Just wondered if this bothered anyone else? Often, when asked about x or y fighter (Dana is skeptical about / grudging of) getting into the UFC, he replies 'when he has beat someone relevant' or 'who has he beat' (same thing). This is ofcourse a perfectly reasonable argument except for the fact that, in allot of cases (especially in Dana's own opinion), there are no relevant opponents outside the UFC for the fighter to beat! Take someone like Arlovsky, what possible 'relevant' heavywights are available outside the Zuffa umbralla he could possibly fight? Even if this argument is just a cover for the obvious white elephant Dana / UFC grudge against a fighter, I wish atleast journalists would call out this argument for the logical fallacy that it is. As mma fans its not like we dont have our intelligence insulted enough already.