GSP getting trained by the best!

Training
61

[quote]humble wrote:

To put it simply, Muay Thai devotes everything into every strike. They don’t box you, they punch you. They don’t kick you, they commit their own well being to destroying yours.

MMA fighters fight in preservation mode and hence why they cannot pull off the devastating power that Muay Thai or boxing purists can.

They don’t train their athleticism to transition between the pureness of each style but rather focus on half efforts of each style.

I miss the devotion and commitment to techniques like Mark Coleman driving you until he reefs you to the ground. Like a Gracie allowing themselves to get beaten to a pulp in total commitment to being able to grab and tear off your limb, like a Pedro Rizzo who is going to throw his last milligram of weight into thudding your thing to a dead pulp. The lacking commitment to technique is what I dislike and it is not reserved to Muay Thai but all other respectable arts.

[/quote]
In the last few years, I have found myself relatively bored watching MMA (particularly UFC title matches). At the same time, I still find any of the single disciplines entertaining.
All to say - your post verbalizes exactly my thoughts.

62

[quote]rundymc wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
And then he Barbosa got dropped by Jamie Varner.[/quote]

And your point? [/quote]

He’s a massive pussy and I would humiliate him in a thumb war. [/quote]

Hahaha love it![/quote]
my point is that the striking disparity most fans think exists doesn’t[/quote]

Uhh yeah it does

how the fuck does Barboza getting caught prove that?
[/quote]

Precisely. When you fight, on occasion, you get knocked the fuck out. That’s life.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, Edson pretty much got dominated in the standup by a very sharp Jamie Varner in that fight. That said, I’m still not sure what the original point was… Perhaps that Edson is not as good a striker as that GIF would lead you to believe?[/quote]
My point is that mma striking is underrated. Everyone acts like a Tyrone Spong is going to come in and decimate people, they thought the same thing about about Edson. The striking gap isn’t there though imo. We saw this with the K-1 vs mma show a while back and with Overeem winning the grand prix.

63

[quote]treco wrote:

[quote]humble wrote:

To put it simply, Muay Thai devotes everything into every strike. They don’t box you, they punch you. They don’t kick you, they commit their own well being to destroying yours.

MMA fighters fight in preservation mode and hence why they cannot pull off the devastating power that Muay Thai or boxing purists can.

They don’t train their athleticism to transition between the pureness of each style but rather focus on half efforts of each style.

I miss the devotion and commitment to techniques like Mark Coleman driving you until he reefs you to the ground. Like a Gracie allowing themselves to get beaten to a pulp in total commitment to being able to grab and tear off your limb, like a Pedro Rizzo who is going to throw his last milligram of weight into thudding your thing to a dead pulp. The lacking commitment to technique is what I dislike and it is not reserved to Muay Thai but all other respectable arts.

[/quote]
In the last few years, I have found myself relatively bored watching MMA (particularly UFC title matches). At the same time, I still find any of the single disciplines entertaining.
All to say - your post verbalizes exactly my thoughts.[/quote]

x2

Great post humble. I think that commitment to technique is one of the reasons I like to watch fighters like Rousey, Palhares or Penn. Each has their own idea of how they want their fights to go and commit to them. Granted, of course, it doesn’t always work out.

64

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]rundymc wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
And then he Barbosa got dropped by Jamie Varner.[/quote]

And your point? [/quote]

He’s a massive pussy and I would humiliate him in a thumb war. [/quote]

Hahaha love it![/quote]
my point is that the striking disparity most fans think exists doesn’t[/quote]

Uhh yeah it does

how the fuck does Barboza getting caught prove that?
[/quote]

Precisely. When you fight, on occasion, you get knocked the fuck out. That’s life.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, Edson pretty much got dominated in the standup by a very sharp Jamie Varner in that fight. That said, I’m still not sure what the original point was… Perhaps that Edson is not as good a striker as that GIF would lead you to believe?[/quote]
My point is that mma striking is underrated. Everyone acts like a Tyrone Spong is going to come in and decimate people, they thought the same thing about about Edson. The striking gap isn’t there though imo. We saw this with the K-1 vs mma show a while back and with Overeem winning the grand prix. [/quote]

Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. What you maybe don’t realise about Varner, which I only found out recently myself, is that he was a College boxing champ. He is a strong wrestler too, but a wider ‘take down ready’ stance can only reduce ones boxing performance.

