UFC 127: Penn vs Fitch Discussion thread

[Jonny Vegas]

For a man of your alleged intelligence you seem to be having a really hard time understanding the difference between intentionally doing something pre-meditated in a genuine effort to gain the upper hand illegally and getting carried away in the moment with such a desire to your your opponent that you perform an illegal manouvre.

 

Where did I say the knee was premeditated? I said it was intentional. INTENTIONAL AND PREMEDITATED AREN'T THE SAME THING.

 

My point with regards to the knee is that when the adrenaline is pumping, added to a real desire to HURT your opponent as opposed to just beat him then I'm saying there is a very strong possibility that he threw the knee without thinking...wait this is illegal. Of course he intentionally threw the knee...his body didn't involuntarily spasm but the point I am making was that I don't believe there was any pre-meditated intent to hurt him with an illegal knee.

 

I'd like to think he didn't go into the fight planning on hitting him with an illegal knee, and I'm sure that wasn't the case. However, that doesn't change the fact it was INTENTIONAL. Note: 'premeditated' is not spelt I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N-A-L.

 

At what stage did I even suggest he meant to knee him in the torso or chest...you are watering down your own argument by making such ridiculous statements rather than constructing any form of valid point or listening to any argument against your points.

 

You said, "YES, THERE IS A *CHANCE* IT WAS INTENTIONAL". The implication being that it likely wasn't intentional. Of course it fucking was. And again, INTENTIONAL AND PREMEDITATED AREN'T THE SAME THING.

 

As far as your apparent shock and awe at fighters getting carried away and hitting unintentional illegal blows being possible, you actually see it fairly regularly that a fighter gets carried away and hits an illegal knee...if you were anywhere near the MMA fan you make yourself out to be then you would know that.

 

Unintentional illegal knees (often to the bollocks) occur on many shows. Nothing surprising or shocking about that. A blatantly intentional knee is, and as firstnameunknown pointed out, that's exactly what it was.

 

There is a huge difference to doing something totally illegal whilst being in full control of your thoughts, for example Daley's sucker punch of Koscheck after the bell and throwing a knee because you got carried away.

 

So was Daley's suckerpunch premeditated? Did he go into that fight thinking "right, I'm going to twat that cunt in the back of the head after the fight"? Of course not. It was a spur of the moment yet intentional action. Just like Bisping's knee.

 

I I take it by your logic that you were equally disgusted by Jon Jones equally illegal multiple elbows onto Matt Hamill?

 

No. Different situation. Jones had Hamill finished but the ref wasn't stopping the fight (Jones even looked up at the ref, who I think was Mazzagatti, wondering why he wasn't stepping in). So he dropped a succession of downward elbows to get the stoppage but the ref docked him a point (and was then DQd when Hamill couldn't continue). He didn't drop those elbows because he was being a prick; Bisping delivered that knee because he was being a prick. Also, prior to that Jones-Hamill fight, the downward elbow rule had been liberally applied with single blows from that move often not even getting a warning (Kenny Florian regularly got away with them before that fight) whereas in MMA a single illegal knee to a downed opponent often gets a straight point deduction.

 

As corroborated by other members on here...I don't think Rivera was getting the better of the exchanges at all and I also don't think the knee did anywhere near the damage you are alleging...if after it connecting Rivera went face down into the canvas and was knocked out then he came around, was asked if he wanted to carry on and did then I would agree with you whole heartedly...but he just stayed in the same position on his hands and knees...got up...had a good three minutes or so and wasn't at all bandy legged or glazed over.

 

Do you have severe comprehension difficulties? I didn't say the knee caused terrible damage. He was definitely stunned, though, and even the commentators and docs picked up on this. That aside, my point is that that knee changed the momentum of the fight, which it did.

 

You seem to just have a huge bias against Bisping...as I said I personally can't stand the guy...never have...I wanted Rivera to win, don't rate Bisping in the MW division at all and think his constant whining about having only ever lost to ''two bullshit decisions'' and a ''lucky punch'' is utter bollocks...but i'm trying to view this incident in an un-biased and sensible manner. Your total reluctance to even consider that it was anything other than a pre-meditated intentional attempt to gain the upper hand by cheating astounds me and as I said...I would love to know what your opinion on Jon Jones' elbows is.

 

I think Michael Bisping's a great UFC fighter (he rarely has boring fights and always tries to make everything he's involved in interesting and/or exciting), and he couldn't have been nicer when I interviewed him a few years ago.

