[trixtrix]

do you know what a credible meaningful debate is? it's when both sides backup their arguments w/ credible evidence.

let me sum up our current interactions so far:

do
{
me: present argument, *presents evidence to backup argument*
you: "your evidence suck b/c i said so! so shut up b/c i'm SO GREAT!" *presents NO evidence to backup ANYTHING*
}
while (thread IS Alive)

i'm still waiting for any piece of evidence so far that pride is 100X >> ufc, or how chuck is so chinny-chin-chin.. all you been doing so far is covering your ears and stomping your feet in the face of anything i present.. just b/c YOU don't think liddell is within top 5 or jardine is within top 20 lhw DOES NOT make it so. the fact that you cant present any evidence to support your contention is why you arguments look so silly to anyone knowledgeable or logical..

here's a simple example of what i'm talking about:

you can't refute the fact that pride elite contenders currently is under-performing against their expectations in ufc. so you chose to blindly ignore the obvious evidence by proclaiming nonsensically that barnett >> werdum, so werdum's loss to aa is meaningless. and nog almost being ko'd is somehow justified b/c herring is a "pride" fighter.

so then by your "logic": sakuraba is then an ufc fighter, wandy is an "ufc" fighter, and barnett is an "ufc" fighter (you oh so proud number 3 hw).. see how that works?

ps: i hope it was a joke that you sent me a link to your fantasy mmaplayground record as proof of your "greatness". only thing that proves is you have no credibility in term real mma betting, why would anyone even remotely confident in their own capping ability NOT be betting REAL money?