65

[quote]rundymc wrote:

x2

Great post humble. I think that commitment to technique is one of the reasons I like to watch fighters like Rousey, Palhares or Penn. Each has their own idea of how they want their fights to go and commit to them. Granted, of course, it doesn’t always work out.
[/quote]

Cheers bro. Exactly the point. Aside from being so damn sexy, Rousey is fucking inspiring to watch even though I have never been one to sit and watch jui jitsu tourney’s etc. I still love and appreciate her dynamic and raw committed style. Because she commits, she forces others well past their ‘half efforts’ and they find themselves stuck. I guarantee you a crazy focus on committing to punching and kicking properly will change the game yet again.
The other two you mentioned are also exciting to watch win or lose. It’s just that whole ‘put it out there on the line’ attitude that makes people watch-able and loveable in the fight game.

This is why Gatti vs Ward won so much praise and to this day is an all time classic of battles. Total commitment from both guys despite not being the absolute purest and best technically, still totally committed to their efforts

66

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]rundymc wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
And then he Barbosa got dropped by Jamie Varner.[/quote]

And your point? [/quote]

He’s a massive pussy and I would humiliate him in a thumb war. [/quote]

Hahaha love it![/quote]
my point is that the striking disparity most fans think exists doesn’t[/quote]

Uhh yeah it does

how the fuck does Barboza getting caught prove that?
[/quote]

Precisely. When you fight, on occasion, you get knocked the fuck out. That’s life.[/quote]

Absolutely. However, Edson pretty much got dominated in the standup by a very sharp Jamie Varner in that fight. That said, I’m still not sure what the original point was… Perhaps that Edson is not as good a striker as that GIF would lead you to believe?[/quote]
My point is that mma striking is underrated. Everyone acts like a Tyrone Spong is going to come in and decimate people, they thought the same thing about about Edson. The striking gap isn’t there though imo. We saw this with the K-1 vs mma show a while back and with Overeem winning the grand prix. [/quote]

Edson has been decimating people though…

Are you purposely being obtuse?

He was undefeated coming into the UFC, and has demolished all of his opponents with the exception of Varner via striking. He destroyed Terry Etim.

Jamie Varner rushed him early and caught him, shit happens. Being a great striker doesn’t make you invulnerable.

And varner is no weak striker himself, he’s got very good boxing as far as MMA is concerned. Let’s not forget that Barboza has only had 10 MMA fights, varner, a veteran of 30 something fights - what do you need him to achieve for you to acknowledge that he’s a better striker than 99% of his opponents? Does he need to land a liu kang bicycle kick???

I don’t know why you would use overeem as an example. Overeem is a very good striker, certainly not an example i would use to say there is no gap in the striking ability of most performers.

67

Kudos to Furo for the UFC: Primetime video. It makes UFC 154 look like the battle of the nice guys!

68

I can’t seem to find a quality version, but I think everyone here would enjoy the TUF 12 Episodes featuring Jean-Charles Skarbowsky. He was called in by GSP to coach his team in Muay Thai. He actually entered the gym smelling of booze. That’s Muay Thai style if ever I saw it.

He looked outa shape, had a bit of a gut and was constantly drinking but he schooled the youngsters. And GSP warned his team then too, ‘don’t get too hot and heavy with Jean-Charles cause he’ll kick your arse’. It’s the same “Mai pen lai” or “no worries” attitude Thais have about most things. But these guys are all very good at their trade, which happens to be kicking the shit out of other guys.

69

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Edson has been decimating people though…

Are you purposely being obtuse?

He was undefeated coming into the UFC, and has demolished all of his opponents with the exception of Varner via striking. He destroyed Terry Etim.
[/quote]

You sure about this? I remember a (admittedly fantastic) 29-28 over Njoukani, an SD against fucking Ross Pearson and a (great again) back and forth contest with Etim before the sensational KO.