 

Once again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS PREMEDITATED. Unfortunately, it's a losing discussion with someone who interprets 'intentional' as meaning 'premeditated'.

 

You're a total and utter tard.

 

At what point do I say intentional and pre-meditated are the same thing? Infact I actually made a point of stating that they weren't...you're so far up your own arse that you seem to have lost the ability to read.

 

With regards to pre-meditated actions, how long something is decided in advance of the action is not the deciding factor on whether or not it is pre-meditated. Saying that because Daley didn't go into the Kos fight planning to hit him with a cheap shot at the end of the fight doesn't make it a pre-meditated act just highlights your utter lack of intelligence.

 

In the Daley v Kos fight the fight is stopped, then Daley knowing he has lost and frustrated by Kos makes a conscious decision to walk around the back of the ref and punch Kos several seconds after the end of the fight. The fact he made that decision after the fight had finished, then walks around to Kos and carries out the act which he has previously decided on, is what makes it pre-meditated.

 

For example;

 

when Daley sucker punches Kos he walks right over to him all the time thinking ''im gonna punch him and I know thats illegal'' then carries out the action he has the time to process the thought that what he is doing is totally wrong but still decide that he is going to do it with the sole intention of causing harm to Koscheck hence both intentional and premeditated (not the same)

 

when Bisping knees Rivera in the face whilst kneeled he does not have the time to process the thought of ''he's on his knees meaning if I knee him in the face thats an illegal blow but if I do that it would be a good idea because it'll rock him, Im gonna gamble that he's not going to say he can't continue and therefore i'll be DQ'd, then when he carries on he will be weakened and I can win the fight via cheating'' before doing it, he INTENTIONALLY throws a knee...meaning he makes the decision to throw the knee...but what it isn't, is pre-meditated because he didn't have the time to go through the entire thought process and then carry out the action.

 

I really hope that's easy enough even for you to understand, i've made it as clear as I possible can and if it still isn't then there really isn't any hope for you and no amount of trying to totally change what I've said or sidestep anything that disagrees from your point can mask it.

 

The fact that you're reply to me stating that intentional and pre-meditated aren't the same thing is

 

''INTENTIONAL AND PREMEDITATED AREN'T THE SAME THING'' and then you later go on to say

 

''Unfortunately, it's a losing discussion with someone who interprets 'intentional' as meaning 'premeditated'. ''

 

clearly indicates that you don't even have the ability to read what I'm writing, once again you sidestep the points completely and make up some fucking crazy shit in your own head to change my argument so as yours somehow makes sense to you.

 

Multiple people have disagreed with you about Rivera allegedly getting the better of the early exchanges and you are totally unwilling to admit you're wrong or even may be wrong, added to the fact that you switch from saying he was getting the better of Bisping to saying that he was even with him...

 

''Well, except Rivera was getting the better of their exchanges until Michael landed that illegal and intentional knee.''

 

''Rivera WAS getting the better of the exchanges.''

 

''I didn't say Rivera was going to win the fight, but he was certainly holding his own against Bisping and the knee definitely had an effect.''

 

So was he getting the better of the exchanges or was he holding his own?

 

Holding his own indicates that he was giving back what he was getting....making him even with him, that's a very different thing to getting the better of the exchanges...and the last two quotes there are from the same fucking post of yours.

 

Your idea that Jon Jones intentionally used illegal elbows on Matt Hamill to get the ref to stop the fight because it should have been stopped but it hadn't been...

 

''Jones had Hamill finished but the ref wasn't stopping the fight (Jones even looked up at the ref, who I think was Mazzagatti, wondering why he wasn't stepping in). So he dropped a succession of downward elbows to get the stoppage but the ref docked him a point (and was then DQd when Hamill couldn't continue). He didn't drop those elbows because he was being a prick;''

 

is one of, if not THE most fucking ridiculous thing I have ever read on here.

 

Before you back track and try and change what i'm saying I ask anyone to read that quote and disagree that your suggestion is anything other than Jon Jones though process being;

 

I have Hamill finished here ->

The ref aint stopping this and he should ->

I know i'll use a succession of illegal downward elbows to get the stoppage.

