[rivethead]

Originally Posted by LefthookStcrook

Name ONE other fighter after GSP that took BJ Penn down and won. Go ahead I'll wait for you to dance around the question and not answer it.You love doing that.

I'll answer your question first, because it's apparently uprecedented for me to do so: You're right. In the last 5 years, nobody else has taken Penn down and won.

But then I'll ask you a question: Does that mean it's "dominant?"

Anywho, the answer is no one. Exactly what I wrote.

No. You wrote he got dominated. And he didn't. To put it in perspective, Fitch did more in the third round than Frankie did in the whole 5 rounder. And Fitch didn't even get a 10-8 for it.

Again, Name me ONE fighter on this planet who took BJ down and won a "convincing decision" not named GSP.

Is there any difference between a convincing decision and a dominant win?
I'm under the impression that there is. Maybe I'm wrong. Hang on a second, I'll go check.



















Nope. Still right. There is a HUGE difference between a convincing win--on points--and a dominant win.

ONLY Edgar and GSP have beat Bj Penn(like that) in recent history. True talk, now get over it.

No, it's not true talk.

Georges was a dominant win. He finished Penn. His win over Penn can't really be compared to Edgar's in any terms beyond the most basic. One was dominant, one was convincing. Huge difference.

The comment I was replying to was "Bj Penn would've owned Edgar IF he took him down". I was just stating a fact that Bj Penn DID take him down, Twice, and did NOTHING.

My point--which you've missed--is that you're responding to exaggeration about Penn's ability with more exaggeration, but simply diametrically opposed. That's like Al Franken responding to Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh responding to Michael Moore. All four of them look like assholes, because there is so much hyperbole in all of their statements that they lose what credibility they may have gained.

You could have said "Dude...Penn did take Edgar down. He didn't do anything with it." and you would have been right.

Your failure is in exaggeration, just like his: You tried to make a case that Edgar's win was as dominant as Georges, and they're not even remotely comparable.

Ok, GSP dominated him. And Frankie beat him.

Right, but I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing your exaggeration.

If that had been your post, I wouldn't have bothered with it.

But right now, you're making a distinction between Georges's dominant win, and Frankie's non-dominant win. You not only failed to make the distinction in your initial post, you actually compared them, making it seem as though you thought they were similar. They're not.

Still doesnt change the fact that Penn's two worst losses in the last 5 years is GSP 2 and Edgar 2

I disagree. I think Diaz beat him more convincingly than Edgar did. If the Diaz fight were 5 rounds, I think Diaz could have finished him, or at least would have been closer to finishing him than Frankie was.

And it STILL doesnt change the fact that Bj Penn had Frankie on his back two different occasions and did nothing. (Original Topic)

And STILL(lol) doesnt change the fact that "If he took him down and wasnt so stubborn" is a WEAKASS excuse.

I agree that his initial statment was poorly worded. I feel yours failed just as equally. I'm not trying to support his statement, although I do feel Penn has all the tools to beat Edgar [again].

It's just that for every time you've heard someone "making an excuse" for Penn, I've heard someone ineptly trying to portray him, or calling the Edgar bouts--both of them, which you seemed to be doing, but probably weren't--dominant. Neither bout was dominant. Not even close to dominant.

If posters are going to take the time to try to correct one another, I'd like them to be accurate.

I replied to "Bj Penn would Own Edgar IF he only took him down". I then posted real facts that disproved that claim. Ex: 2 TD Landed for Penn. 5 strikes landed between both. Nothing else.

No, if you'd stopped there, you'd have been accurate. But you threw in a bunch of nonsense which you're clearly backing away from.

Doesnt THAT^^disprove this sentence >--->"Bj Penn would Own Edgar IF he only took him down".

I dont get how you cant see that.

Again, I'm saying if you try to disprove someone and you stray into the realm of nonsense hyperbole--by saying it was a dominant win, by indicating Penn's TD's were useless because he didn't do anything dramatic, while not making the same distinction for Frankie--you're opening yourself to criticism.

So I'm criticizing. You hate excuses. I hate poorly-applied exaggeration.

rh