Is Hardy really a better striker than GSP?

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: March 27, 2010 at 04:32 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

TheGreatAwakening said:
My memory of GSP's career is different from yours. I remember him obliteraing Jay Hieron standing, then tooling Hughes before setting up the finish with a headkick. I remember lots of spinning kicks and superman punches. I don't believe he started to lean so heavily on his wrestling until he realized- A. how good it really was, and B. how little danger he's in when he's on top. I think the Serra loss and the move to Jackson's camp were the primary forces behind point B.
Coming into the Serra fight he was more of an all-around wrecking machine than a dominant wrestler. It was after that fight that he trained to turn his thighs into tree trunks and started shooting first and foremost
, beginning with the Koscheck fight. After the Kos domination opened everyone's eyes to how ridiculous his ground game had gotten, he took out Hughes primarily with grappling, and then beat Serra in the most risk-averse manner imaginable.
Are you really going to pull the "Swick was coming off a concussion" card? Just call it what it was- the impressve display of crisp and heavy counter-punching and a sound chin against a decent but unspectacular opponent. That said, I agree that Hardy's hands are more "heavy" than they are "deadly" and that probably won't be good enough to stop GSP.
Click to expand...
This is the GSP, I miss seeing. The dominant, I'm going to finish you GSP, that seems to have all but disappeared. And in all honesty, I understand a desire to play it safe and grind out wins, but its a far cry from the dominant fighter that he used to be.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Sedulous
Date: March 27, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

JayJonah2384 said:
TheGreatAwakening said:
My memory of GSP's career is different from yours. I remember him obliteraing Jay Hieron standing, then tooling Hughes before setting up the finish with a headkick. I remember lots of spinning kicks and superman punches. I don't believe he started to lean so heavily on his wrestling until he realized- A. how good it really was, and B. how little danger he's in when he's on top. I think the Serra loss and the move to Jackson's camp were the primary forces behind point B.
Coming into the Serra fight he was more of an all-around wrecking machine than a dominant wrestler. It was after that fight that he trained to turn his thighs into tree trunks and started shooting first and foremost
, beginning with the Koscheck fight. After the Kos domination opened everyone's eyes to how ridiculous his ground game had gotten, he took out Hughes primarily with grappling, and then beat Serra in the most risk-averse manner imaginable.
Are you really going to pull the "Swick was coming off a concussion" card? Just call it what it was- the impressve display of crisp and heavy counter-punching and a sound chin against a decent but unspectacular opponent. That said, I agree that Hardy's hands are more "heavy" than they are "deadly" and that probably won't be good enough to stop GSP.
Click to expand...
This is the GSP, I miss seeing. The dominant, I'm going to finish you GSP, that seems to have all but disappeared. And in all honesty, I understand a desire to play it safe and grind out wins, but its a far cry from the dominant fighter that he used to be.
Click to expand...
That's BS, GSP ALWAYS goes for the finish and was just unable to do so against Fitch(almost did a few times) and Alves(he was injured in the last two rounds), credit to both of them for being tough guys. GSP's desire to finish them showed on their faces after the fight. Even against Kos he had a pretty good kimura going when round 2 ended. So to start calling GSP a "play it safe" decision fighter is totally off base. Seriously, try paying a little more attention to his fights before you formulate an opinion strong enough that you have to share it with everyone. I'm not trying to be a d--- here but it gets old hearing that kind of crap when there is no evidence of it. You can pretty much attribute his decision victories to the caliber of opponents he's been fighting most recently and not to his lack of desire to finish.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Shaun
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:03 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

Puxin said:
Does Swick have KO power? If not, then Hardy being able to take Swick's punches doesn't tell us much about Hardy's chin.
Click to expand...
Swick has the power to KO someone, he has demonstrated it several times

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: TheGreatAwakening
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:06 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

