Thoughts on the WW division. . .

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Thoughts on the WW division. . .
« Previous Page
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:03:07PM

Posted by ncordless

In seeding the tourney, I am not really basing it on their recent won/loss record so much as who I think the best 8 fighters are. I think the 8 guys I listed would beat the others not listed. As far as a fighter losing their last two getting a title shot, the tournament would take care of that. If it's for the title, the two finalists will have won their last two fights against top competition. If it is for a title shot, they eventual title contender will have gone 3-0 against the best.



Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.

At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.

The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.
Kpro
3/4/11 10:17:37PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.

At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.

The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.



But the Pirates managing to beat the Indians and Royals in order while the Red Sox drop to the Yankees and Phillies in order kind of makes a playoff analogy inaccurate if the level of competition is miles apart. You have to take into account their full body of work, not their last 2 games.

Dan Hardy just lost to GSP and Condit
Martin Kampmann just lost to Shields and Sanchez
Brian Foster just beat Forrest Petz and Matt Brown

I have Hardy or Kampmann over Foster any day in any WW tourney and thats 0-2 versus 2-0. In the same way you wouldn't say the Pirates are better than the Red Sox in the above analogy.
ncordless
3/4/11 10:20:13PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by ncordless

In seeding the tourney, I am not really basing it on their recent won/loss record so much as who I think the best 8 fighters are. I think the 8 guys I listed would beat the others not listed. As far as a fighter losing their last two getting a title shot, the tournament would take care of that. If it's for the title, the two finalists will have won their last two fights against top competition. If it is for a title shot, they eventual title contender will have gone 3-0 against the best.



Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.

At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.

The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.



I guess we are looking at it a different way, the tournament would be where the fighter earns it. There are no such things as seasons in MMA, so trying to say who has earned it lately is way more difficult. Is Anthony Johnson getting subbed by Koschek and then not fighting for a year and a half more deserving than a guy like Kampmann who has had two close losses against top-flight competition? If Shields loses to GSP, is his recent record which includes wins against top WWs and MWs worse than Kim's success against the likes of Amir, Matt Brown, and Nate Diaz?

I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:23:38PM

Posted by Kpro


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Be that as it may, I'm old school. You wouldn't put a team in the playoffs that didn't earn it and I wouldn't put someone coming off of two losses in the MMA "playoffs," either.

At the end of the day, your job is to win. It doesn't matter what your talent level is, if you're not winning, you're not competing.

The Yankees should, theoretically, win the World Series most years based on their talent and ability to purchase players, but they don't.



But the Pirates managing to beat the Indians and Royals in order while the Red Sox drop to the Yankees and Phillies in order kind of makes a playoff analogy inaccurate if the level of competition is miles apart. You have to take into account their full body of work, not their last 2 games.

Dan Hardy just lost to GSP and Condit
Martin Kampmann just lost to Shields and Sanchez
Brian Foster just beat Forrest Petz and Matt Brown

I have Hardy or Kampmann over Foster any day in any WW tourney and thats 0-2 versus 2-0. In the same way you wouldn't say the Pirates are better than the Red Sox in the above analogy.



No, you're right, but you need to weight the percentages accordingly. Two games in baseball can be played in a day. Kampmann hasn't won a fight in 9 months. It might only be two fights, but if you weighted the "season" values accordingly, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case for Kampmann just because of something as subjective a "top ten" list.

But, using your analogy, some odd years back the Rockies and Padres had a one game playoff which the Rockies won.

You wouldn't make a case for the Padres deserving a place in the playoffs just because they had swept the season series with the Red Sox and Phillies while the Rockies didn't.

EDIT: I'm fine with Hardy and Kampmann fighting each other for an alternate spot in this hypothetical tournament, but not an outright place in it.



Kpro
3/4/11 10:25:41PM
Exactly. "Full body of work".

EDIT: I'd be fine as well with them fighting for an alternate but I think even more-so than that, the winner of Hardy/Rumble becomes number 8 with Kampmann at 9.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:26:34PM

Posted by ncordless

I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.



But they won in their division, which is PRECISELY what Kampmann hasn't done.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:29:10PM

Posted by Kpro

Exactly. "Full body of work".

EDIT: I'd be fine as well with them fighting for an alternate but I think even more-so than that, the winner of Hardy/Rumble becomes number 8 with Kampmann at 9.



Full body also includes the home stretch. Kampmann not only lost his "playoff eliminator" against Shields, he lost to a guy who's only 1-1 since returning to WW.
ncordless
3/4/11 10:33:11PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by ncordless

I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.