Decimating? No, not even close. He’s exciting to watch, but he’s finished 1 of his 4 UFC fights and has yet to win by two rounds.

70

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Edson has been decimating people though…

Are you purposely being obtuse?

He was undefeated coming into the UFC, and has demolished all of his opponents with the exception of Varner via striking. He destroyed Terry Etim.
[/quote]

You sure about this? I remember a (admittedly fantastic) 29-28 over Njoukani, an SD against fucking Ross Pearson and a (great again) back and forth contest with Etim before the sensational KO.

Decimating? No, not even close. He’s exciting to watch, but he’s finished 1 of his 4 UFC fights and has yet to win by two rounds.[/quote]

Yup, Varner was doing pretty well too up to the K.O.

Etim WAS getting picked apart though, or so I remember, just not brutally beaten.

That said, Edson isn’t a wrecking machine. He looks great when he wins, and is flashy as hell, but he’s no Jose Aldo hahah.

71

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.
[/quote]

Then… we agree?

But, remember, boxers aren’t required to be good at anything other than stand up striking. It’s to be expected that entering into an MMA fight they will be at a disadvantage. Mixed Martial Artists are required to be good at numerous disciplines, but I would say MMA fighters tend to be Jacks of All Trades and masters of none. With exceptions in BJJ and wrestling, where many of the octagon’s fighters really are outstanding.

A personal list of my favourite exceptional boxers in the octagon are as follows:

Michael Bisping, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Takanori Gomi.

It’s not very extensive, but I watched these guys really box beyond just setting up take downs.

I believe Barboza has a black belt in BJJ, but I haven’t really seen him use it yet.

72

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.
[/quote]

Then… we agree?

But, remember, boxers aren’t required to be good at anything other than stand up striking. It’s to be expected that entering into an MMA fight they will be at a disadvantage. Mixed Martial Artists are required to be good at numerous disciplines, but I would say MMA fighters tend to be Jacks of All Trades and masters of none. With exceptions in BJJ and wrestling, where many of the octagon’s fighters really are outstanding.

A personal list of my favourite exceptional boxers in the octagon are as follows:

Michael Bisping, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Takanori Gomi. [/quote]

I think so, assuming we both think that being a specialist is preferable in a specialist sport, and jack-of-all-trades is an advantage in a sport that consists of many trades.

Odd list of fighters in my eyes. Having only watched these fighters in MMA, I’d say Diaz and Penn are two excellent pure boxers in an MMA context (I’ve no idea how either would fare or have fared in a proper boxing match), whereas I find Gomi a completely one-dimensional head hunter. Sure he’s a ‘boxer’ in the sense that he has no kicks, takedowns or ground game of note, but I wouldn’t call him a good one, and that circling to his right pretty much leaves him out of ideas. Maybe I just don’t see the nuances of it though.

Bisping is just shit wall to wall.

73

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.
[/quote]

Then… we agree?

But, remember, boxers aren’t required to be good at anything other than stand up striking. It’s to be expected that entering into an MMA fight they will be at a disadvantage. Mixed Martial Artists are required to be good at numerous disciplines, but I would say MMA fighters tend to be Jacks of All Trades and masters of none. With exceptions in BJJ and wrestling, where many of the octagon’s fighters really are outstanding.

A personal list of my favourite exceptional boxers in the octagon are as follows:

Michael Bisping, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Takanori Gomi. [/quote]

I think so, assuming we both think that being a specialist is preferable in a specialist sport, and jack-of-all-trades is an advantage in a sport that consists of many trades.

Odd list of fighters in my eyes. Having only watched these fighters in MMA, I’d say Diaz and Penn are two excellent pure boxers in an MMA context (I’ve no idea how either would fare or have fared in a proper boxing match), whereas I find Gomi a completely one-dimensional head hunter. Sure he’s a ‘boxer’ in the sense that he has no kicks, takedowns or ground game of note, but I wouldn’t call him a good one, and that circling to his right pretty much leaves him out of ideas. Maybe I just don’t see the nuances of it though.

