Clearly you don't understand my (or any?) logic.
If you can only name one guy that Wlad should fight, and that guy is someone that Wlad has already beat, then it is not reasonable to name him as one of the top 3 guys in the sport that needs to step up his level of opposition.
You say that certain people were not top 10.
Then I prove that they were top 10.
Then you say being top 10 means nothing.
What was that you were saying about logic?
If you can only name one guy that Wlad should fight, and that guy is someone that Wlad has already beat, then it is not reasonable to name him as one of the top 3 guys in the sport that needs to step up his level of opposition.
You say that certain people were not top 10.
Then I prove that they were top 10.
Then you say being top 10 means nothing.
What was that you were saying about logic?
Comment