly concede to his greatness.
> 
> ...


I should have had more pride in myself then to post that. 

It was the rubber chicken of 300 jokes.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Chrisl972 said:


> I should have had more pride in myself then to post that.
> 
> It was the rubber chicken of 3000 jokes.


Haha, could have been worse.. I mean, you could have joked about kicking someone into a giant pit. 

THIS.
IS.
MMAFORUM.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

Fedor>all said:


> Haha, could have been worse.. I mean, you could have joked about kicking someone into a giant pit.
> 
> THIS.
> IS.
> MMAFORUM.


I'm sure I would have if you hadn't lead me in the direction of the arrows. I really have no shame it seems.


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Chrisl972 said:


> I'm sure I would have if you hadn't lead me in the direction of the arrows. I really have no shame it seems.












This guy may have you trumped in the shame department lol.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

* Feels like this thread is getting more and more "Monson expects to return to the UFC to face Kongo'ed" *

F>A, 

Thanks for answering to my previous post. I'll get back to you later with (hopefully) a shorter post than my previous one. 



Chrisl972 said:


> I don't know why F>A is arguing with xerxes, the man ruled the entire Persian Empire, he must know something about racism.


I don't how I have to take that. What this a joke or you had other intentions behind that? 

Hollywood has never been an accurate source to get to know what happened in History. And what the "general public" knew about Xerxes or the Persian Empire before the movie 300? Answer = nothing. 

And what do people know on this subject after the movie 300? Nothing much. 

Just FYI, in case you don't know Cyrus the great, grand father of Xerxes, wrote was is still considered to be the first "Charter of Human Rights" in history. 

*Let's him go on Wikipedia for him to check and find examples to try to dismiss my point* LoL

And yeah AA does look like "Leonidas". 



Aaronyman said:


> wow this is entertaining...[gets popcorn]


Hey Aaron I'm actually talking about you to prove my point in my last post, hope you don't mind. 

I'd like to know if you agree somehow with what I've written about you. Do you feel Monson's political views somehow affects the perception you have of him as a fighter? In other words because you don't like his persona, do you like him less as a fighter than you would if you liked his views?



CornbreadBB said:


> Xerxes, you take yourself much too seriously.
> 
> Round 1 = F>A. FLAWLESS VICTORY


*Cheap..*

How about you give us a smart and insightful input after a while? 

There is nothing wrong with trying to have a serious conversation.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> I don't how I have to take that. What this a joke or something?
> 
> Just FYI Chris, Hollywood has never been an accurate source to get to know what happened in History. And what did you know about Xerxes or the Persian Empire before the movie 300 anyway? Answer = probably nothing to nothing much.
> 
> ...


Wow, that is quite the high horse you are on there.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

A serious conversation is fine. There is also something to be said for being concise, and for brevity.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> * Feels like this thread is getting more and more "Monson expects to return to the UFC to face Kongo'ed" *
> 
> F>A,
> 
> ...



Perhaps PMing Aaron before you wrote the dissertation would have been a good idea...but wait you already thought of that right? 

And of course its a joke...are you so smart you miss the simple things in life?


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

MLS said:


> Wow, that is quite the high horse you are on there.


I was just editing my previous post assuming he was joking (which I think he was).


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

IcemanCometh said:


> And of course its a joke...are you so smart you miss the simple things in life?


Careful.. he might PM you to tell you how smart he is.

He's smarter than me... he told me so.



> I'm certainly more educated than you'll ever be (MBA) and can fluently speak more foreign languages than you ever will (3).


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

IcemanCometh said:


> *Perhaps PMing Aaron before you wrote the dissertation would have been a good idea*...but wait you already thought of that right?
> 
> And of course *its a joke*...are you so smart you miss the simple things in life?


I asked for Aaron's opinion on this matter, not for yours or anyone else's. 

I read Chris' post fast, until I re-read it a second time to realize he was most probably joking and went to edit my post. 

Forum discussions are not the most effective way of communicating between 2 people. Relax.



bail3yz said:


> Careful.. he might PM you to tell you how smart he is.
> 
> He's smarter than me... he told me so.


Well, you called me "idiot" in the first place if you remember well. And what happened, I thought you didn't read my PM? LooL

And last thing, stop stalking me on this forum sending me neg reps for nothing every other day to insult me or I won't hesitate to notify Admins about this, get a f*ing life and leave me alone.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Seriously is there any need for the 10 page long posts?

Xerxes you are not the smartest one on the forum so pretending to be and PMing people saying you are.

How is baileyz stalking you?

Also don't double post, it's annoying.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Yeah. I am the smartest.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Xerxes said:


> *Cheap..*
> 
> How about you give us a smart and insightful input after a while?
> 
> There is nothing wrong with trying to have a serious conversation.


Of course there isn't, there's only something wrong with it when one side refuses to accept that people have opinions that differ from their own.


----------



## IcemanCometh (Mar 9, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> I asked for Aaron's opinion on this matter, not for yours or anyone else's.


:sarcastic07:That is why they have PM's if you don't want others opinion on something then PM the person you want the opinion of.:dunno:





> Forum discussions are not the most effective way of communicating between 2 people. Relax.


Did you just figure this out?:bye01:


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> Well, you called me "idiot" in the first place if you remember well. And what happened, I thought you didn't read my PM? LooL
> 
> And last thing, stop stalking me on this forum sending me neg reps for nothing every other day to insult me or I won't hesitate to notify Admins about this, get a f*ing life and leave me alone.


Sorry, I am just learning how the rep system works. I don't understand when I am supposed to neg rep someone.. very confusing. Can you PM me a tutorial?


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

MJB23 said:


> Seriously is there any need for the 10 page long posts?
> 
> Xerxes you are not the smartest one on the forum so pretending to be and PMing people saying you are.
> 
> How is baileyz stalking you?