Sedulous said:
1. Obviously your memory is foggy.......
2. As for Swick, it's not well known what exactly happens to the brain when it's been concussed......
3. His game plan was also terrible though. You don't chase Hardy while swinging for the fences, he's a really good counter puncher.
Click to expand...
1. I realize that he's never been one to give up the easy win when it's been there via grappling. And if you watch his pre-UFC fights in particlar many look a lot like his current brand of domination. But he's gotten much more conservative (in the grappling vs. striking sense) since Serra than in his earlier UFC fights. Maybe it's best to describe his career in two arcs- first when he became comfortable as a striker, then when he evolved into a barrel-chested takedown machine. He's always had the athletic ability to smash most opponents via any path he chose, and the story that I'm sticking to is that in his second title reign his intent has clearly shifted, away from displaying a wide ranging skill set and towards locking up victories by the safest means available. (This isn't a very important debate but I thought I'd clarify).
2. Brain injuries certainly are a foggy subject and I wish they were taken more seriously. But I object to using a prior concussion to dismiss an opponent's works so quickly. Guys are ALWAYS recovering from recent dings of some kind. Sometimes they play a major role in a fight's outcome- Nogueira looking like a zombie against Mir comes to mind. And MAYBE a concussion played a major role in Hardy vs. Swick. But I didn't see any visual evidence of that. What I did see was sound footwork, timing and technique from Hardy. If you can tarnish that win by throwing around the word "concussion" then you can tarnish ANY win by throwing around somethng else. (No offense- if you believe that this was a big factor, fine- I'm just not willing to shrug and write that fight off because Swick got his bell rung in September).
3. It might not have been a terrific gameplan but I'm not sure what the alternative is when you face a counter-puncher who is better than you. If you can't get takedowns, and the guy stays patient......what else can you do once you lose round one but try to go get it?
We agree on one thing- St. Pierre is a machine and will probably smoke this dude to the point of making the fight boring.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Shaun
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

TheGreatAwakening said:
Sedulous said:
1. Obviously your memory is foggy.......
2. As for Swick, it's not well known what exactly happens to the brain when it's been concussed......
3. His game plan was also terrible though. You don't chase Hardy while swinging for the fences, he's a really good counter puncher.
Click to expand...
1. I realize that he's never been one to give up the easy win when it's been there via grappling. And if you watch his pre-UFC fights in particlar many look a lot like his current brand of domination. But he's gotten much more conservative (in the grappling vs. striking sense) since Serra than in his earlier UFC fights. Maybe it's best to describe his career in two arcs- first when he became comfortable as a striker, then when he evolved into a barrel-chested takedown machine. He's always had the athletic ability to smash most opponents via any path he chose, and the story that I'm sticking to is that in his second title reign his intent has clearly shifted, away from displaying a wide ranging skill set and towards locking up victories by the safest means available. (This isn't a very important debate but I thought I'd clarify).
2. Brain injuries certainly are a foggy subject and I wish they were taken more seriously. But I object to using a prior concussion to dismiss an opponent's works so quickly. Guys are ALWAYS recovering from recent dings of some kind. Sometimes they play a major role in a fight's outcome- Nogueira looking like a zombie against Mir comes to mind. And MAYBE a concussion played a major role in Hardy vs. Swick. But I didn't see any visual evidence of that. What I did see was sound footwork, timing and technique from Hardy. If you can tarnish that win by throwing around the word "concussion" then you can tarnish ANY win by throwing around somethng else. (No offense- if you believe that this was a big factor, fine- I'm just not willing to shrug and write that fight off because Swick got his bell rung in September).
3. It might not have been a terrific gameplan but I'm not sure what the alternative is when you face a counter-puncher who is better than you. If you can't get takedowns, and the guy stays patient......what else can you do once you lose round one but try to go get it?
We agree on one thing- St. Pierre is a machine and will probably smoke this dude to the point of making the fight boring.
Click to expand...
:roll:

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Sedulous
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:20 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

TheGreatAwakening said:
1. I realize that he's never been one to give up the easy win when it's been there via grappling. And if you watch his pre-UFC fights in particlar many look a lot like his current brand of domination. But he's gotten much more conservative (in the grappling vs. striking sense) since Serra than in his earlier UFC fights. Maybe it's best to describe his career in two arcs- first when he became comfortable as a striker, then when he evolved into a barrel-chested takedown machine. He's always had the athletic ability to smash most opponents via any path he chose, and the story that I'm sticking to is that in his second title reign his intent has clearly shifted, away from displaying a wide ranging skill set and towards locking up victories by the safest means available. (This isn't a very important debate but I thought I'd clarify).
Click to expand...
It's clear after having watched all of GSP's fights more than once and actually tracking every second he spent stand up and on the ground that GSP went from being primarily a grappler to favoring his striking more. Than after losing to Serra he went three straight fights grappling almost exclusively once again and in his last 3 he's blended his striking and grappling perfectly. It's very near 50/50. So I while I think it's deceptive to say he locks up victories "by the safest means available" I can't disagree with that. I would say he fights the smartest fight possible. He's uses his grappling to be more successful in his striking and his striking to be more successful in his grappling. In the mean time he looks for the finish wherever it presents itself. All in all I think we pretty much agree.
2. Brain injuries certainly are a foggy subject and I wish they were taken more seriously. But I object to using a prior concussion to dismiss an opponent's works so quickly. Guys are ALWAYS recovering from recent dings of some kind. Sometimes they play a major role in a fight's outcome- Nogueira looking like a zombie against Mir comes to mind. And MAYBE a concussion played a major role in Hardy vs. Swick. But I didn't see any visual evidence of that. What I did see was sound footwork, timing and technique from Hardy. If you can tarnish that win by throwing around the word "concussion" then you can tarnish ANY win by throwing around somethng else. (No offense- if you believe that this was a big factor, fine- I'm just not willing to shrug and write that fight off because Swick got his bell rung in September).
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to discredit Hardy's performance, I'm only discrediting his power. I think it would have been a much closer fight if Swick hadn't gotten the concussion so soon before the fight. Hardy would have landed a lot of the same shots but I don't believe they would have affected Swick the same way.
We agree on one thing- St. Pierre is a machine and will probably smoke this dude to the point of making the fight boring.
Click to expand...
Agreed but it won't be borring.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: CF3
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:41 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

