- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,786
- Reaction score
- 155
Nah, Chandler had problems striking with non ranked fighter.
Bellator champ Brent Primus to Michael Chandler: 'Sign the contract (expletive)'
- Thread starter Go Go Plata
- Start date
Nah, Chandler had problems striking with non ranked fighter.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2015
- Messages
- 6,387
- Reaction score
- 125
Probably training people.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 3,697
- Reaction score
- 815
Kid only has the belt because Chandler rolled his ankle anyway
- Joined
- May 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,613
- Reaction score
- 629
Man you're a real piece of work. The system is so broken, and a God dammed warrior, who is wealthy rescued a child from that. I hope you you keep your bitch ass opinions on forums you waste of life.
That's what everyone said would happen in the first fight yet Primus wrecked Chandler with well placed leg kicks.
Literally dropped means nothing the man that got his hand raised in victory and wears the belt wrecked Chandler with well place leg kicks that made him a 1 legged fighter.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t serious about saying getting dropped means nothing. Context about how a fight plays out means pretty much everything. Rematches of fights are basically predicated on this simple fact. Was the fight close? Was there something that happened that should warrant a rematch?
Let me ask you. Do you see a difference between Chandler vs Brooks 2 and chandler vs primus?
In one instance, you see chandler get thoroughly beat from pillar to post before being tko’ed
In another you see something out of the ordinary that have many people debating. Some say it was a kick, others say it was the ankle roll. Even then, chandler was able to drop primus on one foot.
If primus vs chandler is your definition of “wrecked”, then we could just leave it at us having a difference of opinion.
I’d like to point out that In no way am i saying that primus shouldn’t have th strap. He definitely should. What I am saying is that victory and defeat in their proper contexts is what make the most sense.
Anyone that rewatches that fight and pays close attention to the Primus kicks and Chandler's reaction after the kick lands will clearly see those kicks did the damage. The kicks numbed the nerve running down the leg that Chandler couldn't even feel his ankle buckle in as he tried stepping on the ball of his foot.
Things to look at during time of the video not the fight time.
2:20 - 2:22 Primus kick lands to back of knee Chandler reacts strangely by reaching back feeling the back of his leg.
2:30 - 2:35 Primus kick lands to side of knee Chandler keeps touching his thigh of which is probably numb from the nerve. Watch how Chandler is now not putting much weight on that foot and it doesn’t look stable. A couple seconds later he steps back to put weight on the ball of his foot and his ankle folds in under him. From then on Primus is brutalizing Chandlers leg with well placed kicks behind and to the side of the knee.
At 3:57 Chandler lands a good shot that puts Primus on his ass but he gets up right away and shows no signs of being dazed or hurt. Then the fight gets stopped a few seconds later.
If Chandler doesn't work on \checking those kicks he'll be in trouble again. Those kicks had a lot of power and were placed behind and to the side of the knee.
sorry for the lag as ive been studying for an exam.
Also, solid post i appreciate it, but i'm not necessarily arguing that Chandler was fucked over and Primus doesn't deserve the belt. That's not my stance at all
my initial argument was toward the fact that you said that chandler dropping primus on one one leg doesn't matter at all because primus ultimately "wrecked" and has the belt, basically insinuating that the context of this fight didn't matter because primus got his hand raised at the end of the night. again. not arguing that didn't primus won. not arguing that he shouldnt have the belt. my argument was that context within a fight indeed matters. I also disagreed with you when you said primus 'wrecked' chandler.
as ive posted before, my defintion of "wreck" is something along the lines of chandler vs brooks II. not primus vs chandler. some think primus messed chandler's leg up with leg kicks. other's think chandler just rolled his ankle. no matter the stance, i think most of us could agree that it was a dubious finish, which is why a rematch is warranted.