I've never pretended that, just don't like being insulted (for no reason).

And yeah I consider him to be stalking me these last few days, check my user panel. 



CornbreadBB said:


> Of course there isn't, there's only something wrong with it when one side refuses to accept that people have opinions that differ from their own.


When did I say anything that leads you to think that? I'm here to discuss and exchange ideas with people. If I wasn't I wouldn't post on a forum.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> I've never pretended that, just don't like being insulted (for no reason).


But it's ok for you to insult others for no reason?


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

bail3yz said:


> Sorry, I am just learning on the rep system works. I don't understand when I am supposed to neg rep someone.. very confusing. Can you PM me a tutorial?


Yeah, it's way too confusing. I suspect I've been going about it all wrong.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> I've never pretended that, just don't like being insulted (for no reason).
> 
> And yeah I consider him to be stalking me these last few days, check my user panel.


You didn't PM him saying you were smarting then him with your MBA and speaking 3 languages? 

An MBA really isn't that hard of a degree to get and neither is learning 3 languages. Most Europeans speak at least 3 languages. 

I can't check your userCP but I'm sure if I could I wouldn't find him stalking you. How do you know it's him neg repping you and not other people that disapprove of your posts or your condescending attitude?


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

MJB is right, I definitely neg repped you. ...it's only because you give people like us with a PhD, MD and LSD a bad name.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

I'll get back to you guys later. gtg


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

You talk about people not using the rep system right but isn't your sig using it the wrong way too?


----------



## Fedor>all (Oct 22, 2006)

Honestly guys, this is getting ridiculous.

Xerxes, I really don't feel like responding to an enormous message tomorrow, so lets just agree to disagree.

You think Rashad is under-rated, I don't. I think he's unproven. You think race/politics/ethnicity/nationality has a much larger impact on the assessment of fighters than I do. You also think Anthony Johnson is like GSP, which I agree with in some regard and disagree with in others.

I honestly spent a lot of time responding to your points, but I was also a little frustrated with how long-winded some of them were. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions around here, but I'd like it if I could read more than one opinion a day lol.

Can we all make peace? You're all intelligent posters, and I really don't think there's a need to bicker about who is smarter. Comparing degrees is like talking about how big your dick is online, everyone's flaccid e-penis is 8 inches. We're talking about MMA here folks, so who gives a damn about educational pedigrees.


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

i don't care if you write about me Xerxes

love me or hate me just put my name in the paper


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

I can't believe I'm getting so much heat just because I misunderstood Chris' post in the first place. I corrected (edited) myself just a few minutes later after I read it a second time. If I offended you Chris, know that my very first comment was unfair and I sincerely apologize. 

As you guys notice from my writing skills, my English skills are not great as it's not my first language. Forum posts can be very confusing for anybody and when your English's not fluent enough, you can totally misunderstand somebody and be confused even more. 

I replied in a harsh way to Cornbread only because he (she?) made his post personal and "attacked" me when he didn't have to and because IMO, his post wasn't a great input to the conversation. Maybe it was for other members but it wasn't to me. :dunno:

Now about bail3yz. I negged him one time several days ago for a post in which he was attacking and being rude to the TS when I felt it wasn't justified. This is the thread:

http://www.mmaforum.com/general-mma-discussion/47968-will-you-fight-outside-ring.html

--> you can also read bail2yz's comment on the 1st page. 

In my neg comment I said something like "Why do you have to be so rude to the TS? No need for that dude- Xerxes", NOTHING PERSONAL and to be polite, I even left my screenname. 

He negged me back the day after saying: "yes, because hes an obvious troll.. you idiot - bail3yz "

First of all I wasn't aware he was a troll, I don't keep track of what everybody posts on here, second the TS wasn't being trolling AT ALL in his thread, he was actually asking an interesting question and I felt like he was being sincere in his thread, third if you fully know he's a troll then why feed him by insulting him anyway? and fourth, after being rude to the OP, he insulted me and called me "idiot" when I never insulted him in the first place and thought I did something "justified" for all these above reasons. 

Get this clear: I hate when people are insulting each other online because there is no need for that and there is nothing cheaper than that. That's why I negged him for his post and that's why I PM'd him with harsh words when he negged me back just to insult me and call me an idiot.

I would never insult somebody first, if I do it's either because they insulted me first, or because they made a comment personal and offending when they didn't have to or (barely happens) because the poster is really being annoying for some reasons (purposely wasting people's time, trolling, not reading people's posts etc.).

My PM was purposely written with harsh words for this dude that's insulting everybody and being pissed off and emotional at that moment, I doesn't reflect my actual thoughts. 

This obviously honest and "straight" guy, extracted several words from 1 sentence, in a 15 lines comment I wrote to him (in private) and those words were the harshest ones of my whole PM as they were the closing ones (a good conclusion has to be "catchy" right?).

Here is my actual PM and considering these above reasons I think you understand better why I wrote it this way. If you read a bit between the lines, my whole point from the beginning to the end is to tell him he called me idiot but he's actually more of an idiot than I am. I don't necessarilly believe that but I was just mad (and rightfully so IMO):



> I just realized you negged me back because I negged you yesterday. If you still don't get how this reputation system works after almost 2 f'ing years you've been a member on this forum, it's not for you to neg rep somebody back only because they negged you (and rightfully so).
> 
> Troll or not you don't get to insult people like you do (which is also a way of trolling BTW), just ignore them and stop feeding their BS like that *or you'd be even more of an idiot for doing so. I can't believe I have to explain all that to somebody that just called me "idiot"*. And you don't get to insult me you moron, I'm certainly more educated than you'll ever be (MBA) and can fluently speak more foreign languages than you ever will (3). Now bugger off.
> 
> Xerxes



I PM'ed him with I admit, harsh words. But what do you expect? He insults me and a TS and I'm going to say TY and "Hello kittyyyyy"? I wish I could be so wise and peaceful but I'm no Ghandi. 