 

If it was that, then it would the same as Daley...both intentional AND pre-meditated...meaning JJ both intended to throw the illegal elbows

(which he did) and that it was a pre-meditated decision because in your supposed chain of events he goes through the thought process of...''the ref should be stopping this, he hasn't stepped in, so I will throw illegal elbows to get the stoppage''

 

Infact it was the same as Bisping...he intentionally performed an illegal manouvre...because he hit the target that he was aiming for using a method deemed illegal (intent)...but it was in the heat of the moment, with the adrenaline pumping and fuelled by the desire to win meaning neither went through the thought process of carrying out the act in order to either cause or help towards a stoppage, thus making both incidents not pre-meditated.

 

You're MMA arguments are even shittier than the horrendous commentary you did on the wrestling channel.

[MoChatra]

You're a total and utter tard.

 

At what point do I say intentional and pre-meditated are the same thing? Infact I actually made a point of stating that they weren't...you're so far up your own arse that you seem to have lost the ability to read.

 

Ooh, hard man. Calling people 'tard. Clearly dealing with a smart cookie.

 

With regards to pre-meditated actions, how long something is decided in advance of the action is not the deciding factor on whether or not it is pre-meditated. Saying that because Daley didn't go into the Kos fight planning to hit him with a cheap shot at the end of the fight doesn't make it a pre-meditated act just highlights your utter lack of intelligence.

 

In the Daley v Kos fight the fight is stopped, then Daley knowing he has lost and frustrated by Kos makes a conscious decision to walk around the back of the ref and punch Kos several seconds after the end of the fight. The fact he made that decision after the fight had finished, then walks around to Kos and carries out the act which he has previously decided on, is what makes it pre-meditated.

 

Rather than let this stupid argument go in circles (right from your first response to me it's clear that's what you're trying to achieve here), you said that I was arguing the knee was premeditated. I did not. I only said it was intentional. You're the one getting your pantyhose in a twist over this 'premeditated' nonsense.

 

For example;

 

when Daley sucker punches Kos he walks right over to him all the time thinking ''im gonna punch him and I know thats illegal'' then carries out the action he has the time to process the thought that what he is doing is totally wrong but still decide that he is going to do it with the sole intention of causing harm to Koscheck hence both intentional and premeditated (not the same)

 

when Bisping knees Rivera in the face whilst kneeled he does not have the time to process the thought of ''he's on his knees meaning if I knee him in the face thats an illegal blow but if I do that it would be a good idea because it'll rock him, Im gonna gamble that he's not going to say he can't continue and therefore i'll be DQ'd, then when he carries on he will be weakened and I can win the fight via cheating'' before doing it, he INTENTIONALLY throws a knee...meaning he makes the decision to throw the knee...but what it isn't, is pre-meditated because he didn't have the time to go through the entire thought process and then carry out the action.

 

I really hope that's easy enough even for you to understand, i've made it as clear as I possible can and if it still isn't then there really isn't any hope for you and no amount of trying to totally change what I've said or sidestep anything that disagrees from your point can mask it.

 

Like I said before, WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS PREMEDITATED? At this point, you're actually arguing with yourself. Quite a feat, sunshine.

 

The fact that you're reply to me stating that intentional and pre-meditated aren't the same thing is

 

''INTENTIONAL AND PREMEDITATED AREN'T THE SAME THING'' and then you later go on to say

 

''Unfortunately, it's a losing discussion with someone who interprets 'intentional' as meaning 'premeditated'. ''

 

clearly indicates that you don't even have the ability to read what I'm writing, once again you sidestep the points completely and make up some fucking crazy shit in your own head to change my argument so as yours somehow makes sense to you.

 

I'm very clear what I'm reading. It's clear you're looking for any little thing to have this big argument/flame war (as given away by your troll remarks about 'for someone allegedly intelligent' and 'if you think you're as big an MMA fan as you think you are' or words to those effects) and having to make shit up. Well done.

 

Multiple people have disagreed with you about Rivera allegedly getting the better of the early exchanges and you are totally unwilling to admit you're wrong or even may be wrong, added to the fact that you switch from saying he was getting the better of Bisping to saying that he was even with him...well which is it? It can't be both.

 

He got the better of the exchanges, but there was really nothing in it overall (largely because of Bisping getting two takedowns). It's not rocket science (I take that back- it clearly is for you).

 

Your idea that Jon Jones intentionally used illegal elbows on Matt Hamill to get the ref to stop the fight because it should have been stopped but it hadn't been...