But they won in their division, which is PRECISELY what Kampmann hasn't done.



But there is no season (or did Foster getting kneebarred in the first by Lytle happen last season), nor are there any divisions beyond the welterweight division, which no one has won besides GSP.
Kpro
3/4/11 10:38:09PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Kpro

Exactly. "Full body of work".

EDIT: I'd be fine as well with them fighting for an alternate but I think even more-so than that, the winner of Hardy/Rumble becomes number 8 with Kampmann at 9.



Full body also includes the home stretch. Kampmann not only lost his "playoff eliminator" against Shields, he lost to a guy who's only 1-1 since returning to WW.



In baseball, is a 12-1 loss the same to you as a 7-6 13th inning loss?

There's no wrong answer; in fact my mantra has always been a loss is a loss when I compete in sports. But baseball results are more clear cut.

Do you really feel it doesn't matter how the fight ends when ranking Welterweight contenders? Can you name 10 more deserving UFC WW's skill-wise?
Pookie
3/4/11 10:38:28PM
Kampmann beat Condit who just took Hardy's spot in the tournament.

Can Rumble beating Hardy justify a spot over Kampmann?
Can Hardy beating Rumble justify a spot over Condit?

BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:39:08PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by ncordless

I hadn't really thought of it as analogous to a playoff, but since you went there, the Seahawks record wasn't the best this year.



But they won in their division, which is PRECISELY what Kampmann hasn't done.



But there is no season (or did Foster getting kneebarred in the first by Lytle happen last season), nor are there any divisions beyond the welterweight division, which no one has won besides GSP.



I realize there aren't any seasons, but failing to win your last two fights should preclude you from the possibility of fighting in a tournament for the title. It doesn't matter if he WILL have fought the best and won, it matters that he's fought the best and DID NOT win prior to the opportunity.

You give rewards based on positive outcomes. You do not reward someone just because they are IN the top ten. Which, as I've stated, is a fluid and subjective concept to begin with.
Pookie
3/4/11 10:41:28PM
Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:44:55PM

Posted by Kpro

In baseball, is a 12-1 loss the same to you as a 7-6 13th inning loss?

There's no wrong answer; in fact my mantra has always been a loss is a loss when I compete in sports. But baseball results are more clear cut.

Do you really feel it doesn't matter how the fight ends when ranking Welterweight contenders? Can you name 10 more deserving UFC WW's skill-wise?



We're getting off-track here, simply put, Kampmann has no place competing for a title, tournament or otherwise, coming off of two consecutive losses.

I can't name 10 more deserving welterweights, but I also said that I don't feel an 8 man tournament is necessary for precisely this reason.

I advocate a 6 man tournament.

The UFC currently employs 49 Welterweights, I'm sure you could find a bubble fighter (to use an NCAA analogy) who is not coming off of two consecutive losses.

BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 10:47:35PM

Posted by Pookie

Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.



Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.
Pookie
3/4/11 10:51:41PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Pookie

Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.



Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.



Not even, Thiago showed he was a top fighter in his fights against Fitch and Koscheck two top fives in the tournament.

Kampmann beat Thiago and Condit. And Lost controversially to Diego and Shields. Personally i'd rank him in the top 5, as in my eyes hes 4-0 against the talent pool in the tournament and the fighters in the reserves.

Kpro
3/4/11 10:51:43PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I can't name 10 more deserving welterweights, but I also said that I don't feel an 8 man tournament is necessary for precisely this reason.

I advocate a 6 man tournament.



Posted by Kpro 36 posts ago:

----->I'd say for a 4 man tourney:
Fitch vs. Penn
Shields vs. Koscheck

with Condit vs. Alves as an alternate bout.<<<<<
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 11:14:00PM

Posted by Pookie


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Pookie

Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.



Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.



Not even, Thiago showed he was a top fighter in his fights against Fitch and Koscheck two top fives in the tournament.

Kampmann beat Thiago and Condit. And Lost controversially to Diego and Shields. Personally i'd rank him in the top 5, as in my eyes hes 4-0 against the talent pool in the tournament and the fighters in the reserves.




Thanks for making a case for the subjective nature of "top 10."

Allow me to put this in a different way. I'll phrase it two different ways.

Law

You convict a person based on the evidence, not the possibility of what they WILL do in the future. As a juror you're required to look at the facts. In this case, whether you agree with the judges or not, the facts ARE that Kampmann has two consecutive losses.

Thiago beat Koscheck but lost a UNANIMOUS decision to Fitch. Thiago is 1-3 against the possible names mentioned in this tournament.

Fact.