And yes, bail2yz IS INDEED what I consider to be *stalking*, as I completely stopped talking to him days ago but he still continues to neg rep me anytime he can, for unjustified reasons just to insult me. As you saw on this thread he also continues to stalk me with this s** to keep provoking and annoying me. In the last 3 days only, he negged me 4 to 6 times whenever he got the chance. So basically just for the purpose of negging me, this dude spends his time "spreading reputation" to other people on different forums, so that whenever he sees one of my posts he can go ahead and neg me. I'm wondering how many times he goes on my public profile per day only to find my last posts. PATHETIC. 

Here are some of his last negs: "idiot", "idiot" again, "Did I do this right?", "am I neg repping right yet?". Admins can go check and confirm. 

So I'm asking bail2yz again, to f*ing leave me alone and stop negging me every day like he does or I'll do what it takes to stop this STALKING. 

Now back to the content of the PM I sent him. I sincerely do not think having more education, having a specific knowledge in one field or knowing more foreign languages makes somebody smarter. You can have any knowledge you want but you can still fail to be logical or understand basic stuff in real life situations which is what is IMO "intelligence". 

In real life unless it's necessary (job interview, question asked, etc) I do not bring up my credentials or anything like that just to show up and be cocky. Believe it or not, people say I'm modest and none of my friends would portray me as cocky like you guys did on this thread. If you do think I'm cocky based on what I've written, it's either because I have been provoked and sounded arrogant/rude in my reply, or because I didn't express myself properly (again English's not my first language). 

For example, Fedor>All in one in his last post to me said: "don't over-credit yourself by making a very simple point overly complex." because I told him he missed my original point and had to explain further in my 2nd thread. But TBH, judging by some of his comments in his last posts to me, I feel like he again missed my point at some places (I'll explain where and why). But when I say "you missed my point" or "let me explain further", this is not because I think F>A is stupid. He's actually one of the best posters on MMAF and that's why I enjoy debating with him, this is just because my English skills aren't excellent like you guys and I people can sometimes miss my point (at least I feel like it). So when I say "you missed my point, let me explain further", it's not about you, it's about me. Language barrier is not the only "parameter" that comes to play. There is also culture and references. Many times you guys make jokes that I don't get. Either because I don't find it funny (even though many people lol @ it) or because I don't know the meaning of some words (slang, expressions etc.). For example, when Aaron said to me "love me or hate me just put my name in the paper" I kinda get the meaning but not 100%, just like I didn't get Chris' comment the first time I read it. 

Also, too many times I made jokes that I thought would be funny but nobody lol'ed at them and I even got negged for some of them. So to avoid getting negged too much and keeping my rep bar green, I've decided I'm going to post serious threads only. (I was trying to be ironic here, did it work?) 

Last but not least, I am not here just to give my opinion and not listen to what people have to say like Cornbread reproached me (when I read that I was like wtf). If that was my goal, I wouldn't sign up for a forum. I would just post on my own "blog" and close the comments section. I am here to *discuss* with people, *get informed*, *learn*, *exchange* ideas and knowledge with other like minded MMA fans. And I don't give a damn of who you are, black, white, brown, british, student, pro, "educated" or not, young or old, etc. I'll always read the comments and try to discuss and exchange info/ideas. 

Thank you for your time.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

You are such a hypocrite. Yea.. I was being rude and insulting the TS, the TS that EVERYONE has been insulting for the last week or so because he's a troll/idiot. Every thread he starts is absolutely ridiculous. Yet, its okay for you to say I'm being douchy? When I wasn't even talking to you? I called you an idiot, because your neg rep was stupid. 

Also, if you are so concerned about me stalking you... I don't care if the mods review your user CP, I only negged you twice since you sent me that retarded PM.. so if you got negged 4-6 times.. clearly other people agree with me and think you are an idiot.

Lastly, your english is fine. You don't have to write a 10 page essay to get your point across.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

bail3yz said:


> You are such a hypocrite. Yea.. I was being rude and insulting the TS, the TS that EVERYONE has been insulting for the last week or so because he's a troll/idiot. Every thread he starts is absolutely ridiculous. Yet, its okay for you to say I'm being douchy? When I wasn't even talking to you? I called you an idiot, because your neg rep was stupid.
> 
> Also, if you are so concerned about me stalking you... I don't care if the mods review your user CP, I only negged you twice since you sent me that retarded PM.. so if you got negged 4-6 times.. clearly other people agree with me and think you are an idiot.
> 
> Lastly, your english is fine. You don't have to write a 10 page essay to get your point across.


First off, what tells you you're the only person I've negged on that thread where you were being rude? 

As I said he wasn't trolling at all on this thread so why insulting him on that one? Go insult him where he is trolling, not where he's just asking an interesting question and seems to be sincere and serious in his thought. This only shows how you behave on this forum: you basically find a target and follow them everywhere on the forum to either insult or neg them anytime you get the chance even when they are being cool = STALKING PEOPLE nothing else. 

Aright you weren't talking to me in your post to the TS but do you necessarily have to be talking to me for me to neg or pos rep you? This is a FORUM and posts are PUBLIC and again, that statement you made above still makes me believe you still don't know why the rep system is here for. 

I longly explained why I negged so it wasn't a "stupid neg rep" IMO. Even if my neg was stupid why would you just neg back to insult me and like wasn't enough keep neg repping me other times too? Can't you stay polite for a day and not insult people when they didn't insult you in the first place?