 

''Jones had Hamill finished but the ref wasn't stopping the fight (Jones even looked up at the ref, who I think was Mazzagatti, wondering why he wasn't stepping in). So he dropped a succession of downward elbows to get the stoppage but the ref docked him a point (and was then DQd when Hamill couldn't continue). He didn't drop those elbows because he was being a prick;''

 

is one of, if not THE most fucking ridiculous thing I have ever read on here.

 

Yes. Clearly more ridiculous than people who've posted racist or homophobic dribble, completely unintelligible nonsense and death threats.

 

Before you back track and try and change what i'm saying I ask anyone to read that quote and disagree that your suggestion is anything other than Jon Jones though process being;

 

I have Hamill finished here ->

The ref aint stopping this and he should ->

I know i'll use a succession of illegal downward elbows to get the stoppage.

 

If it was that, then it would the same as Daley...both intentional AND pre-meditated...meaning JJ both intended to throw the illegal elbows

(which he did) and that it was a pre-meditated decision because in your supposed chain of events he goes through the thought process of...''the ref should be stopping this, he hasn't stepped in, so I will throw illegal elbows to get the stoppage''

 

So you've obviously decided to ignore my point that up until then, downward elbows were rarely punished and Jones may well not have even known the elbows were illegal in the way he was dropping them.

 

Infact it was the same as Bisping...he intentionally performed an illegal manouvre...because he hit the target that he was aiming for...but it was in the heat of the moment, with the adrenaline pumping and fuelled by the desire to win meaning neither went through the thought process of carrying out the act in order to either cause or help towards a stoppage, thus making both incidents not pre-meditated.

 

Yeah, Jones was dropping the elbows because he was being a fucking prick towards Hamill. It couldn't possibly have been for any other reason. Wow, your stupidity and idiocy is limitless. Even a long-time UKFFer like myself is shocked by your nonsense.

You're MMA arguments are even shittier than the horrendous commentary you did on the wrestling channel.

 

Yep, no complex issues here. Oh, and I never commentated for the Wrestling Channel. FAIL, as the kids say.

[pryko]

I'm not gonna get into a game of name calling on teh interweb, but personally Mo, I disagree and don't think Rivera had any clear advantage over Bisping up to the knee incident. Rivera looked fine after the incident too, and by Round 2 when Bisping knocked him silly, if there was any after effects, they'd cleared up by then. Rivera looked gassed out, despite having those moments after the knee to recover

[Cousin Jim Bob]

Yeah I am not gonna get into personal name calling. I like Mo too.

 

You seem to be of the mark with Bisping abit though. A couple of years back I remember you claiming Leben had dominated Bisping and it was a massive robbery. Myself and a few others pointed out this was of the mark and you rewatched the fight and agreed with us.

 

I suggest you rewatch this fight Mo. Its worth another look. You seem to be missing the bigger picture here.

[Jonny Vegas]

You're a total and utter tard.

 

At what point do I say intentional and pre-meditated are the same thing? Infact I actually made a point of stating that they weren't...you're so far up your own arse that you seem to have lost the ability to read.

 

Ooh, hard man. Calling people 'tard. Clearly dealing with a smart cookie.

 

With regards to pre-meditated actions, how long something is decided in advance of the action is not the deciding factor on whether or not it is pre-meditated. Saying that because Daley didn't go into the Kos fight planning to hit him with a cheap shot at the end of the fight doesn't make it a pre-meditated act just highlights your utter lack of intelligence.

 

In the Daley v Kos fight the fight is stopped, then Daley knowing he has lost and frustrated by Kos makes a conscious decision to walk around the back of the ref and punch Kos several seconds after the end of the fight. The fact he made that decision after the fight had finished, then walks around to Kos and carries out the act which he has previously decided on, is what makes it pre-meditated.

 

Rather than let this stupid argument go in circles (right from your first response to me it's clear that's what you're trying to achieve here), you said that I was arguing the knee was premeditated. I did not. I only said it was intentional. You're the one getting your pantyhose in a twist over this 'premeditated' nonsense.

 

For example;

 

when Daley sucker punches Kos he walks right over to him all the time thinking ''im gonna punch him and I know thats illegal'' then carries out the action he has the time to process the thought that what he is doing is totally wrong but still decide that he is going to do it with the sole intention of causing harm to Koscheck hence both intentional and premeditated (not the same)

 

when Bisping knees Rivera in the face whilst kneeled he does not have the time to process the thought of ''he's on his knees meaning if I knee him in the face thats an illegal blow but if I do that it would be a good idea because it'll rock him, Im gonna gamble that he's not going to say he can't continue and therefore i'll be DQ'd, then when he carries on he will be weakened and I can win the fight via cheating'' before doing it, he INTENTIONALLY throws a knee...meaning he makes the decision to throw the knee...but what it isn't, is pre-meditated because he didn't have the time to go through the entire thought process and then carry out the action.

