Let's always discuss realities, because what the majority of 3 middle aged guys from wrestling or boxing think don't determine them. The media more reflects reality because they provide a vastly larger sample, cover MMA exclusively, and are passionate about the particular sport. And in the Alvarez-Chandler 2 fight, they had Chandler winning by a pretty wide margin; 10-3. With that in mind, and the finish in the first fight by Chandler, and the win by Brooks, it would be pretty disingenuous to act like Alvarez was Bellator's best because he was technically champion. In reality he was more like #3.
Their #3, in his octagon debut, in a 3-round fight, lost to a guy who actually right now seems like a UFC contender, that the UFC got to pick for style purposes (styles make fights as they say), not Bellator. It doesn't prove much on a macro level in reality.
Predictions of Chandler becoming UFC champ became farfetched when he started proving he would become significantly gassy around the middle of fights. He was a beast in the first 2-3 rounds. He's been fighting for 5 rounds in Bellator for a while. You put him in the 3 rounds in UFC he projects to do better than Alvarez did, especially. And Brooks better than him, considering how their 2nd fight went.
Yeah, I read that you are Russian, so I'll give you a break that you didn't understand I said presumably you AREN'T being paid by UFC. So that makes me get your motivation here even less.
Alvarez didn't technically get destroyed. He was beating up Cerrone pretty badly in the 1st round of their fight and then didn't get finished. He just comfortably got beaten.
But if you're bashing anyone, it should be Alvarez. Because he lost. Chandler nor Brooks nor Sarnavskiy nor Held, etc. did.
