Jump to content

Wandi vs Marquardt.....


jsmith986

Recommended Posts

no... nate is top 5 wandy is 2-3 in his last 5' date=' and nate would just lay on him for 3 rounds... boring[/quote']

 

Jesus Christ kiddo, what are you talking about. When has Marquardt ever just laid on someone for three rounds? Not to be a **** but thats just plain stupid, go to your room and try and learn how to levitate or at least do something productive.

 

I reckon this could be a pretty decent fight, I'd imagine Marquardt would stand and trade with Wanderlei. In fact, Marquardt does have some very sound stand-up and is very well-rounded, I could very well see him winning this fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wandy got fractured ribs... its going to take time to heal up and by then nate will have already fought... it can still happen but i dont see it happening cuz of what i said b4 the rank differences

 

true,

 

Maybe if Nate lose to palhares they can make this match happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ kiddo' date=' what are you talking about. When has Marquardt ever just laid on someone for three rounds? Not to be a **** but thats just plain stupid, go to your room and try and learn how to levitate or at least do something productive.

 

I reckon this could be a pretty decent fight, I'd imagine Marquardt would stand and trade with Wanderlei. In fact, Marquardt does have some very sound stand-up and is very well-rounded, I could very well see him winning this fight.[/quote']

 

nate never fought any1 with better striking than his... wandy has better striking, and nate is a good wrestler i honestly think he would just take him down and lay on him... if he didnt then it would be a good fight, but he would... (btw why everytime some1 has a different opinion on this server people lash out with personal attacks? pretty sad)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nate never fought any1 with better striking than his... wandy has better striking' date=' and nate is a good wrestler i honestly think he would just take him down and lay on him... if he didnt then it would be a good fight, but he would... (btw why everytime some1 has a different opinion on this server people lash out with personal attacks? pretty sad)[/quote']

 

Well I can think of one person Nate fought with better striking...First name starts with an A, last name starts with an S..

 

If you had actual evidence to back-up your ludicrous claim it would be different. Nate puts on exciting fights every time out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can think of one person Nate fought with better striking...First name starts with an A' date=' last name starts with an S..

 

If you had actual evidence to back-up your ludicrous claim it would be different. Nate puts on exciting fights every time out.[/quote']

 

yea and his fight with anderson turned out good for him huh? he got beat in the first round im sure he would learn from that and takedown the next person who is a better striker... and like i said its only an opinion and it is far from a "ludicrous claim" to say he will take wandy down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea and his fight with anderson turned out good for him huh? he got beat in the first round im sure he would learn from that and takedown the next person who is a better striker... and like i said its only an opinion and it is far from a "ludicrous claim" to say he will take wandy down

 

I never said anything about the result, I simply stated a better striker that he fought, since you said he never fought one. And I agree that it's possible he could take him down, but that's not what you said, you said he would lay on him for 3 rounds.

 

I'm sorry I used your own words in the argument..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea and his fight with anderson turned out good for him huh? he got beat in the first round im sure he would learn from that and takedown the next person who is a better striker... and like i said its only an opinion and it is far from a "ludicrous claim" to say he will take wandy down

 

Yeah it's just that you're opinion is beyond retarded. It is quite ludicrous to say that Marquardt would just take Wanderlei down and "just lay on him for 3 rounds..... boring". That's where you fail child' date=' Marquardt never lays and prays and [b']always[/b] puts on exciting fights as does Wanderlei. To have an opinion where this fight would be boring is quite ludicrous.

 

You figure out how to hover yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...