Why are you doubling down on an objectively dumb, wrong statement?
You don't "look like dogshit" at 185 by winning as a +200 underdog against a Gastelum who had just lost by the skin of his teeth to Adesanya one fight ago, while completely neutralizing his striking AND wrestling, then arguably beat a great champion and legend like Whittaker as an underdog over 5 rounds, then almost beat Brunson on a torn ACL.
You can argue it's not impressive for various reasons, but calling it "dogshit" is the kind of mindless blather that belongs in the Heavies, not a serious gambling subforum.
You seem to be overly sensitive, or maybe you're just personally attached to Till. I'm not trying to attack you, I know you've been around this sub for a while and I read a lot of your posts and respect your takes.
I like TIll, he's a funny ass dude, and I bet him @ +195 against Kelvin. I thought the line was way off, and I was sweating during the decision. Kelvin outlanded him, but Till landed the bigger counters. It was close, but Till rightfully won it.
But look at how bad Kelvin has looked in his last 5 fights. BARELY scraping out a decision win against Kelvin hasn't aged well at all.
Most people on here would agree that Till looked like absolute dogshit against Brunson. Let me rephrase that for your overly sensitive ears.
He looked incredibly, incredibly lackluster against an old Brunson who Izzy dispatched of in 1 round with relative ease.
His shining moment in that fight was landing one left hand, and slightly wobbling Brunson, the same way that Holland did, before succumbing to a takedown that ultimately finished the fight in r3.
Till was defending takedowns by threatening guillotines, he had NO idea what the fuck to do on the ground, or how to defend a basic takedown. His legs were tucked together like a fucking penguin when he was standing making the TD's even easier for Brunson to get.
He looked like absolute shit, and I'm not sure how you can even try to dispute that.