Quote:
Originally Posted by jokerthief
The impetus of that debate is on you. You need to come up with a great reason why the judges were wrong, not the other way around. The only way I can see giving BJ that fight is if it had happened in Pride and not the UFC, which is not a good argument at all. That is the problem with the fight for Penn advocates, BJ has to win the second or third by some sort of ethereal rational under UFC rules to justify taking either of those rounds.
|
Despite the fact that you missed the point of my post, I catagorically disagree with your statement. The fact that it was a split decision indicates that one judge agreed with me. Not a PRIDE judge, a UFC judge. Thus, the decision remains tangibly controversial, regardless of attempts at revisionist history.
My initial post was focused on blindness of fans not being isolated to Penn fanboys. I brought up the fact that a long-time member of the forum felt GSP took BJ down "whenever he wanted," which goes well beyond ethereal rationale and travels firmly into myopic irrationality.
I understand that I'm not going to convince a GSP fan that their hero lost any more than they'll convince me that BJ was beaten. My concern is minimally trying to keep things in perspective and avoid revisionist nonsense like "He took him down at will" and "he totally outwrestled Kos, etc..."
rh