Right...so...get some gifs of him throwing punches but not him using his wrestling.
Since you stuck your nose into this conversation and tried to pedantically quibble with me, I'm going to respond in kind and insist on the same pedantic attention to detail: You didn't say that Chuck "used" his wrestling, you said that he "had to rely on" his wrestling (which implies that he used his wrestling more than his striking, or even that he wouldn't/couldn't have won without his wrestling) and that he would "wrestle strikers" (which implies that he fought primarily as a wrestler with most if not all of his offense coming from wrestling). This, however, is misleading at best if it's not simply wrong. He took a shot on Wand in the third round to keep him on his toes, he clinched with Mezger to break up his offense, and he took Overeem down and kneed him in the head a few times. All three of these fights were still contested as predominantly kickboxing bouts that Chuck won, and two of the three he won with highlight-reel KOs.
I'm not the one who butted into a conversation between two people - a conversation, I might add, that had concluded with my interlocutor having conceded
my point - and suggested that you go to YouTube implying you'd never seen one of the most iconic fights featuring the guy being discussed. Forget about the fact that I'm a mod who's been on this site for 20 years, from which you should be able to infer that I'm not ignorant of PRIDE or of the career of one of the biggest legends in the history of the sport. I still tried to keep things light with jokes and gifs. You seem to be the one intent on picking a fight and trying to show off your allegedly superior knowledge, and because I didn't immediately bow to your wisdom you're taking it personal, getting butthurt, and attacking my character. You've approached this whole thing terribly, your attitude sucks, and your response was not at all proportionate. Perhaps you should introspectively explore your own pot-ness instead of calling kettles black.
Your paragraph about Fedor is nonsense
No, it isn't, you just failed to understand it. To wit...
You made a fallacy about my "logic" in applying it to Fedor
...you clearly failed to grasp anything that I said. Additionally, you don't "make" fallacies, which makes me wonder if English is your first language. Or perhaps you're simply not familiar with fallacies. Based on where we're going with this post of yours, I'm leaning toward the latter. But first things first:
all the samples you listed were that those fighters gave Fedor problems because they were smaller and faster, which mitigated his speed advantage.
No, the samples I listed were fights where fighters gave Fedor problems because they were good wrestlers (Arona, Lindland, Fujita, Randleman) or good on the ground (Babalu, Herring, Nog) or bigger/stronger/more explosive (Fujita, Randleman, Hunt). Smallness is nowhere in this equation. Indicative perhaps of your unfamiliarity with fallacies,
you are currently indulging in strawmanning. This is when you ignore a person's position - in this case, my position that Fedor struggled with skilled and/or large opponents on the ground - and argue a different position that the person never took - in this case, the irrelevant position of Fedor allegedly struggling against smaller/faster opponents - and delude yourself into believing that you've won the argument. In reality, what you've done is equivalent to someone in a one-on-one basketball game running under the basket without dribbling and yelling "Touchdown!" You're not even playing the right game, pal.
My "logic" isnt based around that fighters must struggle with either striking or grappling.
I never said it was. Perhaps you should try reading people's posts more than once before barreling in with aggressive arguments. It'll keep you from looking this foolish in the future.
Seriously, people on Sherdog would benefit so much from just a basic college class just to learn how to analyze and argue.
I'm a college professor. I even have a shiny PhD. And buckle up for this one: I teach logical fallacies in one of my classes. This is why it's so easy for me to see all of your errors in logic as well as your grammatical confusion and your poor reading comprehension.
You're claiming that you know a lot about Chuck Liddell, but are oblivious that his wrestling is a big part of his game. You probably only think he sprawls, and have no idea about the nuances (no matter how obvious they are to anyone with a brain) that Chuck does use his wrestling offensively to shutdown other fighters offense.
One more for the road: This is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you should take that college class you were referring to, it would serve you well.