Bisping is just shit wall to wall.[/quote]

“Jack Slack” (pen-name) has some decent articles on Gomi’s striking over at bloody elbow. I think he talks about the circling right thing at one point, check them out.

74

[quote]rundymc wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.
[/quote]

Then… we agree?

But, remember, boxers aren’t required to be good at anything other than stand up striking. It’s to be expected that entering into an MMA fight they will be at a disadvantage. Mixed Martial Artists are required to be good at numerous disciplines, but I would say MMA fighters tend to be Jacks of All Trades and masters of none. With exceptions in BJJ and wrestling, where many of the octagon’s fighters really are outstanding.

A personal list of my favourite exceptional boxers in the octagon are as follows:

Michael Bisping, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Takanori Gomi. [/quote]

I think so, assuming we both think that being a specialist is preferable in a specialist sport, and jack-of-all-trades is an advantage in a sport that consists of many trades.

Odd list of fighters in my eyes. Having only watched these fighters in MMA, I’d say Diaz and Penn are two excellent pure boxers in an MMA context (I’ve no idea how either would fare or have fared in a proper boxing match), whereas I find Gomi a completely one-dimensional head hunter. Sure he’s a ‘boxer’ in the sense that he has no kicks, takedowns or ground game of note, but I wouldn’t call him a good one, and that circling to his right pretty much leaves him out of ideas. Maybe I just don’t see the nuances of it though.

Bisping is just shit wall to wall.[/quote]

“Jack Slack” (pen-name) has some decent articles on Gomi’s striking over at bloody elbow. I think he talks about the circling right thing at one point, check them out.
[/quote]

I will. Thanks.

75

I am curious where anyone rates Junior Dos Santos as a boxer. He does amazingly well with little more in a mixed skills environment.

76

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.
[/quote]

Then… we agree?

But, remember, boxers aren’t required to be good at anything other than stand up striking. It’s to be expected that entering into an MMA fight they will be at a disadvantage. Mixed Martial Artists are required to be good at numerous disciplines, but I would say MMA fighters tend to be Jacks of All Trades and masters of none. With exceptions in BJJ and wrestling, where many of the octagon’s fighters really are outstanding.

A personal list of my favourite exceptional boxers in the octagon are as follows:

Michael Bisping, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Takanori Gomi. [/quote]

I think so, assuming we both think that being a specialist is preferable in a specialist sport, and jack-of-all-trades is an advantage in a sport that consists of many trades.

Odd list of fighters in my eyes. Having only watched these fighters in MMA, I’d say Diaz and Penn are two excellent pure boxers in an MMA context (I’ve no idea how either would fare or have fared in a proper boxing match), whereas I find Gomi a completely one-dimensional head hunter. Sure he’s a ‘boxer’ in the sense that he has no kicks, takedowns or ground game of note, but I wouldn’t call him a good one, and that circling to his right pretty much leaves him out of ideas. Maybe I just don’t see the nuances of it though.

Bisping is just shit wall to wall.[/quote]

The truth is though that many of the exceptional competitive wrestlers and/or BJJ guys aren’t all that successful in MMA (at least nowadays, back in the early stages yeah). The guys who really excel are the ones who can do the most things the best. GSP has great MMA wrestling, very good submissions and sub defense, and decent striking (which has improved lately due to focusing heavily on it), Anderson has great MMA striking, very good takedown defense, and very good submission skills on the ground, Jones has excellent wrestling, very effective striking, and very good submissions, in fact, probably the most one dimensional champion in the UFC right now is Dos Santos, and I wouldn’t say he’s necessarily outstanding at anything. He is a good boxer though who knows how to use his reach effectively, has good takedown defense, and good submission skills (at least according to Nog).

Being one dimensional (no matter how good you are at it) just doesn’t win titles in MMA anymore.