 

I really hope that's easy enough even for you to understand, i've made it as clear as I possible can and if it still isn't then there really isn't any hope for you and no amount of trying to totally change what I've said or sidestep anything that disagrees from your point can mask it.

 

Like I said before, WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS PREMEDITATED? At this point, you're actually arguing with yourself. Quite a feat, sunshine.

 

The fact that you're reply to me stating that intentional and pre-meditated aren't the same thing is

 

''INTENTIONAL AND PREMEDITATED AREN'T THE SAME THING'' and then you later go on to say

 

''Unfortunately, it's a losing discussion with someone who interprets 'intentional' as meaning 'premeditated'. ''

 

clearly indicates that you don't even have the ability to read what I'm writing, once again you sidestep the points completely and make up some fucking crazy shit in your own head to change my argument so as yours somehow makes sense to you.

 

I'm very clear what I'm reading. It's clear you're looking for any little thing to have this big argument/flame war (as given away by your troll remarks about 'for someone allegedly intelligent' and 'if you think you're as big an MMA fan as you think you are' or words to those effects) and having to make shit up. Well done.

 

Multiple people have disagreed with you about Rivera allegedly getting the better of the early exchanges and you are totally unwilling to admit you're wrong or even may be wrong, added to the fact that you switch from saying he was getting the better of Bisping to saying that he was even with him...well which is it? It can't be both.

 

He got the better of the exchanges, but there was really nothing in it overall (largely because of Bisping getting two takedowns). It's not rocket science (I take that back- it clearly is for you).

 

Your idea that Jon Jones intentionally used illegal elbows on Matt Hamill to get the ref to stop the fight because it should have been stopped but it hadn't been...

 

''Jones had Hamill finished but the ref wasn't stopping the fight (Jones even looked up at the ref, who I think was Mazzagatti, wondering why he wasn't stepping in). So he dropped a succession of downward elbows to get the stoppage but the ref docked him a point (and was then DQd when Hamill couldn't continue). He didn't drop those elbows because he was being a prick;''

 

is one of, if not THE most fucking ridiculous thing I have ever read on here.

 

Yes. Clearly more ridiculous than people who've posted racist or homophobic dribble, completely unintelligible nonsense and death threats.

 

Before you back track and try and change what i'm saying I ask anyone to read that quote and disagree that your suggestion is anything other than Jon Jones though process being;

 

I have Hamill finished here ->

The ref aint stopping this and he should ->

I know i'll use a succession of illegal downward elbows to get the stoppage.

 

If it was that, then it would the same as Daley...both intentional AND pre-meditated...meaning JJ both intended to throw the illegal elbows

(which he did) and that it was a pre-meditated decision because in your supposed chain of events he goes through the thought process of...''the ref should be stopping this, he hasn't stepped in, so I will throw illegal elbows to get the stoppage''

 

So you've obviously decided to ignore my point that up until then, downward elbows were rarely punished and Jones may well not have even known the elbows were illegal in the way he was dropping them.

 

Infact it was the same as Bisping...he intentionally performed an illegal manouvre...because he hit the target that he was aiming for...but it was in the heat of the moment, with the adrenaline pumping and fuelled by the desire to win meaning neither went through the thought process of carrying out the act in order to either cause or help towards a stoppage, thus making both incidents not pre-meditated.

 

Yeah, Jones was dropping the elbows because he was being a fucking prick towards Hamill. It couldn't possibly have been for any other reason. Wow, your stupidity and idiocy is limitless. Even a long-time UKFFer like myself is shocked by your nonsense.

You're MMA arguments are even shittier than the horrendous commentary you did on the wrestling channel.

 

Yep, no complex issues here. Oh, and I never commentated for the Wrestling Channel. FAIL, as the kids say.

 

At no stage do I claim to be a hardman and I really fail to see how calling you a 'tard indicates in any way that I am, or think I am.

 

If I made some form of ridiculous internet keyboard warrior threat then yeah totally...but once again you're just going off on a tangent.

 

Again you have sidestepped any points that you don't wish to address and miss the point completely with regards to the Jon Jones/Michael Bisping similarities.