Let me tell you something. Don't kid yourself amigo, if you don't get negged so much it's only because you paid for a lifetime membership and people know you get their screenname even though they want to stay anonymous. It's funny how anytime you neg a paying member for a justified reason they make such a big deal out of it just like you did-> because they get negged once in a while as everybody knows they get the screennames. Dare to have a non-paying account and see how many people will neg you because of unjustified reasons, when you really aren't deserving it + your "e-tough arrogant" attitude insulting people all over the place won't help at all. So yeah go ahead and try. 

We started "talking" together just 3 days ago, so you admit negging me 3 times in total in the last 3 days. In the case you're being honest, nobody keeps track of their pos/neg reps so you very well could forget another 1 or 2 times you've negged me because I'm pretty sure they were you. So my point still stands, in the past 3 days you negged me 4 to 6 times (not counting all your trolly posts on this thread).

And if you want to know, like most people here, I get way more pos than neg reps. I got several negs today mostly because of your own f*ing self. You've purposely extracted a few words in a 15 lines private message I sent you when I was mad at you because you insulted me. You did it purposely knowing it would make me look bad and get negged and again, you're certainly not somebody I want to talk to on this forum. 

So again, I'm asking you to just *leave me alone*. Do I have the f*ing right to ask for that??????

*Look at how many UNSOLICITED negs and posts you've been sending to me only these past 3 days for no reason = STALKING = YOU ARE A STALKER. END OF STORY*.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> First off, what tells you you're the only person I've negged on that thread where you were being rude?


You throw out neg reps for nothing.. thats why you are painted red.. incase you didnt know.. now you cant neg anyone.



> As I said he wasn't trolling at all on this thread so why insulting him on that one? Go insult him where he is trolling, not where he's just asking an interesting question and seems to be sincere and serious in his thought. This only shows how you behave on this forum: you basically find a target and follow them everywhere on the forum to either insult or neg them anytime you get the chance even when they are being cool = STALKING PEOPLE nothing else.


Troll intelligence > yours



> Aright you weren't talking to me in your post to the TS but do you necessarily have to be talking to me for me to neg or pos rep you? This is a FORUM and posts are PUBLIC and again, that statement you made above still makes me believe you still don't know why the rep system is here for.


Ya, guess I'll just keep negging you until I figure out this darn system.



> I longly explained why I negged so it wasn't a "stupid neg rep" IMO. Even if my neg was stupid why would you just neg back to insult me and like wasn't enough keep neg repping me other times too? Can't you stay polite for a day and not insult people when they didn't insult you in the first place?


Your neg was stupid, because it was unjustified.. despite what you think. And I didn't just neg you back to insult you... ya I insulted you, but I also gave an explanation to my post..

If you recall, your neg rep was in the form of a question.. my neg rep was in the form of an answer. I wasn't going to PM you to reply to your question.. since you didn't PM me to ask the question. Now stop acting like you are the only person that understands the rep system. I can neg rep you anytime I want. I disagreed with your neg rep, thus I neg repped one of your post to point it out... if I could have simply neg repped your neg rep, I would have. Since apparently me repping one of your random posts confused the hell out of you.



> Let me tell you something. Don't kid yourself amigo, if you don't get negged so much it's only because you paid for a lifetime membership and people know you get their screenname even though they want to stay anonymous. It's funny how anytime you neg a paying member for a justified reason they make such a big deal out of it just like you did-> because they get negged once in a while as everybody knows they get the screennames. Dare to have a non-paying account and see how many people will neg you because of unjustified reasons, when you really aren't deserving it + your "e-tough arrogant" attitude insulting people all over the place won't help at all. So yeah go ahead and try.


lol, I posted alot prior to buying a paid membership and never had a problem.. so case closed. 



> We started "talking" together just 3 days ago, so you admit negging me 3 times in total in the last 3 days. In the case you're being honest, nobody keeps track of their pos/neg reps so you very well could forget another 1 or 2 times you've negged me because I'm pretty sure they were you. So my point still stands, in the past 3 days you negged me 4 to 6 times (not counting all your trolly posts on this thread).


I know you dont think very highly of my intelligence.. but I am fully capable of remembering what I did the last 3 days. I only neg repped you 2 times after the original.. but feel free to assume I did all 6.. if it makes you feel any better. Btw, you can only rep so much per day.. and you have to rep alot of other people inorder to rep someone twice.. so it probably isnt even possible for me to neg you 6 times in 3 days.. but you'd know this.. because you know more about the rep system then anyone else.



> And if you want to know, like most people here, I get way more pos than neg reps.


Congrats?



> I got several negs today mostly because of your own f*ing self. You've purposely extracted a few words in a 15 lines private message *I sent you when I was mad at you because you insulted me. *You did it purposely knowing it would make me look bad and get negged and again, you're certainly not somebody I want to talk to on this forum.


lol, the entire PM made you look bad.. you are a fool for posting the entire thing here. I can assure you that I wasnt trying to 'hide' any of the PM.

Also regarding the bold text.. you realize you insulted me first right?




> So again, I'm asking you to just *leave me alone*. Do I have the f*ing right to ask for that??????


You can ask, but I can't make any promises.



> *Look at how many UNSOLICITED negs and posts you've been sending to me only these past 3 days for no reason = STALKING = YOU ARE A STALKER. END OF STORY*.


YOU = IDIOT. END OF STORY



P.S. is this you?
http://www.holytaco.com/2008/06/27/the-douchiest-phone-message-in-history/
Lastly, I know you really want to write some sort of novel to reply to this.. don't bother.. I am not going to read it.. I might neg rep it.. but I won't read it.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

bail3yz said:


> You throw out neg reps for nothing.. thats why you are painted red.. incase you didnt know.. now you cant neg anyone.


