I'm genuinely confused by how people can be that biased, to the point of rewriting history about fights, rounds, how long ago someone won a fight etc, just to diminish a fighter who got beaten by a fighter they hate. It's like they view the reality in such a skewed way that they then forget what actually happened. Fascinating. Even more so when they use their extreme bias for making a prediction or a bet, no wonder people lose a lot at sports betting.
They conveniently refuse to give their hated fighter any benefit of a doubt at all (example, Khamzats round 1 hand injury), while doing the opposite for fighters they like.
Burns, (who was close to beating Usman,) who has elite BJJ + KO power, was an extremely difficult match up for Khamzat, since his team didn't want him to engage with him on the ground at all. He was a huge step up, a very tough task for an untested prospect who until then mostly had success by steamrolling opponents with wrestling.
He then becomes a chinny "former LW".
Usman was the best defensive wrestler and had 5 title defenses, coming of 2 competitive losses to Leon, then becomes an old man with no knees, not impressive at all. Also arguably the biggest welterweight, didn't look small (or fat) at all vs Khamzat.
Then the cardio thing, they make it sounds like he's Michelle Pereira, even though he's been able to tough it out and actually have success in the later rounds, albeit not winning all of them dominantly.
13-0 becomes not impressive, because he faced adversity against his 2 best opponents. No praise for winning despite facing adversity, very rare for an upcoming prospect who is still improving.
And now I'm an annoying Stan for pointing it out!