you probably need to let go of that lashley thing. calm down.
Right and my point was you shouldn't put any stock into his ground game when he's never shown much of an aptitude for it.
or unless they're roy nelson or any of the other guys who are halfway decent on the ground he's fought. You could argue Werdum but his grappling game translates terribly to MMA.
Manhoef is a bad argument because he hits incredibly hard.
I'll back down on calling Arlovski a bad fighter. He's nowhere near his perceived level and has huge holes but fair enough he's above the pack of fat, useless heavyweights.
Mine was a bootleg DVD of Pride 18!
I'm not debating the credibility of his Pride run. I'm debating the credibility of his recent opponents.
He beat him legit once. First one was an injury, second one was legit, third was after he cruised through with an easy KO of Wanderlei while Barnett had a grueling match against Big Nog (this is also the best fight of all time.)
I'm not actually sure where I said he was a complete hack but
Big Nog was pumped to the max of painkillers in the first fight because of a back injury or something. The second fight was absolutely not an obliteration. But again I'm not debating the credibility of his Pride run.
I'm not sure why people credit Fedor for getting in a position where he got slammed so bad. He managed to land on his shoulders though so there wasn't much damage done.
This argument applies to a theoretical Wanderlei who went to Strikeforce and fought nothing but cans as well. I'd like to see Fedor properly tested before I'll call him the #1 HW.
e: Wow we were on a new page sorry didn't want to drag this up. Ignore this post.