If we are being honest go rewatch Valentina VS Nunes

Nunes has a better resume but Valentina is the better fighter

This is kinda what I believe. That said, I'm not SURE that Valentina is the better fighter. I lean that way, but they are so close that I hesitate to state that one is clearly "better" than the other.

I guess if you have two people fight and one is naturally bigger and they look to be evenly matched it's sort of natural to say that the smaller one is the better fighter.

In terms of resume', there's no point comparing. Nunes clearly is way ahead.
 
Just waiting for someone to call Nunes a can, that's the only thing missing in la-la-land.
 
She didn't, IMO. People here were just blinded by fanboyism and hate because of the Nunes pullout. We've seen with Jones/Santos that Sherdoggers have no trouble denying reality when they don't get their way
But shevchko actually won and had much better stats than santos .. sometimes judges are a bunch of cunts ...
 
What did Valentina do in either fight that won it definitively? The first was a clear 29-28 Nunes win, the second was close but Amanda controlled it and shut Valentina down.

"Notice Nunes wont even say her name."

Maybe because Saltchenko is in a different weight class now where she can whoop on washouts and cans?
I can already tell by your wording that she 'controlled' the 2nd fight, means that Nunes probably actually did lose. I haven't seen the fight, b/c you know, wmma. Is it called the Ultimate Controlling Championship? Or the Ultimate Fighting Championship? Using the 'controlling' argument is a weak ass excuse used by those fangirls to defend their fighter for losing the fight. 10 to 1 odds say that I'm 100% correct.
 
What did Valentina do to win the 2nd fight against Nunes?

They were both boring in that fight but Valentina was even more boring.

Should have been a draw.
 
Using the 'controlling' argument is a weak ass excuse used by those fangirls to defend their fighter for losing the fight.

Funny because "Octagon control" is a scoring criteria and is usually the tie-breaker in a close fight where everything else is either even or a non-factor.

And there's no need to defend Amanda for losing the fight because she won. :)
 
Val is a better fighter in terms of skills but Nune has the size, power, chin and enough skill to negate Val or at least make her gun shy.
 
Funny because "Octagon control" is a scoring criteria and is usually the tie-breaker in a close fight where everything else is either even or a non-factor.

And there's no need to defend Amanda for losing the fight because she won. :)
Won? Again I haven't seen the fight and am not bias like you, but judges have constantly shown themselves to be inept to use them in defense of your argument, just renders your point invalid. I think it is more clear than ever that Nunes lose the 2nd fight. First you say she had control and then point to the judges, yet not once mention anything about the actual fighting, like you know the strikes, submissions, or damage. You are such a cuck and I'm about as slow as it comes, so the rest of shertard most definitely must already know this.
 
I know what the media scores were. I'm just saying I've watched it 3 times now and have scored it 3 times for Valentina. Even trying to skew toward Nunes I did. I'm just one person, it doesn't mean my view is gospel. Judging has some level of subjectivity so I realize for others it might look different. To me, it's a pretty close fight that Valentina should have won. That's all.

In the bigger picture, Nunes was given the decision so it's a win for her. I still believe Shevchenko may well be the better fighter. But from a legacy standpoint it's not all that close really. Nunes is a level above her. Nunes just has better wins, and more of them.

What rounds did Valentina clearly win in your eyes? If you can't come up with 3 rounds that she definitively won then you can't claim she should've won.
 
I've never understood the "fighter A has a better resume, but fighter B is more skilled" narrative that sometimes gets thrown around.

Assuming you are talking about two fighters that are in roughly the same place on the career arc (age/organization/etc), if you are a better fighter, you will produce more quality wins over time.

Nunes isn't a female meathead to Valentia's scientific precision. She's highly technical in her own right and also has a comprehensive MMA game, especially by WMMA standards.
 
Nunes took the first

And I live scored the second for Valentina.
Can’t say I’ve rewatched that fight
 
Of course you don’t like arguing resumes you have a can non crusher as your profile picture.

Reread what I said instead of trying to be a big dick on an anonymous forum on the internetz.

You seem extremely confused. I'm literally arguing the exact opposite of what you said.
 
Close fights are not robberies, some don't know what that word means in a fight context.

Amanda is progressing really fast right now, and I think Shev would no fair well in a third fight.

After she smashed Cyborg and Holly back to back, taking her on is not an enviable task at this point.
 
Nunes clearly won the first one. The second one was a toss up.
 
First you say she had control and then point to the judges, yet not once mention anything about the actual fighting, like you know the strikes, submissions, or damage.

Because, as I mentioned before, the strikes, submissions, and damage were negligible. It was a very inactive and boring fight. So the only thing the judges had to go on was Octagon control and therefore Nunes won the fight.

That's right, she won! Regardless of what pouting Valentina fans want to believe, you pull this fight up in Fight Finder here you will see a green rectangle with the word "WIN" inside for this fight. :)
 
Nunes won both fights. I watched them both and agreed with the judges. All this woulda coulda shoulda is hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top