What is this game people are playing about deciding that a loss is less of a loss depending on how it happened as if MMA has never been about stylistic differences, and that the LONG history of people who have had bad decisions come there way still getting treated as a loss that they need to work back from is somehow out the window for this case in particular?
DDP beat Rob in a title eliminator and then Sean in a title fight.
Sean beat Costa
Rob beat Costa (first), Aliskerov, and presumably Khamzat if we're debating who deserves it more.
One of those things is called getting a turn around and earning a rematch. The other isn't. Yes, the fight that was closer would have a more interesting rematch (well, only maybe, considering how many times we've seen rematches go completely different from the first fight because that's what happens in MMA, try watching it some time) but the question of "more deserving" isn't up for debate if Rob beats Khamzat.
And yeah, the optics of him saying this is bad, but it's hilarious for people to say he's ducking because Sean was a tough fight, when DDP is also saying he'll go up to LHW to fight the guy who knocked a boring ass Sean out so hard, he made him relevant and exciting
