“Who wants to be a one-hit wonder?"

Her claim to fame in the UFC was defeating Rousey. Holm was unable to defend her belt in her first and only title defence. the definition of a one-hit wonder.

"You’re not a real champion until you’ve defended your title." - Matt Hughes 9-Time UFC Welterweight Champion

lol that's what Matt Hughes said because he got his ass kicked by a LW BJ who stole his WW title and left the UFC. One hit wonders are songs. That's like saying because Shogun couldn't defend his title once he's a one hit wonder when he was the best 205er in Pride also or any other champion for that matter.
 
I've already answered that. Only a couple of those nine attempts were initiated by Tate which are the ones that really count.
Maybe 'taking down at will' sounds a little harsh.
It just so happened that Miesha was fully capable of taking Holm down when she finally had too.

It's not harsh. It's inaccurate. Miesha would have taken her down within the first few seconds if she could have. That was their plan- lure her and then grapple. It was a good plan.

I'm not saying Miesha doesn't deserve the win, because she does. But one can honor her victory even more so by acknowledging the striking prowess of her opponent. Both of them worked furiously to bring the fight to their own respective strengths. Both did very well. Holly was going to win. Miesha outmaneuvered her in the last round.

It's not difficult to be objective.
 
Wow this place is so hostile. It's just a question fellas.

Besides maintaining distance how else could she have prevented that choke?
What was Holm's mistake in round 5 that she was able to avoid in round 2?
Did Tate do anything differently in round 5 or was Holm's inexperience more to do with it?

Holly's mistake wasn't that she was taken down. But scramble to get up on her feet. When she tried to stand up. She put wrong foot on the mat first. She should just stay in half guard maybe.
In
 
Yea no doubt. Holly beat herself more then tate beat her.

I don't think it can really be said someone beat themselves unless the loss was a result of them fighting a stupid fight.

Holly was strategic and fought the fight she should have. She lost because she wasn't able to stuff a TD and her grappling isn't that great at the elite level not because she 'beat herself'
 
Not bad... 6 years here, and just handed out my 2nd ignore. I can take even the most retarded Ronda, and Conor fans. But, guys like this asshole ???
 
damn that's a tight ass rear naked choke, Holm when to sleep real fast that said she does have the ability to win that belt back
 
It's not harsh. It's inaccurate. Miesha would have taken her down within the first few seconds if she could have. That was their plan- lure her and then grapple. It was a good plan.

I'm not saying Miesha doesn't deserve the win, because she does. But one can honor her victory even more so by acknowledging the striking prowess of her opponent. Both of them worked furiously to bring the fight to their own respective strengths. Both did very well. Holly was going to win. Miesha outmaneuvered her in the last round.

It's not difficult to be objective.

True, but sometimes you really need that sense of urgency to commit to the take down or else it is very tempting to stay on the outside all the time, especially if you are facing a dangerous striker of Hollie Holm's caliber. That sense of urgency only really came to Tate in the last round.
No ones denying Holms' striking prowess. However, a well rounded MMA fighter she is not.
 
At least Ronda's opponents all have wikipedia entries :D

You said she didn't do that to anyone other than Ronda which is false now you're backtracking. Also those chicks did a lot better than Ronda did lol
 
Last edited:
True, but sometimes you really need that sense of urgency to commit to the take down or else it is very tempting to stay on the outside all the time, especially if you are facing a dangerous striker of Hollie Holm's caliber. That sense of urgency only really came to Tate in the last round.
No ones denying Holms' striking prowess. However, a well rounded MMA fighter she is not.
You're not really saying anything concrete here.

You're basically saying "Holly has a weakness." That's true. Holly may not be well rounded, but another way to put it would be to say she is *specialized*. Miesha is not specialized. She's well rounded.

Same thing with Weidman. Weidman is one of the most well-rounded fighters in the history of the sport. But he fought someone who had one or two specializations, and it was a very difficult matchup for him.
 
You said she didn't do that to anyone other than Ronda which is false now you're backtracking
Yes, my bad. I should have written UFC calibre.
The point still stands though. When I criticize a major league player I don't literally mean he would suck in the pee wee leagues also.
 
Holly holm is the only real fighter in wmma. She's the most well rounded. She is the champion UFC needs. She is more likeable and marketable than Ronda rousey. Nobody will hold the bet but her till she retires. They are lucky she's mid 30s

All lies sherdog told me over the last few months. She's a good fighter and should contend for the next year but people's hate of Ronda made y'all think she was invincible
 
You can't judge whether something was a one hit wonder until there's evidence that it can't repeat success again. Basic logic should be applied to a post before sending it.

It was a very close fight, where Holly was 2 minutes from defending her title. Tate capitalized on a mistake, which could have lead to a draw but she also ended it beautifully though, However, since Holly was winning over time she certainly has a relevant chance to win a rematch.
 
You're not really saying anything concrete here.

You're basically saying "Holly has a weakness." That's true. Holly may not be well rounded, but another way to put it would be to say she is *specialized*. Miesha is not specialized. She's well rounded.

Same thing with Weidman. Weidman is one of the most well-rounded fighters in the history of the sport. But he fought someone who had one or two specializations, and it was a very difficult matchup for him.

I do think being too specialized is Hollie's weakness. She had her 6 minutes of fame against Ronda but I don't think she can repeat that feat. Nobodies going to bullrush her again after the Rousey and Tate fights.
The best she can hope for is eking out decision wins over her competition.
And she is certainly no Machida whose striking game and take down defense comes with a very solid ground game.

And for the record when I say she can't hack it in mma I mean that she won't be champion in the ufc again even though she might be dropping chicks left and right in the bush league.
Apparently this needs to be clarified
 
Holly Holm was 30 seconds from winning the fight on points. She got too confident and too close to Tate. If she had just kept her distance. Next time it'll be a points victory for Holm.
 
Back
Top