I'm only painted red ATM because people negged me several times today because of your BS and your "fallacious" quote from me, not because I negged too much some other people 3 days ago. (until earlier today I was still green) 

Just FYI, I spread way more pos than neg reps so point fail. 



> Troll intelligence > yours


Very nice. You just proved on your own in your sentence you should be adding "> mine" after "yours".



> Ya, guess I'll just keep negging you until I figure out this darn system.


Unless you *assure me* you won't do what you've been doing for 3 days anymore and you *apologize* for the stalking you've been doing to me, I'll be reporting your ass to several of these organizations dealing with online stalking and I'll also touch a word with the Admins. There are laws regulating the Web and what you've done and judging from your own words, still going to do in the future = *ILLEGAL*. 

I give you *until this Thursday December 18th, 2008* to do what I'm asking you to do and it can be done in private if you prefer (I'll just TY and won't bring it up anymore). If you don't, I'll do the necessary first thing this Friday to stop that s***. I'm on here to enjoy my time not for some stalker to ruin it constantly sending me *unsolicited* messages over and over again (neg reps everyday+posts). I'm being totally serious here and I'll do *whatever it takes* to stop that. 



> Your neg was stupid, because it was unjustified.. despite what you think. And *I didn't just neg you back to insult you... ya I insulted you, but I also gave an explanation to my post*..


lol. 



> If you recall, your neg rep was in the form of a question.. my neg rep was in the form of an answer.


Do you realize making a point in the form of a question doesn't always mean you expect an answer?



> I wasn't going to PM you to reply to your question.. since you didn't PM me to ask the question.


Whole point is you didn't have to insult me in the first place and you were wrong for doing so. Hope you realize. 



> Now stop acting like you are the only person that understands the rep system.


When did I say or act like I'm the only that understands the rep system? I've just said based on what you did and still keep doing to me every day, you are obviously misusing the rep system, which makes me believe you don't know how to use it and don't understand why we have this system. Start using it properly and I'll stand corrected. 



> I can neg rep you anytime I want.


No you can't. This is what you've been doing the past 3/4 days, you shouldn't have and you better stop it now (see above). 

I don't even want you to ever neg or pos rep me based on what I've posted. I want you to ignore me and leave me alone so I can enjoy my f*ing time on this forum for goodness sake.

The only thing you can send me is a PM or post for what I've asked you to do before this Thursday. Nothing else. 



> I disagreed with your neg rep, *thus* I neg repped one of your post to point it out...


Busted lol. Proof right there you still don't know how to use the rep system + you had to insult me in it... "Home run" amigo. 



> if I could have simply neg repped your neg rep, I would have. Since apparently me repping one of your random posts confused the hell out of you.


My whole point again, why did you have to insult me, seriously what joy do you get out of insulting people online?



> lol, I posted alot prior to buying a paid membership and *never* had a problem.. so case closed.


Proof? I have no trust in you and I don't believe you + as I've said this "e-tough arrogant" attitude that you have makes me not believe a word of what you've just said. 



> I know you dont think very highly of my intelligence.. but I am fully capable of remembering what I did the last 3 days. I only neg repped you *2 times* *after the original*.. but feel free to assume I did all 6.. if it makes you feel any better.


Hehe. I love how you're playing on words to under or overestimate things at your own advantage: from reading 3 actual times become "2 times" and "4 to 6 times" becomes 6. Let me ask you, do you work in the advertising industry? 

From you're own words, you've admitted you negged me 3 times *in total* since we've ever started to "talk" together, 3 (now almost 4) days ago. 

I've said you at least negged me 4 to 6 times since then which means 1, 2 or 3 more times than what you've admitted. 

Nobody is capable of keeping track of what they give to people so why would you? Do you actually write everything down on paper? 

So if you happen to having negged me only 1 more time than what you've admitted then I can say 4 to 6 times. 

Judging by how honest you seem to be (Mr. "extract words from their context just to f* somebody" and "playing on words"), I know you've negged me at least 1 more time than what you're admitting which makes it between 4 and 6. Point still stands, and Admins could be confirming it to these "special organizations" very soon...

And if you want to know, no, it doesn't make me feel better. You're just ruining what I want to be an enjoyable time on this forum. 



> Btw, you can only rep so much per day.. and you have to rep alot of other people inorder to rep someone twice.. so it probably isnt even possible for me to neg you 6 times in 3 days..


That's what scares me most and makes you look even worse as the stalker as you are. You go spread reputation all around the forum everyday only to be able to neg me everyday. 

Dude, let's say you only did it 3 times in 3 days as you've admitted, do you know how much you should be spreading +1 and -1 around just to be able to neg me 3 times in 3 days? And that's only for 3 times, now think about 4 to 6 times... 



> but you'd know this.. because you know more about the rep system then anyone else.


Let me ask you something. Why are you so sensitive about this? You've been bringing the same thing over and over in your neg rep comments and in your posts. Please give me an answer why this affects you so much?

Unless you are the dude that actually designed this system I really can't understand why you're being so sensitive over this?

TBH I don't think you're the designer of the rep system, because you'd actually know how to use this thing and what's the purpose of it. 



> Congrats?


You just extract a sentence from my whole point to produce a lame diss. Go work on your disses first before trying to diss anybody. Again "Mr. Ethic", don't extract my sentences, alienate my words at your own advantage, especially If you have nothing much to say.



> lol, the entire PM made you look bad.. you are a fool for posting the entire thing here.


If you were less of a crook and a cheap individual, you'd have at least post my whole sentence, not just the 2nd part of it. 

I posted the whole thing to give more context and truth to the crook job you've done by posting just the 2nd part of my sentence. 



> I can assure you that I wasnt trying to 'hide' any of the PM.


Do you actually believe to your own BS? Because I don't and I have every reasons for not doing so (see above).

