Point is he's dwarfing Chris (at Chris' best) and at a size and condition much lower than his own best. Put his own best next to the same version of Chris and the discrepency would be even more.
Not sure if they were at their very top shape, but they wer competitive in many shows where they lost to Nasser. Point is that just because Nasser's back is less detailed than another top pro does not mean he would lose to them, since your logic on him losing to Cormier is that he would lose from the back, yet he'd often place higher than other competitive top pros who had better backs than him. So again your logic fails. If the back was the end all he would never have placed in the top 6 even.
Funny hwo I have to always explain the point in detail for you. I think you honestly do understand the point often, but out of habit blindly reply with counterarguments, even when you know they are weak ones.
Point is he's dwarfing Chris (at Chris' best) and at a size and condition much lower than his own best. Put his own best next to the same version of Chris and the discrepency would be even more.
You keep trying to use this size advantage like it is one and it's not , he's ' dwarfing ' Chris and he still fucking lost , and even heavier he would still suck from behind. all you can cling to is the size advantage and it's useless. Please keep this in your head , he was bigger than 99% of the field and lost more often than he ever won
Not sure if they were at their very top shape, but they wer competitive in many shows where they lost to Nasser. Point is that just because Nasser's back is less detailed than another top pro does not mean he would lose to them, since your logic on him losing to Cormier is that he would lose from the back, yet he'd often place higher than other competitive top pros who had better backs than him. So again your logic fails. If the back was the end all he would never have placed in the top 6 even.
Nasser's back as explained to you numerous times isn't just lacking detail , it's missing much more and he's a completely different guy when he turns around. Just because he managed to beat guys with backs doesn't mean his isn't a flaw. He beat them when they were off , they usually kicked his ass when they were on
And the reason why the back trumps Nasser is because.................
........................
Nasser supposedly had every part better than Dorian except back and he still fucking lost
so in the end Nasser would lost to Chris for the same reasons he lost to Dorian and others
Funny hwo I have to always explain the point in detail for you. I think you honestly do understand the point often, but out of habit blindly reply with counterarguments, even when you know they are weak ones.
Says the guy who when confronted with facts on why his hero simply wasn't good enough always claims it was POLITICS , and none of my arguments are weak I never make excuses like you and team Nasser do , I don't make things up like you ( Mike Francois never came close to Nasser 95 on
)
Team excuses in full effect for 2012 , you have to make excuses because the truth hurts Nasser isn't that good compared to a LOT of guys , I have the history & the facts to prove this , you have excuses and denial , keep them
Nasser looks great in a few front poses , is no where near the force from the sides and blatantly sucks from the back , he has 6 wins in 53 contests big deal , you will never escape facts my friend
