And her opponents landed significant strikes, by contrast? Also, Chookagian didn't "lose" those fights, she won them.
Your own individual hatred of her and self-justifying scoring system doesn't change that. Sure, if there were 3 clones of Jordan3399 judging Chookagian-Eye this Saturday, then Eye should be a -500 favorite.
However, that's not the case.
What's funny is that you cite the media for Chookagian versus Aldana (7 of whom had it for Chookagian, 10 for Aldana), yet conveniently ignore that same media when it comes to Chookagian versus Borella (10 for Chookagian, 1 draw, 3 for Borella).
Look, if you want to justify your own picks, fine. But at that point this ceases to be any kind of analysis. It just becomes blind, biased homerism and you may as well spend that time doing something else.
What?!
It means everything in this context, since it shows how poor Eye's defense and stand-up technique is to be badly hurt and dominated there by Tate of all fighters.
Also, "much smaller"?! In what universe? Eye and Tate are the same height, with roughly similar thickness and degree of muscle. Perhaps Tate was a little bit bigger, but no more.
There really isn't much point in going back and forth since you don't even address the actual skills and technique involved, and your interpretation of these fights is completely at odds with what actually occurred in them.