 

As an ending note and to highlight your ability to sidestep such things as truth and fact in favour of trying to make invalid points which show only your selected parts of any argument, here is you from your last post

 

Oh, and I never commentated for the Wrestling Channel. FAIL, as the kids say.

 

and below is a snippet of an interview with you, with regards to your involvement on the TWC

 

''Most recently you've become heavily involved with The Wrestling Channel, as the link man for the Mexican and Japanese shows, and as host of the U.K. Roundup show. How did you come to be associated with TWC?

 

I got in contact with TWC a few months before it launched to find out what would happen with Japanese wrestling, in terms of commentary arrangements. The channel explored possibilities of having commentary for the Japanese programming, but they decided it wasn't feasible. Had they decided to take on commentators, I wanted to work with Linus/Mark Priest. However, they said that commentary wasn't an option, and they instead wanted to have narrations before each match. I volunteered for that and I was given a tryout during the test runs on Friendly TV. It went well, so I was taken on to do all voiceover work for the Japanese and Mexican shows.

 

I developed a great working relationship with many of the people at TWC. They are such a nice bunch of people and I really have to express my gratitude to Sean Herbert. Some sections of the internet like to give him stick, but he's one of the nicest, most sincere guys I've ever met. Every time I flew out to Ireland he was tremendously hospitable. He's a really funny guy, a great laugh and fabulous company. Just like Fin, Sean has done a lot for me so I genuinely am thankful to him.''

 

No doubt you will argue that the narration before the match isn't technically commentary and I will give you that...espescially as any time your monotone voice started mis-pronouncing stuff I turned over as quick as I could before you put me to sleep and hence didn't last long enough to realise they didn't want you to ruin the in-ring action as well.

 

I'm simply not going to waste any more time trying to get through to you because no matter what anyone says in your head you are right and that's good for you.

[MoChatra]

pryko/CJB- thanks for not resorting to JV's childish antics.

 

I actually went over to Compustrike and it shows that on the stand-up exchanges, up until the knee, Rivera did have the better of it. However, Bisping did more on the ground, but overall there was very little in it. After the knee, Bisping really started to dominate. Now as I've mentioned before, I'm not saying Bisping wouldn't have won without the knee, but the statistics demonstrate that there was very little in it up until the knee (Rivera did better on the stand-up exchanges, with Bisping getting two takedowns and doing some damage after one of them), but after it, it was Bisping domination.

 

Jim Bob, as you point out, I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong (even though I don't recall that Bisping-Leben discussion) but when I watched the fight I didn't have Bisping winning up until the knee and the statistics from Compustrike back that up. Please note that I never said Rivera was winning the fight, only that he was getting the better of the exchanges. Again, who's winning and who's landing more strikes in a stand-up battle aren't the same.

 

Anyway, whoever you think was winning up until then, it doesn't change the fact Bisping really let himself down with the knee and his post-fight antics (and few people are buying the apology, with many seeing it as him saying it only to appease Dana). I really hope we don't see that from him again, no matter how much his opponents try to rile him in future. He really needs to control his emotions better and I'm sure he'd admit that too.

[Jonny Vegas]

Also from the same interview it seems you have never taken other people's opinions particularly well and have a history for throwing toys out of prams at the first sign of anyone criticising you or disagreeing with your almighty opinion.

 

Also, a lot of people on various forums, including myself, were critical of your presenting style, and some said that the show would have been better off either with a different presenter, or without a presenter at all. How would you respond to this?

 

Who are these 'lots' of people? Are they your six other UKFF alter egos?

 

...and you're calling ME childish?

[MoChatra]

At no stage do I claim to be a hardman and I really fail to see how calling you a 'tard indicates in any way that I am, or think I am.

 

If I made some form of ridiculous internet keyboard warrior threat then yeah totally...but once again you're just going off on a tangent.

 

Again you have sidestepped any points that you don't wish to address and miss the point completely with regards to the Jon Jones/Michael Bisping similarities.

 

As an ending note and to highlight your ability to sidestep such things as truth and fact in favour of trying to make invalid points which show only your selected parts of any argument, here is you from your last post

 

Oh, and I never commentated for the Wrestling Channel. FAIL, as the kids say.

 

and below is a snippet of an interview with you, with regards to your involvement on the TWC

 

''Most recently you've become heavily involved with The Wrestling Channel, as the link man for the Mexican and Japanese shows, and as host of the U.K. Roundup show. How did you come to be associated with TWC?