77

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]Khaine wrote:

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Out of the context of MMA, MMA style striking is crap. If a boxer/kickboxer fought in the ring with a typical MMA stance, poor MMA hand defence, poor kicking technique, poor boxing foot work - that I see in the cage - he would join the ranks of the mediocre. Well, at least most of the time. [/quote]

Nah, in the context of MMA, MMA striking is excellent. In the context of boxing, it would be shite. But then again, in the context of MMA, pure boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai is also crap (with very very few exceptions).

This is hardly surprising though, as they’re different sports.
[/quote]

Then… we agree?

But, remember, boxers aren’t required to be good at anything other than stand up striking. It’s to be expected that entering into an MMA fight they will be at a disadvantage. Mixed Martial Artists are required to be good at numerous disciplines, but I would say MMA fighters tend to be Jacks of All Trades and masters of none. With exceptions in BJJ and wrestling, where many of the octagon’s fighters really are outstanding.

A personal list of my favourite exceptional boxers in the octagon are as follows:

Michael Bisping, Nick Diaz, BJ Penn, Takanori Gomi. [/quote]

I think so, assuming we both think that being a specialist is preferable in a specialist sport, and jack-of-all-trades is an advantage in a sport that consists of many trades.

Odd list of fighters in my eyes. Having only watched these fighters in MMA, I’d say Diaz and Penn are two excellent pure boxers in an MMA context (I’ve no idea how either would fare or have fared in a proper boxing match), whereas I find Gomi a completely one-dimensional head hunter. Sure he’s a ‘boxer’ in the sense that he has no kicks, takedowns or ground game of note, but I wouldn’t call him a good one, and that circling to his right pretty much leaves him out of ideas. Maybe I just don’t see the nuances of it though.

Bisping is just shit wall to wall.[/quote]

The truth is though that many of the exceptional competitive wrestlers and/or BJJ guys aren’t all that successful in MMA (at least nowadays, back in the early stages yeah). The guys who really excel are the ones who can do the most things the best. GSP has great MMA wrestling, very good submissions and sub defense, and decent striking (which has improved lately due to focusing heavily on it), Anderson has great MMA striking, very good takedown defense, and very good submission skills on the ground, Jones has excellent wrestling, very effective striking, and very good submissions, in fact, probably the most one dimensional champion in the UFC right now is Dos Santos, and I wouldn’t say he’s necessarily outstanding at anything. He is a good boxer though who knows how to use his reach effectively, has good takedown defense, and good submission skills (at least according to Nog).

Being one dimensional (no matter how good you are at it) just doesn’t win titles in MMA anymore.[/quote]

So yeah, we’re 100% in agreement.

78

[quote]DeadKong wrote:
I am curious where anyone rates Junior Dos Santos as a boxer. He does amazingly well with little more in a mixed skills environment. [/quote]

Since we’ve seen him do nothing BUT box, I’m vastly curious to see how he’d do against someone who has a more varied skill set and really brings it to him, like Overeem (kicks, clinch, knees, etc.), or Velasquez again (since, as much as you have to give JDS credit for landing the shot, a fight that ends that early before anything else happens is a bit of a fluke. I’ll bet it looks much different in their upcoming fight, and I think Velasquez takes it).

79

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]DeadKong wrote:
I am curious where anyone rates Junior Dos Santos as a boxer. He does amazingly well with little more in a mixed skills environment. [/quote]

Since we’ve seen him do nothing BUT box, I’m vastly curious to see how he’d do against someone who has a more varied skill set and really brings it to him, like Overeem (kicks, clinch, knees, etc.), or Velasquez again (since, as much as you have to give JDS credit for landing the shot, a fight that ends that early before anything else happens is a bit of a fluke. I’ll bet it looks much different in their upcoming fight, and I think Velasquez takes it).[/quote]

I’m not so sure that it won’t be a repeat of their first fight. Velasquez got dropped several times by jabs in his fight with Congo. I honestly think he might just have a glass jaw. If he can get a hold of Junior without taking a clean shot on the way in then I could get interesting, but I don’t know that he’ll be able to do that.

80

The latest primetime: UFC Primetime video for 'St. Pierre vs. Condit' (Episode three) - MMAmania.com

Who have you guys got in this? I think it will be GSP, though it will be interesting to see to what his extent his knee affects things.