Quote:
Originally Posted by rivethead
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
|
You misunderstood me. I wasn't actually commenting on your point. I went off on a tangent when I interjected my opinion on the fight and that detracted from my point. My writing was is to blame for this, not your reading comprehension. I also quoted one too many lines from your OP
. Basically, I did a terrible job of getting my point across.
I was just trying to point out that the burden of proof is on you, not the GSP advocates. It doesn't matter that it was a split decision -- that fact does lessen the burden, but the burden is still on you regardless. The decision was official and a stronger argument is necessary to claim that the decision was wrong than is needed to maintain that the decision was just. Penn supporters are the prosecution and GSP supporters are the defense.
I'm not going to interject myself into the debate you were having with whomever but I do take issue with this line: "There are two sides to the coin, there are GSP fans who refuse to accept that GSP was given a gift and BJ was robbed." I may be being a nit but as someone who does not buy into BJ being robbed or GSP being given a gift, I take exception to the implication that those two things are stated fact. And I will remind Penn advocates that they are the ones who need to come up with a really strong and clear reason why Penn won either round 2 or 3 -- I've yet to hear one -- and that the GSP advocates don't have this burden (though almost all of us are willing to shoulder it regardless). I'm just asking for a little less dogmatism. I respect those of you on the other side of this argument and can see why you hold the opinion that you do. I just don't agree with the arguments I've seen thus far.
Anyway, I probably am nit picking and perhaps I unfairly caught you in a moment of frustration. I do respect you as a poster though, but I do think that this simple little point needed to be made.
For the record, Penn is not over-rated and is #3 on my p4p list ahead of GSP.