As I tried to say by switching Held and Fili's name around, with confirmation bias you can excuse or condemn a fighter however it fits your point of view. You argued earlier about Lobov being empirically better when you compare statistics or something like that, regardless of context. But when I turn it around how Held is not consistent because he's 1-4, most of them as a favorite or close to even, you argue how those losses are relative.
I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, but I think Fili being inconsistent is a bit overstated, and I definitely disagree that Held is a proven performer, you can't say that with someone losing 4 in his last 5, even if two of those losses have considerable question marks. You're willing to lay -400 on a fighter coming of a bad ko loss, and has had a hard time in the UFC so far, who's probably in realistic danger of being cut if he loses. So if you're telling people to question Fili's state of mind, then you should also want to do the same with Held, right?
Just trying to put a bit of grey in you're tendency to see black and white.