Kampmann is 2-2 against possible names mentioned for this tournament with one of this wins coming against someone who is 1-3 and the other win coming against someone who is 0-1 against names mentioned for this tournament.

Fact.

Kampmann's 2 wins have come against opponents who are a combined 1-4 against these people. Hardly a world beater.

Positive Reinforcement

You reward people based on actions not on the possibility of actions.

The majority of parents do not purchase video games for their children based on the POSSIBILITY of them doing certain chores. They're purchased after the chores are done.
BlueSkiesBurn
3/4/11 11:18:42PM

Posted by Kpro


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I can't name 10 more deserving welterweights, but I also said that I don't feel an 8 man tournament is necessary for precisely this reason.

I advocate a 6 man tournament.



Posted by Kpro 36 posts ago:

----->I'd say for a 4 man tourney:
Fitch vs. Penn
Shields vs. Koscheck

with Condit vs. Alves as an alternate bout.<<<<<



You asked me about 10 more deserving welterweights, not whether or not I saw that post. I saw it.

I agree with it.

My argument is against Kampmann having a spot in a tournament for the title.

Fitch, Penn, Shields, and Koscheck is fine by me. I'd actually put Alves in there before Koscheck because of the AKA refusal. Koscheck is coming off a loss and Fitch is coming off a draw. Fitch's only loss at welterweight in the UFC came to GSP. That's why I'd select Fitch over Koscheck in case people are wondering.
ncordless
3/5/11 2:34:18AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Pookie


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by Pookie

Who youve beaten in your career should matter more than who you've beaten recently because who you've beaten recently has alot to do with injuries and the UFC's Matchmaking. And thats out of a fighters hands altogether.



Using your logic Kampmann shouldn't have a place in the tournament. He's basically lost every fight against top competition with the exception of Condit. Thiago's only notable win was against Koscheck 2 years ago.



Not even, Thiago showed he was a top fighter in his fights against Fitch and Koscheck two top fives in the tournament.

Kampmann beat Thiago and Condit. And Lost controversially to Diego and Shields. Personally i'd rank him in the top 5, as in my eyes hes 4-0 against the talent pool in the tournament and the fighters in the reserves.




Thanks for making a case for the subjective nature of "top 10."

Allow me to put this in a different way. I'll phrase it two different ways.

Law

You convict a person based on the evidence, not the possibility of what they WILL do in the future. As a juror you're required to look at the facts. In this case, whether you agree with the judges or not, the facts ARE that Kampmann has two consecutive losses.

Thiago beat Koscheck but lost a UNANIMOUS decision to Fitch. Thiago is 1-3 against the possible names mentioned in this tournament.

Fact.

Kampmann is 2-2 against possible names mentioned for this tournament with one of this wins coming against someone who is 1-3 and the other win coming against someone who is 0-1 against names mentioned for this tournament.

Fact.

Kampmann's 2 wins have come against opponents who are a combined 1-4 against these people. Hardly a world beater.

Positive Reinforcement

You reward people based on actions not on the possibility of actions.

The majority of parents do not purchase video games for their children based on the POSSIBILITY of them doing certain chores. They're purchased after the chores are done.



The worst way to corrupt the law is to consider some facts and not others.

BJ Penn is 2-3-1 at WW with his only wins coming against Matt Hughes

Diego Sanchez is 1-3 against names mentioned

Brian Foster has no wins against names mentioned

Koschek's only win against names mentioned are Diego who is 1-3 against names mentioned

Anthony Johnson is 0-1 against anyone mentioned.

I could go on, but I am sure you catch the drift. Looking only at Kampmann's record, without comparing to those who would go in his place isn't a fair assessment. Also, while you are right that law is based upon evidence of what has happened, you actually harm your subjective/objective argument by using the analogy because all evidence is weighed through the subjective analysis of the jury/judge. It is impossible to prove something 100% in a court of law, instead it comes down to what the adjudicator thinks of the evidence given. Different amounts of burden of proof are set for different things, rather it be beyond a reasonable doubt, a perponderance of evidence, more likely than not, etc.

I chose 8 because I thought the field looked good. I can see the arguments for a smaller field (although a 6-man tourney is kind of bunk because of the bye rounds), but once the question is who gets the last couple spots, it can be nothing except subjective because there is no way to objectively say that one fighter's record is more deserving than the other without going to something arbitrary like "wins in a row" or something that doesn't take into account the quality of oppposition. If we are going by wins in a row, then the top seeds are Kim and Story, but that's laughable. All fights are put together with through a subjective analysis.

BlueSkiesBurn
3/5/11 2:39:53AM

Posted by ncordless

The worst way to corrupt the law is to consider some facts and not others.