Judging by everything you say and do, I have no doubt you are a dishonest and unethical person. 



> Also regarding the bold text.. you realize you insulted me first right?


I see you've deeply analyzed my PM. What happened to what you've told me as a reply: "waste your time typing another long msg that I wont read... idiot"? I thought you didn't read it at all? Dude, not only you are a stalker, a crook but you also are PATHOLOGICAL LIER. I'm really starting to think you need some serious "help". 

And what you say makes no f*ing sense man. How did I insult you first when there was no insult in the first ever message I sent you (neg rep) but yours contained the words "you idiot"? You got 0 insult from me before you actually insulted me (1st) so stupid point fail. 



> You can ask, but I can't make any promises.


You better. (see above)

*2 days*



> YOU = IDIOT. END OF STORY


Get your own f*ing disses next time. 

And TBH I'd rather be an idiot than a stalker, douche, over-sensitive, fake, crook and pathological lier individual. 



> P.S. is this you?
> http://www.holytaco.com/2008/06/27/the-douchiest-phone-message-in-history/
> 
> Lastly, I know you really want to write some sort of novel to reply to this.. don't bother.. I am not going to read it.. I might neg rep it.. but I won't read it.


Yeah you won't read just like you didn't read my very first PM. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
You're contradicting yourself over and over. Half of what you say is BS and the other half is... crap. FAIL :thumbsdown:


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

This is the first time since I left the staff that I wish I was still an Admin. 

There's no reason at all for the LONG-WINDED posts and over all holier then thou attitude. 

Here's the thing Xerxes, this is a FORUM, no one is here posting to try and understand the way you feel about things. To be honest, it's far more entertaining to make fun of you then it is to learn from you. 

I think you somehow have it in your head that you are 2 to 3 levels higher then anyone else on the Internet and you really couldn't be more wrong. 



> Unless you assure me you won't do what you've been doing for 3 days anymore and you apologize for the stalking you've been doing to me, I'll be reporting your ass to several of these organizations dealing with online stalking and I'll also touch a word with the Admins. There are laws regulating the Web and what you've done and judging from your own words, still going to do in the future = ILLEGAL.


This really could be one of the funniest things I've seeen on the internet in a long time. 

Are you really stating that you are going to press charges over neg rep?

Let's look at this from a judges point of view. 

Is he following you to sites other then this forum? If not, then he's not "stalking" you. You are the moron that keeps walking right back into a place that you know he's going to be. 

Is there another medium that you would be able to voice your MMA knowledge and converse with other MMA fans? Yes, there are many, but yet you keep coming back to this forum. 

Doesn't sound like he's stalking you at all. 

And just so you don't ever have to worry about getting back in the green, I'm going to neg rep you right now, and two more times after I spread it around enough. I really have found your posts to be that ignorant and useless.

So cheers!

Now bugger off and stop ruining threads by pouting when people don't agree with you. The last thing we need here is some pseudo-intelligent poster trying to pull a fillabuster. :thumbsdown:


*EDIT: Damn, I already have to spread it around first. So you have three more coming from me. *


----------



## UseOf_A_Weapon (Aug 6, 2007)

regardless of the absurdities in claiming a likeness between these two fighters, I say Anthony Johnson shows a lot of promise and if he can work as hard as GSP and get a well rounded approach to the sport (he seems to be primarily a striker with some wrestling knowledge) then he could be in title contention this time next year. The UFC may choose to fast track him since he does have exciting fights. I'd like to see him vastly improve his TDD and his BJJ. I will agree that he appears to utilize karate style kicks.I'd like to see him use a MT base instead. Kid's gonna break an ankle kicking like he does now. 
Still, I think he's gonna be a BIG name very soon if he can keep growing.


----------



## UseOf_A_Weapon (Aug 6, 2007)

*looks around* did i get the thread back on track yet???


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

I read Xerxes post: 
then I read Baileyz post:  
and then I read Chris' post:   

I don't want to read anymore posts now.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Chrisl972 said:


> This is the first time since I left the staff that I wish I was still an Admin.
> 
> There's no reason at all for the LONG-WINDED posts and over all holier then thou attitude.
> 
> ...



He is stalking me on this forum by sending me 1 or more neg reps every single day since we argued even tough I kept ignoring him each time. I asked him to stop several times on this thread but he's saying he'll continue doing this in the future. I'm not on this forum to go in my UCP to see him insulting me every single day. So you're saying only because of him, I shouldn't come back on this Forum anymore? No. I like this place and I won't give him this pleasure. 

I don't know where you get this "2, 3 levels higher" thing from. I don't need to explain again why I wrote this harsh sentence to him, I've explained myself already. Keep in mind he took a few words completely out of their context and he's only quoting the 2nd part of one sentence in a longer message. Can you guys be a bit more fair please?

I completely misunderstood one of your posts, went to edit it immediately and apologized for it. If you're mad at me for that what else can I do? TBH I don't get many jokes on this forum and your humor seems pretty subtle and it's hard to understand for me. Just thought you were being mean like a few other people were (Cornbread for example) and TBH I'm not in my best mood these days which doesn't help... 

Why am I getting so much s** on because I'm trying to have a conversation with members here. I spent hours and hours with my s**ty English to read and understand people's posts and write back at them to contribute the best I could. My posts were long because this is a touchy subject and I wanted to avoid any misunderstandings and confusion. Nobody have to read them if they don't want to, these threads were mainly targeted to Fedor>All and Sekou so you can just skip them. Also just in case you didn't notice I'm the TS on this thread so why can't I try to contribute the best I can to my own thread? 