look at the record. Hardy has 4 fights in the UFC... 3 decisions , 1 KO. he's indeed a nasty striker, but he isn't exactly putting dudes to sleep like Daley. of GSP's 13 UFC wins(2 loses) he's got 5 TKO's, 6 decisions, 2 subs. alot less tko's than i thought. i'm not sure what the reach difference is.....i wish UFC would post better stats. GSP has faced some very good strikers(Alves comes to mind), whether or not Hardy is a "better" striker...I don't see GSP getting overwhelmed. regardless....Very exciting fight.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: TheGreatAwakening
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:42 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

Yea I'm cool with all that.
I don't think it will be boring either so I shouldn't have said that. I think it will be an impressive performance, but with the outcome looking settled early the fight itself will likely lack tension. The ONLY thing I question is whether or not GSP truely looks very hard for the finish. I feel like when you have a guy whipped by the middle of the fight you could probably stop him if you really felt pressure to do so. Not that he'd avoid a RNC if it were there, but he seems content to stay active from the top an win convincingly. And that's his prerogative, I just happen to enjoy the BJ Penn blood-licking lunacy.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: TheGreatAwakening
Date: March 27, 2010 at 05:45 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

CF3 said:
look at the record. Hardy has 4 fights in the UFC... 3 decisions , 1 KO. he's indeed a nasty striker, but he isn't exactly putting dudes to sleep like Daley. of GSP's 13 UFC wins(2 loses) he's got 5 TKO's, 6 decisions, 2 subs. alot less tko's than i thought. i'm not sure what the reach difference is.....i wish UFC would post better stats. GSP has faced some very good strikers(Alves comes to mind), whether or not Hardy is a "better" striker...I don't see GSP getting overwhelmed. regardless....Very exciting fight.
Click to expand...
Yes, Hardy's finishing prowess is indeed being overhyped by Zuffa in an attempt to create tension- "Oh my God, GSP could go to sleep with a single mis-step!"
One thing I'll say about Alves- he's better and more dangerous than Hardy, but he came into the GSP fight already defeated (at or least he arrived at that state of mind pretty damn quicky). If he fought like he did against Koscheck his performane would've been much better.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Sedulous
Date: March 27, 2010 at 06:49 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

TheGreatAwakening said:
Yea I'm cool with all that.
I don't think it will be boring either so I shouldn't have said that. I think it will be an impressive performance, but with the outcome looking settled early the fight itself will likely lack tension. The ONLY thing I question is whether or not GSP truely looks very hard for the finish. I feel like when you have a guy whipped by the middle of the fight you could probably stop him if you really felt pressure to do so. Not that he'd avoid a RNC if it were there, but he seems content to stay active from the top an win convincingly. And that's his prerogative, I just happen to enjoy the BJ Penn blood-licking lunacy.
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say that GSP looks most often for finishes that avoid risk should they fail. You never see GSP drop down for a guillotine for example because he could end up on his back. I would definitely like to see more sub attemps from
him. I think he could create a lot of opportunities for subs from the top like an arm triangle choke.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: March 28, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

GSP outstruck Hardy. I know it was only one fight, but its highly unlikely that they will fight again, and as such, case closed.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: RearNakedSlam
Date: March 28, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

GSP didn't outstrike Hardy. There was next to no striking. How can you even attempt to make a claim like that. There were like 5 punches thrown on the feet, in 5 rounds.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
GSP landed 1 shot. Grats.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ResoluteProtector
Date: March 28, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

Oh that's right, because I said he outstruck him on the feet... :roll:
http://fightmetric.com/fights/GSP-Hardy.html

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: March 28, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/is-hardy-really-a-better-striker-than-gsp.23809/

RearNakedSlam said:
GSP didn't outstrike Hardy. There was next to no striking...
GSP landed 1 shot. Grats.
Click to expand...
How many shots did Hardy land? Nobody is claiming it was an epic standup war, but GSP got the better of the striking (regardless of how little striking there was).