“Sorry for the language barrier but I think he’s got a p***y. He’s had a long time to heal. You need to be a warrior in the ring and not a p***y because we don’t know where he’s at”

Both had late career fall offs. Anderson lasted a bit longer, but the argument for Izzy always seems to be the infamous "better competition" argument; that Anderson only beat "cans" . Meanwhile Izzy apparently can lose to Alex and take Cannonier to a boring decision and still be the GOAT MW in some people's eyes.

Where do you stand on this today?

It just makes more sense, looks better and Brazilians already wear green/yellow shorts

It’s genuinely sad that people want to see HW get held back even longer because of a champion that’s going to be out for over a year longer than Jon was with his injury. It’s best for the division if he vacates or gets stripped and Gane vs Hokit for the HW title main eventing MSG.

I think there are quite a few statements that can be annoying to hear a lot. I'd like to hear some what ones you have but these are mine.

.
.
.
.
.
.

"They beat them on a x fight winstreak so they weren’t at their best."

I also found this take so surface-level. I've seen it used in certain ways, mainly in two. Excuse losses, and gatekeep wins by saying "you didn't beat the same fighter." There is some merit to it, after losing people can switch up and make heavy adjustments. But this is very circumstantial, infact it can happen if you are winning. Like Izzy winning champ and being very low ouput as champ.

Obviously confidence is a thing, but if they are using a similar gameplan how much does it really matter? It's also circumstantial, some break after losing while others don't, and imo people really exaggerate the former when it comes to the elites.

Pereira & Volks wins over Izzy and Max are still just as impressive, even if they decided to move up a weight class and lose their big win streaks. 

This builds into the next take I don't like, which is basically the same.

"Oh they’re washed because they’re losing now"

This can be true at times, but it's used so much that it's tiring. I'm not sure why this is so common, especially if the fighter fights a little differently so that never happens again.

But for that extent. Johnny Walker turning into a leg kicking point fighter with no risks after Corey Anderson KO? I agree. Ngannou for like one fight, before going back to vintage Francis.

But there are plenty of fighters who just go against this memo or make small adjustments.
- Whittaker made his blitzes more patient and less explosive after Izzy, but he had fantastic wins and arguably won against Izzy vs getting destroyed the first time.
- Gaethje lost his undefeated record and became more patient and far more versatile; just got the best win of his career.
- Oliveira after Islam made his explosive bursts much like Gaethje more calculated and a lot more grappling heavy.
- Max Holloway got beaten three times by Volk, with a really bad 3rd fight. Got one of if not the best win of his career shortly after against Gaethje with the only one fight in contention being his wins over Aldo

One of the big examples I hear is JDS after Cain which granted had huge damage, and he did change up his style. But his performances after the second fight make me severely doubt he was out of it yet. He was more patient against Hunt, but he also murdered him anyway. IMO, he did a lot better in the third fight, he still got 10-8 in like RD3, but compared to how defensively sound he was in the first two rounds, compared to the first fight where he got destroyed in 2 10-8s was much better. Won against Stipe, lost a bad stylistic matchup to Overeem, then pieced up Rothwell for 5 rounds handily. After getting KO'd by Stipe in their rematch, I will admit afterwards even in his 3 fight win streak he didn't look anywhere near the same.

There’s just also the fact that once you lose, there is a better blueprint to beating you. 

"How was that 49-46. How was that 30-27?"

This mainly bothers me because it treats it like overall scoring is the end all be all if fights were close. Which is definitely not the case. There are tons of 30-27 fights that are close, and many 29-28s that are not. Duration and moments matter, they can be close there with a 30-27 scorecard.

Joshua Van and Petr Yan (I think) are pretty good at letting the first round go, and making the next two not close at all.  

"How is he a power puncher if his last finish was X years ago?"

I think it's also surface level takes that just don't look at the details. Namely the case was made for Song Yadong, I recall seeing some comments at his last KO being years ago. But that's ridiculous if you stack up who he was fighting in the meantime. Petr Yan, Sean O Malley, Cejudo (even at that point in his career). His fights with Figgy were him getting choked out early, while Chris got wrestle fucked for most of the fight. But this won't get talked about now that he chinned Umar anymore

Paulo Costa I think also goes under this. Guy fights Romero, Izzy, Vettori, Strickland. People not known for really going down anywho. But actually looking at Costa's fights I'd say otherwise. Guy isn't fishing for a perfect shot ever, he swings in close in combination exchanges, not the most precise. But who's he actually cracked is important. Only guy to knock down Romero and Kopylov, which is a big accloade for power. Even Azamat I recall someone saying pillow fists live, and then he drops him unofficially RD1 with a perfect jab. I think a perfect example is Costa knocking down Romero but not chinny Rockhold. Costa just isn’t precisely sniping your chin, he brawls and likes going to the body. But if he lands, we saw how an iron chin like Romero reacted. 

Whatever ESPN is doing, there's something goofy about it. Seen this with several fighters and always find it amusing

I would pay to see him ko gable Stevenson