I really really don't understand all this heat. :dunno:

You can go ahead and neg rep me too if it will make you feel better. I'll pos rep you back.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Dein Englische ist sehr gut Xerxes. Aber warum bist du immer stoltz? Just don't belabor the point and try not to come off as high-handed und dann kein problem.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

Xerxes said:


> He is stalking me on this forum by sending me 1 or more neg reps every single day since we argued even tough I kept ignoring him each time. I asked him to stop several times on this thread but he's saying he'll continue doing this in the future. I'm not on this forum to go in my UCP to see him insulting me every single day. So you're saying only because of him, I shouldn't come back on this Forum anymore? No. I like this place and I won't give him this pleasure.
> 
> I don't know where you get this "2, 3 levels higher" thing from. I don't need to explain again why I wrote this harsh sentence to him, I've explained myself already. Keep in mind he took a few words completely out of their context and he's only quoting the 2nd part of one sentence in a longer message. Can you guys be a bit more fair please?
> 
> ...


You shouldn't worry about repping people any more, they only get a gray rep from you now. 

And my dislike for you has nothing to do with the PM that you sent bail3yz, it has to do with your over all attitude that you carry on here. 

And I don't really care what you say, getting repeated neg reps isn't stalking. Once again, the world and the laws that govern it, don't revolve around you. 

You seem to be a very immature person. From reading your posts, I would actually put you at about the age of 15. You are starting to get some form of intelligence, but you have no wisdom whatsoever to help you wield it. 

If you really see anyone on here as a problem, there's an ignore member feature. Go use it. All you have to do is click an icon and all this goes away. I, for one, have a lot more fun toying with people like you then ignoring them. It's one of those things that I really look forward to on here. Thank you for being willing to take on the role of the dim witted target. Most people just don't fit the mold as well as you do, so you have been sent to me from above. 

Just remember, if nothing else works, you can always call the internet police and tell them how mean people are making you feel bad about yourself. I'm sure they LOVE that kind of stuff. 

Quick recap for you. 


I don't like your attitude.
You have complete control over the abuse you get here.
I lie awake at night hoping someone like comes to this forum.
Mean people are scared of E-Police.

Does this help at all???


----------



## UseOf_A_Weapon (Aug 6, 2007)

*sigh* can we get a side forum started called "the couch" where we can get all these types of issues resolved? I'll mediate. it'll be like online Dr. Phil. Every third post I'll tell someone to "Get Real" and when someone makes a good point I'll yell "baloney!" and counter them with some absurd egocentric character attack and psycho-babble jargon.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

I volunteer. I was a psychology major for three years, and I have degrees in English, mixology, wife, mommy, and slave.

Xerxes, c'est rien. C'est mon plaisir. Votre "rep" est gris/bleu.

Quel dommage.


----------



## UseOf_A_Weapon (Aug 6, 2007)

English? me too! well, we'll team up then! I can be dr. phil and you can be oprah. or we can switch! I mean... it's whatever. I could be a rich opinionated black lady as much as i could be a floppyheaded mustachioed texan white male.


----------



## bail3yz (Apr 22, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> I'm only painted red ATM because people negged me several times today because of your BS and your "fallacious" quote from me, not because I negged too much some other people 3 days ago. (until earlier today I was still green)


It brings joy to me.



> Just FYI, I spread way more pos than neg reps so point fail.


Your pos:neg ration is still insane compared to most people... so my point is still valid. 




> Unless you *assure me* you won't do what you've been doing for 3 days anymore and you *apologize* for the stalking you've been doing to me, I'll be reporting your ass to several of these organizations dealing with online stalking and I'll also touch a word with the Admins. There are laws regulating the Web and what you've done and judging from your own words, still going to do in the future = *ILLEGAL*.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OH NO, NOT THE INTERNET POLICE 



> I give you *until this Thursday December 18th, 2008* to do what I'm asking you to do and it can be done in private if you prefer (I'll just TY and won't bring it up anymore). If you don't, I'll do the necessary first thing this Friday to stop that s***. I'm on here to enjoy my time not for some stalker to ruin it constantly sending me *unsolicited* messages over and over again (neg reps everyday+posts). I'm being totally serious here and I'll do *whatever it takes* to stop that.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.. you are too funny






> Do you realize making a point in the form of a question doesn't always mean you expect an answer?


If that was your intention in this case, then its your fault for having bad english. You asked me why I was being so douchey to the TS? And I answered.




> Whole point is you didn't have to insult me in the first place and you were wrong for doing so. Hope you realize.


You insulted me first by saying I was douchey... do you not understand douche / being douchey / etc, is an insult?????





> No you can't. This is what you've been doing the past 3/4 days, you shouldn't have and you better stop it now (see above).


Whos going to stop me ? the e-police?



> I don't even want you to ever neg or pos rep me based on what I've posted. I want you to ignore me and leave me alone so I can enjoy my f*ing time on this forum for goodness sake.


How about you ignore me, and I do whatever I want?




> The only thing you can send me is a PM or post for what I've asked you to do before this Thursday. Nothing else.


lol no



> Busted lol. Proof right there you still don't know how to use the rep system + you had to insult me in it... "Home run" amigo.


Shit.. you caught me.



> My whole point again, why did you have to insult me, seriously what joy do you get out of insulting people online?


You insulted me first.



> Hehe. I love how you're playing on words to under or overestimate things at your own advantage: from reading 3 actual times become "2 times" and "4 to 6 times" becomes 6. Let me ask you, do you work in the advertising industry?
> 
> From you're own words, you've admitted you negged me 3 times *in total* since we've ever started to "talk" together, 3 (now almost 4) days ago.
> 
> ...


Nobody is capable of keeping track of up to 3 neg reps? Are you serious? Not only do I remember how many neg reps I gave you, I remember what they all said. original + "idiot" + "am I neg repping right yet - bail3yz"



> Judging by how honest you seem to be (Mr. "extract words from their context just to f* somebody" and "playing on words"), I know you've negged me at least 1 more time than what you're admitting which makes it between 4 and 6. Point still stands, and Admins could be confirming it to these "special organizations" very soon...