BJ Penn is 2-3-1 at WW with his only wins coming against Matt Hughes

Diego Sanchez is 1-3 against names mentioned

Brian Foster has no wins against names mentioned

Koschek's only win against names mentioned are Diego who is 1-3 against names mentioned

Anthony Johnson is 0-1 against anyone mentioned.

I could go on, but I am sure you catch the drift. Looking only at Kampmann's record, without comparing to those who would go in his place isn't a fair assessment.

I chose 8 because I thought the field looked good. I can see the arguments for a smaller field (although a 6-man tourney is kind of bunk because of the bye rounds), but once if the question is who gets the last couple spots, it can be nothing except subjective because there is no way to objectively say that one fighter's record is more deserving than the other without going to something arbitrary like "wins in a row" or something that doesn't take into account the quality of oppposition. If we are going by wins in a row, then the top seeds are Kim and Story, but that's laughable. All fights are put together with through a subjective analysis.




I agree with everything you said before "I chose...", but those fighters aren't entering on a two fight losing streak.

For the record, i also agree with everything after as well.
ncordless
3/5/11 2:53:32AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by ncordless

The worst way to corrupt the law is to consider some facts and not others.

BJ Penn is 2-3-1 at WW with his only wins coming against Matt Hughes

Diego Sanchez is 1-3 against names mentioned

Brian Foster has no wins against names mentioned

Koschek's only win against names mentioned are Diego who is 1-3 against names mentioned

Anthony Johnson is 0-1 against anyone mentioned.

I could go on, but I am sure you catch the drift. Looking only at Kampmann's record, without comparing to those who would go in his place isn't a fair assessment.

I chose 8 because I thought the field looked good. I can see the arguments for a smaller field (although a 6-man tourney is kind of bunk because of the bye rounds), but once if the question is who gets the last couple spots, it can be nothing except subjective because there is no way to objectively say that one fighter's record is more deserving than the other without going to something arbitrary like "wins in a row" or something that doesn't take into account the quality of oppposition. If we are going by wins in a row, then the top seeds are Kim and Story, but that's laughable. All fights are put together with through a subjective analysis.




I agree with everything you said before "I chose...", but those fighters aren't entering on a two fight losing streak.

For the record, i also agree with everything after as well.



So 0-2 is the cut-off line? Why? What about 1-2, 0-1, or 2-1 with a loss to Ebersole, or 3-0 with wins over Matt Brown, Goulet, and Baroni?

If they didn't call it a tournament, and Kampann's next three fights were Fitch, Penn, and Shields and he won them all, would he not be deserving of a title shot subject to what other fighters have done in that time? If so, then why does calling it a tournament instead of just making the matches that way matter?
BlueSkiesBurn
3/5/11 2:58:08AM

Posted by ncordless

So 0-2 is the cut-off line? Why? What about 1-2, 0-1, or 2-1 with a loss to Ebersole, or 3-0 with wins over Matt Brown, Goulet, and Baroni?

If they didn't call it a tournament, and Kampann's next three fights were Fitch, Penn, and Shields and he won them all, would he not be deserving of a title shot subject to what other fighters have done in that time? If so, then why does calling it a tournament instead of just making the matches that way matter?



YOU introduced the term "tournament."

Kampmann doesn't deserve a fight against Fitch, Penn, OR Shields right now. He's rocking a two fight losing streak. Keep in mind, I'm saying this about a fighter I LOVE.

Assuming your argument, he wouldn't get a fight against either of those guys right now. He would need to work his way up to them.

Either way you hack it; tournament or straight fights, Kampmann doesn't deserve any of the aforementioned names because he's lost two in a row.

I don't see anyone making this same case for Machida. Would you give him Jones or Rashad at this point?
ncordless
3/5/11 3:11:18AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by ncordless

So 0-2 is the cut-off line? Why? What about 1-2, 0-1, or 2-1 with a loss to Ebersole, or 3-0 with wins over Matt Brown, Goulet, and Baroni?

If they didn't call it a tournament, and Kampann's next three fights were Fitch, Penn, and Shields and he won them all, would he not be deserving of a title shot subject to what other fighters have done in that time? If so, then why does calling it a tournament instead of just making the matches that way matter?



YOU introduced the term "tournament."

Kampmann doesn't deserve a fight against Fitch, Penn, OR Shields right now. He's rocking a two fight losing streak. Keep in mind, I'm saying this about a fighter I LOVE.

Assuming your argument, he wouldn't get a fight against either of those guys right now. He would need to work his way up to them.