 

I got in contact with TWC a few months before it launched to find out what would happen with Japanese wrestling, in terms of commentary arrangements. The channel explored possibilities of having commentary for the Japanese programming, but they decided it wasn't feasible. Had they decided to take on commentators, I wanted to work with Linus/Mark Priest. However, they said that commentary wasn't an option, and they instead wanted to have narrations before each match. I volunteered for that and I was given a tryout during the test runs on Friendly TV. It went well, so I was taken on to do all voiceover work for the Japanese and Mexican shows.

 

I developed a great working relationship with many of the people at TWC. They are such a nice bunch of people and I really have to express my gratitude to Sean Herbert. Some sections of the internet like to give him stick, but he's one of the nicest, most sincere guys I've ever met. Every time I flew out to Ireland he was tremendously hospitable. He's a really funny guy, a great laugh and fabulous company. Just like Fin, Sean has done a lot for me so I genuinely am thankful to him.''

 

No doubt you will argue that the narration before the match isn't technically commentary and I will give you that...espescially as any time your monotone voice started mis-pronouncing stuff I turned over as quick as I could before you put me to sleep and hence didn't last long enough to realise they didn't want you to ruin the in-ring action as well.

 

I'm simply not going to waste any more time trying to get through to you because no matter what anyone says in your head you are right and that's good for you.

 

FINALLY realises he imagined me saying/implying this 'premeditated' point.

 

Also, well done again- as you point out, I didn't commentate.

 

Oh, and you come across as incredibly insecure, bitter and sad. Your insults are also lame. Now kindly fuck off.

[MoChatra]

Also from the same interview it seems you have never taken other people's opinions particularly well and have a history for throwing toys out of prams at the first sign of anyone criticising you or disagreeing with your almighty opinion.

 

Also, a lot of people on various forums, including myself, were critical of your presenting style, and some said that the show would have been better off either with a different presenter, or without a presenter at all. How would you respond to this?

 

Who are these 'lots' of people? Are they your six other UKFF alter egos?

 

...and you're calling ME childish?

 

Amazing that you've gone to the extent of looking up an interview. Just proves my point about how sad you are. It also seems scarily obsessive. You really should get out and about.

 

That was an interview with Julian Radbourne and was made in jest. Not that you'd realise.

 

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your evening trying to find quotes from me. Sad sack.

[Jonny Vegas]

At no stage do I claim to be a hardman and I really fail to see how calling you a 'tard indicates in any way that I am, or think I am.

 

If I made some form of ridiculous internet keyboard warrior threat then yeah totally...but once again you're just going off on a tangent.

 

Again you have sidestepped any points that you don't wish to address and miss the point completely with regards to the Jon Jones/Michael Bisping similarities.

 

As an ending note and to highlight your ability to sidestep such things as truth and fact in favour of trying to make invalid points which show only your selected parts of any argument, here is you from your last post

 

Oh, and I never commentated for the Wrestling Channel. FAIL, as the kids say.

 

and below is a snippet of an interview with you, with regards to your involvement on the TWC

 

''Most recently you've become heavily involved with The Wrestling Channel, as the link man for the Mexican and Japanese shows, and as host of the U.K. Roundup show. How did you come to be associated with TWC?

 

I got in contact with TWC a few months before it launched to find out what would happen with Japanese wrestling, in terms of commentary arrangements. The channel explored possibilities of having commentary for the Japanese programming, but they decided it wasn't feasible. Had they decided to take on commentators, I wanted to work with Linus/Mark Priest. However, they said that commentary wasn't an option, and they instead wanted to have narrations before each match. I volunteered for that and I was given a tryout during the test runs on Friendly TV. It went well, so I was taken on to do all voiceover work for the Japanese and Mexican shows.

 

I developed a great working relationship with many of the people at TWC. They are such a nice bunch of people and I really have to express my gratitude to Sean Herbert. Some sections of the internet like to give him stick, but he's one of the nicest, most sincere guys I've ever met. Every time I flew out to Ireland he was tremendously hospitable. He's a really funny guy, a great laugh and fabulous company. Just like Fin, Sean has done a lot for me so I genuinely am thankful to him.''

 

No doubt you will argue that the narration before the match isn't technically commentary and I will give you that...espescially as any time your monotone voice started mis-pronouncing stuff I turned over as quick as I could before you put me to sleep and hence didn't last long enough to realise they didn't want you to ruin the in-ring action as well.

