|
Post by The Sandmen on Jul 5, 2013 22:19:06 GMT -5
The UFC CAN ignore her if she is the INVICTA champ, because Invicta is not UFC. And regarding your "conversation" with her on Twitter, I saw that conversation and you put A LOT of words into her mouth here. She said she was happy where she was and was concentrating on her career in Invicta. She never once said the UFC offered her a contract (because they didn't, because she is not marketable at all right now).
Also, if beating Lauren fricken Taylor means you are good enough for a title shot, you know your division is weak, haha.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jul 5, 2013 22:26:08 GMT -5
she bullshitting you she never got offered a contract so she has to wait untuil maybe she wins a belt and get better in invicta also who cares if she wins the belt in invicta the top 10 women in ufc would destroy her only 1 in ufc fighting for invicta is sarah kaufmann and kaufmann would wreck her, also rousey would destroy and armbar her first round again top 8 hardly She didn't BS me... and she probably didn't get offered a contract; cuz she's not a "name" fighter; Dana likes those. She's a 32 yr old with a 7-3 record that's still gotta pay some dues, despite her age. She knows it; she's embracing it... I think that's cool.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jul 5, 2013 22:51:38 GMT -5
The UFC CAN ignore her if she is the INVICTA champ, because Invicta is not UFC. And regarding your "conversation" with her on Twitter, I saw that conversation and you put A LOT of words into her mouth here. She said she was happy where she was and was concentrating on her career in Invicta. She never once said the UFC offered her a contract (because they didn't, because she is not marketable at all right now). Umm.. Duh? Though I would argue that she is marketable... VERY marketable. Also, if beating Lauren fricken Taylor means you are good enough for a title shot, you know your division is weak, haha. If you think Lauren Taylor is weak, then you know nothing about WMMA... and I mean this literally.
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Jul 5, 2013 23:24:04 GMT -5
I never said Lauren Taylor was weak. She is strong. But her opposition has been weak, her record/experience is weak, and her name - all weak in the MMA world.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jul 6, 2013 12:15:21 GMT -5
I never said Lauren Taylor was weak. She is strong. But her opposition has been weak, her record/experience is weak, and her name - all weak in the MMA world. Did you not say: Also, if beating Lauren fricken Taylor means you are good enough for a title shot, you know your division is weak, haha. Which also implies that you think Taylor is a weak fighter by association, does it not? I shouldn't be surprised though, seeing as how you thought 7-0 Zingano had no chance against Meisha Tate either.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Jul 6, 2013 12:40:09 GMT -5
meh zingano lost that fights she won by illegal knee
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Jul 6, 2013 14:32:59 GMT -5
Did you not say: Also, if beating Lauren fricken Taylor means you are good enough for a title shot, you know your division is weak, haha. Which also implies that you think Taylor is a weak fighter by association, does it not? No, it doesn't mean she is weak at all. It means beating an inexperienced, 1-dimensional nobody should not give you a gateway to the title. No more than if Mike Pierce beats David Mitchell tonight he should get a shot at GSP. It's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jul 6, 2013 16:18:03 GMT -5
meh zingano lost that fights she won by illegal knee Yah, and that's exactly what the results say too, right?! lol :
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jul 6, 2013 16:19:25 GMT -5
Did you not say: Which also implies that you think Taylor is a weak fighter by association, does it not? No, it doesn't mean she is weak at all. It means beating an inexperienced, 1-dimensional nobody should not give you a gateway to the title. No more than if Mike Pierce beats David Mitchell tonight he should get a shot at GSP. It's stupid. It's also based previous wins too, ya yutz... : lol
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Jul 6, 2013 17:02:02 GMT -5
meh zingano lost that fights she won by illegal knee Yah, and that's exactly what the results say too, right?! lol : if she cant beat tate how the fuck she going to beat rousey huh
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Jul 6, 2013 22:22:38 GMT -5
Yah, and that's exactly what the results say too, right?! lol : if she cant beat tate how the fuck she going to beat rousey huh She did beat Tate... lol Controversial or not, she beat Tate... Not much different than that Rousey win over D'Alelio, really. The problem with Rousey IRL is that she's never had anyone just come at her aggressive and hard. If she wants to impress me, let's see a fight, not a 10 second armbar.
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Jul 7, 2013 0:04:04 GMT -5
if she cant beat tate how the fuck she going to beat rousey huh She did beat Tate... lol Controversial or not, she beat Tate... Not much different than that Rousey win over D'Alelio, really. The problem with Rousey IRL is that she's never had anyone just come at her aggressive and hard. If she wants to impress me, let's see a fight, not a 10 second armbar. let see she beat kaufmann in the first round armbar kaufmann was 15-2 she beat tate 1st round armbar and zingano was struggling and lost 2 round b4 she got an illegal knee in, so zingano wont beat rousey also d'alelio verbally submitted first round check and mate it wasn't controversial at all unlike zingano tate
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Rebel Storm on Jul 7, 2013 14:42:28 GMT -5
Ed must be my next fighter to lose 5 in a row
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Jul 7, 2013 16:00:45 GMT -5
Ed must be my next fighter to lose 5 in a row You have Dave "Pee-Wee" Herman. Ed Herman is someone else's problem .
|
|