Either way you hack it; tournament or straight fights, Kampmann doesn't deserve any of the aforementioned names because he's lost two in a row.

I don't see anyone making this same case for Machida. Would you give him Jones or Rashad at this point?



I think a Rashad/Machida fight would be a reasonable match at this point. And I would favor Machida again.

I could definitely see Kampmann matched up with either of those three, considering none of them will be coming off a win either. I think any of those matches would be a lot better than throwing a 2-0 guy like Kim, Foster, or Story in there.

I also kind of find it kind of funny that the word tournament changes things so much. The reality is if you go back and retrace the fights that lead to titles, it is like a constant tournament. Fighters lose and go back to the end of the line, but they get back through a series of elimination matches. Take Koschek for instance. He got KTFO by Paulo Thiago, but then he strung some wins together that led him to a title shot. If he'd have lost to Anthony Johnson or Paul Daley, they would have taken his place in the title run. Unless his last name is Fitch, a fighter is always 2-3 top quality opponents away from a title shot.
State_Champ
3/5/11 8:40:03AM

Posted by Hendo67


Posted by State_Champ

Thoughts:

I hope GSP doesn't vacate and instead rules the WW as long as he can.


I hope he does, i don't want to see him flutter between 185/170 and fight once a year.

I'd rather GSP vacate, leaving the WW division the best in the world, than fight the same cycle of 3 fighters over and over and over again.



I don't want to see him move to 185 though. So he wouldn't be fluttering at all in my proposed scenario.

AchillesHeel
3/5/11 8:57:51AM

Posted by ncordless

In the past week, instead of the clarity that Penn/Fitch, Kampmann/Sanchez, and the ill-fated Condit/Lytle was supposed to instill in the division, we have a jumbled mess. Add to that the rumors of GSP moving up to 185lb. if he wins against Shields, and there seems to be a cluster@#$% at WW.

Diego v Fitch or Penn seems the most likely title eliminator/championship match at this point. But Diego has fought both of them and lost within the last few years, so it seems like they would be a little counterproductive. Maybe a Diego/Condit fight is in order? That's a possibility. But are Diego and Condit really the best, most deserving guys out there right now?


If GSP wins and then moves up temporarily or permanently, I'd love to see them set up a "tourney" with Diego, Kampmann, Fitch, BJ, Condit, Alves, Koschek, and Shields. The schedules should work, and it would be one of if not the best tourney fields. They wouldn't even have to call it a tourney, just match them up in a way that it is.

However, I doubt that happens. But I really have no idea what will!

Give me some thoughts and predictions on the WW division.


I think Dana White still turns up his nose at the idea of an official tournament, and everyone else has covered the fantasy brackets pretty well already. My guess is that BJ Penn and Jon Fitch are penciled in for a rematch, but that the UFC wants to see what happens with GSP and Jake Shields.

Dana White said in a recent interview - I think it was with Ariel Helwani - that if Shields defeats GSP, those two will most likely get an immediate rematch. Like everyone else, I'll be floored if Shields defeats GSP. White also said that GSP vs. Silva is still "pure fantasy."

If GSP defeats Shields and vacates the belt, Penn vs Fitch in a 5-rounder for the championship seems like a no-brainer to me. I won't be surprised to see a rematch for them, whether it's 3 rounds or 5.

Other matchups I would make:
- Diego Sanchez vs Carlos Condit
- Josh Koscheck vs Dong Hyun Kim
- Matt Hughes vs Brian Ebersole
- Mike Pierce vs Ricardo Almeida
- Martin Kampmann vs Jake Ellenberger
- Mike Pyle vs Paulo Thiago


EDIT: Rick Story is fighting Thiago Alves, John Hathaway is fighting Kris McCray, and Nate Diaz is fighting Rory MacDonald. I adjusted my matchups accordingly.
AchillesHeel
3/5/11 9:14:03AM
Brian Foster, DaMarques Johnson, Anthony Waldberger, Amir Sadollah, Claude Patrick, and Sean Pierson are all coming off wins and could be given a tougher opponent in their next fight.

Johnny Hendricks and Carlos Eduardo Rocha are coming off a loss, but probably deserve a decent matchup.

I don't know the status of Matt Serra, Chris Lytle, Mike Swick, or Karo Parisyan.
prozacnation1978
3/6/11 10:17:27AM
I do hope and think that if gsp beats shields
He needs to slowly move up to middleweight
And have silva move up to light heavy

Welter should do a four man tournament

Rematch of fitch vs penn
And kim vs condit.

Winner for title fight year end fight card
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Topics