Riiiight.. you know all!



> And if you want to know, no, it doesn't make me feel better. You're just ruining what I want to be an enjoyable time on this forum.


Thats a shame.



> That's what scares me most and makes you look even worse as the stalker as you are. You go spread reputation all around the forum everyday only to be able to neg me everyday.


Says who?



> Dude, let's say you only did it 3 times in 3 days as you've admitted, do you know how much you should be spreading +1 and -1 around just to be able to neg me 3 times in 3 days? And that's only for 3 times, now think about 4 to 6 times...


6 times would be impossible as I said, you can only rep so much in 24hours. 




> Let me ask you something. Why are you so sensitive about this? You've been bringing the same thing over and over in your neg rep comments and in your posts. Please give me an answer why this affects you so much?


I bring it up to mock you... I am not the first person you PM'd for 'misusing' the rep system.. your PMs are absolutely hilarious... your so full of yourself.



> I see you've deeply analyzed my PM. What happened to what you've told me as a reply: "waste your time typing another long msg that I wont read... idiot"? I thought you didn't read it at all? Dude, not only you are a stalker, a crook but you also are PATHOLOGICAL LIER. I'm really starting to think you need some serious "help".
> 
> And what you say makes no f*ing sense man. How did I insult you first when there was no insult in the first ever message I sent you (neg rep) but yours contained the words "you idiot"? You got 0 insult from me before you actually insulted me (1st) so stupid point fail.


How did you conclude I deeply analyzed your pm? your insult was in the neg rep that you initially gave me. Honestly I dont care if you insult me.. but dont cry like a little bitch when I insult you back. 



> You better. (see above)
> 
> *2 days*


Ya, I am so scared.



> Get your own f*ing disses next time.
> 
> And TBH I'd rather be an idiot than a stalker, douche, over-sensitive, fake, crook and pathological lier individual.


Yes, you aren't over sensitive at all.. thats why you are going to call the ePolice ... thats why you sent me along PM for negging you... 



> Yeah you won't read just like you didn't read my very first PM. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
> You're contradicting yourself over and over. Half of what you say is BS and the other half is... crap. FAIL :thumbsdown:


Ya, you are right.. I did read your PM.. and I did read this.. had to.. afterall you PM'd me telling me you were going to notify the e-police 

Now, if you are going to continue to cry about this.. do it by PM, so I am the only one that has to ignore your stupid shit.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm calling the police on str8edge for being too awesome.


----------



## Royce (Nov 10, 2008)

some intersting points in this discussion...but i wish u guys would elaborate more so we can read in more detail about your arguments..thx.:thumb02:


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

UseOf_A_Weapon said:


> English? me too! well, we'll team up then! I can be dr. phil and you can be oprah. or we can switch! I mean... it's whatever. I could be a rich opinionated black lady as much as i could be a floppyheaded mustachioed texan white male.


Uh....I'd rather stay as far away from an Oprah comparison as possible, tbh.

I just want to be the (less stupid) Goldberg to your Rogan, dawg.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Chrisl972 said:


> You shouldn't worry about repping people any more, they only get a gray rep from you now.
> 
> And my dislike for you has nothing to do with the PM that you sent bail3yz, it has to do with your over all attitude that you carry on here.
> 
> ...


You know what, you're actually right. He is not stalking me. 



He is actually harassing me:



> "harassment: the act of *systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions* of one party or a group, including threats and demands."


That's exactly what he's been doing lately. 

I won't quote the whole text to bother you with another one of my long posts. So this is the source if you want to check: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Harrasment

Thank you for making me realize that he's actually being harassing me on this Forum.
 

It's ok if you don't like me, you have the right not to. TBH I don't recognize myself in your description and neither would the people that know me in real life. But you have the right to have your opinion, and Like Hughes would say, "it's might stink but it's your opinion". Personally I don't know you enough to judge. I neither like you nor hate you. 

Lastly, no it doesn't help much. I still don't understand. U please explain in ma native tongue = French please?

Ps: thanks for saying I reminded you of a 15 year old. I'm actually 8 so I guess I sound more mature than my age. That's a big compliment from you. :thumb01: :thumbsup: 

You made my day.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

*shortest post ever*



bail3yz said:


> It brings joy to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, PM'd.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Xerxes said:


> Unless you assure me you won't do what you've been doing for 3 days anymore and you apologize for the stalking you've been doing to me, I'll be reporting your ass to several of these organizations dealing with online stalking and I'll also touch a word with the Admins. There are laws regulating the Web and what you've done and judging from your own words, still going to do in the future = ILLEGAL.
> 
> I give you until this Thursday December 18th, 2008 to do what I'm asking you to do and it can be done in private if you prefer (I'll just TY and won't bring it up anymore). If you don't, I'll do the necessary first thing this Friday to stop that s***. I'm on here to enjoy my time not for some stalker to ruin it constantly sending me unsolicited messages over and over again (neg reps everyday+posts). I'm being totally serious here and I'll do whatever it takes to stop that.


Baileyz is not stalking or harassing you so you can stop with the threatening because it is not founded in anything. He neg repped you a few times but most of them have been from other people. He is not stalking you so give it up. You could call the police and a judge would laugh at you for wasting his time. 

Let it go, you've lost. You will never have green rep again and your rep is now useless. 

This thread has gone on long enough and is now *CLOSED*


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

One more thing, stop with the 30 page long posts because they aren't needed.


----------



## GMW (Nov 15, 2006)

HAHAHA, is he seriously talking about taking legal action against Baileyz? Jesus, the forum has been epic over the past few days.


----------

