[KillerWolf]

[QUOTE=Reavant;3025657]

you are so full of shit with this its unreal

explain. no? i didnt think so.

The undercards were good! lets look at the last one... you had munoz who was an ncaa champ wrestler vs grove who was a TUF champion. You had two fast rising, undefeated light heavyweights in phil davis and gustafsson. you had a guy with a lot of momentum on a winning streak in Etim get upset and finished by dos anjos. And finally you had a former welterweight champion vs a gracie (now granted that fight letf much to be desired, but NO ONE even YOU would have thought MATT HUGHES would turn a fight into a kickboxing match. again the 20/20 thing) .... you bitching about that undercard is being a dick

a lot of the time (most of the time) the undercards turn out to be more entertaining than the main events (as in the best fight of the night ends up being on the undercard.) but a lot of the time, when i look at the undercard, i have never even heard of half the people on it. that makes it very hard for me to say, "yes, that's a fight i want to see, or, yes, these are fights i will pay $55 to watch." why this logic makes no sense to you is beyond me. i'm sorry.

You know what, how about you tell me a card you though was unreal or that had a stacked undercard by your rational.

okay, i'll do that, but let me at least put some thought into it instead of just pulling some fight card outta my ass (as the UFC has appeared to do lately).