Who wins the standup, Bisping or GSP?

It’s a silly question. True MMA is multifactorial. Take out grappling and takedowns and this is kickboxing. The threat of a takedown impacts striking.

So in a pure kickboxing match, we have no idea because neither man has competed under K1 rules.
 
Bisping

But Georges jab just might finish off that glass eye.

tumblr_migvxv5Lsw1rqlq4no1_500.gif
 
If anyone in this thread legitimately thinks gsp has good striking then they dont know shit about the sport
 
Bisping won't be able to get a lot going against GSP's riddum.
 
Bisping but hopefully Georges has the jab to close the other eye like he did to Koscheck.
 
Probably Bisping.

I am curious to see how GSP's going to use his overhand though. He's got an underrated right hand and Bisping keeps his head about as bolt upright as it can get. If GSP can get his right hand going with any consistency, it makes his life easier.
 
Not sure good question. I think GSP may land a G bomb if Bisping is still circling to his left. Tristar gotta use that against him.
 
Bisping by reach and footwork. The real question is GSPs double leg the same as it used to be?
 
TripleG said:
If anyone in this thread legitimately thinks gsp has good striking then they dont know shit about the sport
Click to expand...

If GSP's double legs are successful it will force bisping to change his striking. The reason gsp's jab is so successful is because his opponents are scared of the double leg.

If bisping is successful at stuffing the take downs then bispings striking is going to mess GSP up.

I would say if you don't think gsp's well rounded striking is good you don't know gsp. He knocked out Matt Hughes, a hall of fame fighter with a head kick for god sakes. He's landed more strikes that any fighter in ufc.
 
I am going with Georges on this one. The power will be Michaels, but GSP will have the speed. The difference for me and the biggest problem that Bisping will be facing is balancing his ability to commit to his striking, while constantly defending the takedown.

GSP has a pretty good read on Bisping, Mike is trying to goad St. Pierre into keeping this fight a war on the feet. Not going to work, Georges is the most calculated fighter in the history of MMA, and he has had four years to plan his comeback, the guy is not going to abandon his bread and butter that this point. If Mike is constantly defending the takedown, it is going to affect his ability to exchange. Look for Georges to mix in combinations, with takedown attempts. This strategy will keep Bisping on his back foot and will impede any offense the Brit hopes to string together.

A lot will depend on what GSP 2.0 looks like, especially after 4 years and 15lbs. But I really think GSP would have pulled the plug on his comeback if he was markedly slower or diminished. GSP 49-46, in a fight that will take place on the ground and standing.
 
GSP1978 said:
It’s a silly question. True MMA is multifactorial. Take out grappling and takedowns and this is kickboxing. The threat of a takedown impacts striking.

So in a pure kickboxing match, we have no idea because neither man has competed under K1 rules.
Click to expand...

obviously you have to consider the factors. I'm not saying who would win in a kickboxing match, I'm asking who will win the standup with all things considered (even with the takedown threat).
 
The more I think of how this fight is gonna play out hte more I think GSP is screwed.

Bisping arguably outstruck Anderson Silva. Lasted 5 rounds at least. GSPs not gonna beat him standing.

And -- he did lose the first fight against Luke. But Bisping can defend takedowns against guys like Luke, Weidman, etc. to a competent extent. How's a both knees-shot 35 year old 5 year retired smaller GSP gonna do it?
 
If anyone in this thread legitimately doesn't thinks gsp has good striking then they dont know shit about the sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,057
Messages
55,464,110
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top