"One guy who struggled to keep up with the points I made was UFC middleweight and charisma donor Nate Marquardt, who always seems to have something to say about me, for no other reason than I once competed against one of his friends. Sadly, we can now add 'literacy test' to the types of tests Nate has failed, because he either misread the whole thing or – like writers from AOL and Yahoo did – just read the first paragraph or two and had to stop because reading gives him a headache. Ultimately, people can agree or disagree with what I wrote, but the facts are on my side. The Nick Lentz fight at UFC 118, which was the catalyst for my column, was the only UFC Prelim fight to ever lose TV viewers. That hurt the pay-per-view buy rate, it hurt Andre Winner's career, it hurt lightweight Joe Lauzon – who had an amazing performance immediately after Lentz's effort, which fewer people witnessed because of Lentz – and it hurt the sport as a whole. No one watching that Lentz fight was entertained, no one turned to their buddy and screamed 'Damn! This fight is so awesome! He's holding the hell out of him!' I would never presume to speak for the UFC, but I can't see Lentz getting any more prime time opportunities anytime soon."

Former UFC welterweight number one contender Dan Hardy fires back at critics on his Nottingham blog after his anti-wrestling comments ticked off everyone from Nate Marquardt to Yahoo Sports. "The Outlaw" was vocal about the emerging trend in mixed martial arts that favors wrestlers who can disrupt their opponent's gameplan with frequent takedowns, leading to a decision win without actually engaging and even cites Nik Lentz by name. Is the Brit leading the charge of frustrated fans? Or alienating them with his shoot-from-the-hip approach? What's your take?