 

I'm simply not going to waste any more time trying to get through to you because no matter what anyone says in your head you are right and that's good for you.

 

FINALLY realises he imagined me saying/implying this 'premeditated' point.

 

Also, well done again- as you point out, I didn't commentate.

 

Oh, and you come across as incredibly insecure, bitter and sad. Your insults are also lame. Now kindly fuck off.

 

The insults regarding me questioning your intelligence which you then regurgitated back towards me? or the fact that you've taken as an insult that you were awful in whatever you want to call your role with the TWC and can't take criticism?

 

Also me deciding not to pursue an argument you're not willing to listen to isn't in any way me saying I imagined anything...if I threw a stick for my dog to fetch 5 times and he didn't do so then I would stop throwing it because he clearly wasn't ever going to get it...not because I imagined throwing the stick.

 

Insecure, bitter and sad? Whatever helps you get to sleep at night, if you want to pretend that me pointing out your inability to take any form of criticism makes me insecure that's fine...because I honestly have no idea what I'm insecure about!? Insecure that I don't have the ability to get through to you?

 

There's no insecurity, just pure astonishment. I never intended this to get anywhere near the nonsense it's became...my original point still stands...I don't agree with you...and you are unwilling to listen to my argument without changing it to make yourself seem right, let's just leave it at that and go back on topic.

[Jonny Vegas]

Also from the same interview it seems you have never taken other people's opinions particularly well and have a history for throwing toys out of prams at the first sign of anyone criticising you or disagreeing with your almighty opinion.

 

Also, a lot of people on various forums, including myself, were critical of your presenting style, and some said that the show would have been better off either with a different presenter, or without a presenter at all. How would you respond to this?

 

Who are these 'lots' of people? Are they your six other UKFF alter egos?

 

...and you're calling ME childish?

 

Amazing that you've gone to the extent of looking up an interview. Just proves my point about how sad you are. It also seems scarily obsessive. You really should get out and about.

 

That was an interview with Julian Radbourne and was made in jest. Not that you'd realise.

 

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your evening trying to find quotes from me. Sad sack.

 

It took approximately 30 seconds....and was done so as should I have typed in Mo Chatra The Wrestling Channel and found nothing...I would have came back in here and apologised for the mistaken identity. It's not like I searched through 5 years worth of the local rag and came back 2 weeks later.

[Gladstones Bitch]

Fuckin hell give it a rest lads

[Jonny Vegas]

Fuckin hell give it a rest lads

 

Sorry Hulk mate, as I said I genuinely never meant for this to get anywhere near the ridiculous nonsense it's became I am just flabbergasted at Mo, back on topic now

[MoChatra]

Fuckin hell give it a rest lads

 

Yeah, I shouldn't have raised to the bait.

 

As for other aspects of the show, I felt a draw was the right result for the headliner. I had BJ winning the first two rounds with Fitch scoring 10-8 for the final round. I don't get where Fitch is coming from in asking for a title fight after drawing and I'd like to think they book BJ-Fitch II, because by Fitch's standards, this was a good fight.

 

Tuscherer was gusty in carrying on with a busted eyelid but he really fought completely the wrong fight against Hunt. The New Zealander probably saved his job because I'm sure that was his last fight under his old Pride contract that UFC had to honour.

 

Siver's win over Sotiropolous was very impressive. George is a great fighter but all his takedown attempts were easily stuffed by Siver and his stand-up looked crisper and sharper than ever. Another win and he probably deserves a title shot.

 

I loved Brian Ebersole. It's good to see him in UFC and his quirky, unorthodox style and personality is a good addition to the company.

 

Fukuda's loss to Ring was bullshit. It wasn't the worst decision I've seen but even Ring seemed surprised to get the nod. I expect these two will be booked together for a rematch.

 

As a final point, why do Australian shows get better line-ups than the UK? I know those shows get to air live in the US whereas UK shows are either tape-delayed on PPV, or only air as Spike specials, but that's not a good enough reason.

[MoChatra]

Fuckin hell give it a rest lads

 

Sorry Hulk mate, as I said I genuinely never meant for this to get anywhere near the ridiculous nonsense it's became I am just flabbergasted at Mo, back on topic now

 

Yeah, your original response to me started with a complete troll comment, so the whole 'I only wanted to have a sensible discussion' bullshit doesn't fly.