Is Woodley the worst stylistic matchup for Nate in the UFC?

Definitely picking Woodley here (can’t make that more clear) but not at all.

Woodley doesn’t have the gas tank to wrestle Nate for 5 rounds. He just doesn’t. That’s why he throws 9 strikes per fight. He can’t handle any more.

He also doesn’t like to be pressured, as a lot of people already said.
 
Let's be serious for a minute. Nate is 6'1 with a large reach. He will be the bigger man on fight night. Sure, Woodley will have some muscle on him but that doesn't matter much. Nate has a chin. He can't be KOd. He has a ground game. He can't be ground and pounded. Tyrone doesn't have good leg kicks. He got lucky against Condit.

Nate has great technical boxing. He outboxed Conor McGregor. Boxing is Tyron Woodley's weakness. Nate has more power than his brother Nick. Nate could KO Tyron. Tyron leaves his chin exposed. That will be a mistake. Tyron tires out. Nate has endless cardio. Nate will have the advantage in the fifth.
 
superpunch said:
Let's be serious for a minute. Nate is 6'1 with a large reach. He will be the bigger man on fight night. Sure, Woodley will have some muscle on him but that doesn't matter much. Nate has a chin. He can't be KOd. He has a ground game. He can't be ground and pounded. Tyrone doesn't have good leg kicks. He got lucky against Condit.

Nate has great technical boxing. He outboxed Conor McGregor. Boxing is Tyron Woodley's weakness. Nate has more power than his brother Nick. Nate could KO Tyron. Tyron leaves his chin exposed. That will be a mistake. Tyron tires out. Nate has endless cardio. Nate will have the advantage in the fifth.
Click to expand...

Nate is tall yes and has a large reach... but that doesn't seem to have helped him against the likes of RDA, Henderson etc... in fact I would guess (without looking as I don't have the energy) that he has held a reach advantage in a majority of his fights - he's still lost 11 out of 30.

Nate has a chin yes... he has stamina yes... he can't be KOd? Untrue. Ok he only has 1 TKO loss on his resume, which is impressive for 30 fights, but history has proven that anyone can be KOd. People used to say Hendo can't be KOd, Shogun can't... Mark Hunt can't etc... ... surely we understand now that when it comes to this sport anyone can be KOd.

Tyrone "got lucky" against Condit you say? Well even if that was the case (and for the record I don't believe in luck in this sport), still it happened 4 years ago. Irrelevant. Werdum couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag 4 years ago. Since then, he schooled Nelson, stopped Hunt and out-struck Cain. Not to mention in the same period Nate has only just achieved a 50% win ratio (3 wins, 3 losses). McGregor clearly outstruck Diaz in the 2nd fight as well.

Also, how do you work out that Nate has more power than Nick? For starters, Nick is bigger and fights in a higher weight class so naturally you would expect Nick is the more powerful of the two... secondly, Nick has 13 KO/TKO wins, whereas Nate has 4. I have never recalled thinking that Nate has more power than Nick?

Maybe we will simply have to agree to disagree... but I genuinely don't believe that Nate has either the skill or athleticism to beat Woodley, much less KO him.
 
All Woodley has to do is watch how Bendo and RDA smashed Mate and it's an easy win for him. Nate is a tough dude but there's a blueprint on him.
 
LargeMammal said:
I disagree
Click to expand...
Nick is like 1-7 vs top 10 opponents above LW. Nate is 5-6 VS top 10 LWs. Nate has faster hands, much better and more active off his back, better cardio (Nick clearly slowed at the end of the Condit fight), better footwork (doesn't say much because they both have shit footwork) and he goes his hardest till the final bell. Nick just gives up when he is outmatched. Oh, and Nate has actually beaten a wrestler. Nick has better TDD and a little more power, but thats it

The biggest difference between the two is Nick built his hype beating unranked opponents and avoiding wrestlers for 6 years while Nate was in the UFC fighting top guys and wrestlers. If Nick never left the UFC no one would consider him as close to as good as Nate
 
613 said:
Nick is like 1-7 vs top 10 opponents above LW. Nate is 5-6 VS top 10 LWs. Nate has faster hands, much better and more active off his back, better cardio (Nick clearly slowed at the end of the Condit fight), better footwork (doesn't say much because they both have shit footwork) and he goes his hardest till the final bell. Nick just gives up when he is outmatched. Oh, and Nate has actually beaten a wrestler. Nick has better TDD and a little more power, but thats it

The biggest difference between the two is Nick built his hype beating unranked opponents and avoiding wrestlers for 6 years while Nate was in the UFC fighting top guys and wrestlers. If Nick never left the UFC no one would consider him as close to as good as Nate
Click to expand...

You know what... I can accept what you're saying and admit that you are probably right ... and I appreciate your detailed analysis.

I guess I just have memories of Nick's Strikeforce days, which were undeniably impressive. Then the first time he came back to the UFC he just looked unbelievable against BJ (but I accept BJ was past it by then).

I've always seen Nick as the more successful of the two, but maybe as you say that's just quality of competition. I remember him coming back from being rocked against Paul Daley (who was a KO machine at the time) to stop him in the first round. Then I remember Nate being outclassed by the likes of Maynard, McDonald, Benson etc (and he looked terrible in the Benson fight)...

I guess what I meant in my point is that Nick had the potential to be so much better than he was. Yes, I agree he slowed vs Condit, but I think he just got frustrated more than anything, I don't think he was tired. And he gets frustrated too easily with game planning and rather than work with it, he seems to prefer just giving up and criticising it. He could have been so much better than he was which is really unfortunate.
 
LargeMammal said:
You know what... I can accept what you're saying and admit that you are probably right ... and I appreciate your detailed analysis.

I guess I just have memories of Nick's Strikeforce days, which were undeniably impressive. Then the first time he came back to the UFC he just looked unbelievable against BJ (but I accept BJ was past it by then).

I've always seen Nick as the more successful of the two, but maybe as you say that's just quality of competition. I remember him coming back from being rocked against Paul Daley (who was a KO machine at the time) to stop him in the first round. Then I remember Nate being outclassed by the likes of Maynard, McDonald, Benson etc (and he looked terrible in the Benson fight)...

I guess what I meant in my point is that Nick had the potential to be so much better than he was. Yes, I agree he slowed vs Condit, but I think he just got frustrated more than anything, I don't think he was tired. And he gets frustrated too easily with game planning and rather than work with it, he seems to prefer just giving up and criticising it. He could have been so much better than he was which is really unfortunate.
Click to expand...

The thing with SF Nick is he either faced a great stylistic match up like Daley, or un ranked fighters. It was fun to watch, but Nate could have looked just as impressive if he wasn't fighting stylistic nightmares like Bendo, Maynard, RDA, Guida, DHK and Rory. If Nick stayed and had to fight Fitch, GSP, Kos, 2008 Alves, Hendricks and Rick Story (not great but a bad match up) he probably wouldn't have nearly as impressive of a record. His opponents in SF had a combined SF record of only 7-16. He also convincingly lost the first round VS Penn, but Penn gassed like usual.

I have always had more respect for Nate because he doesn't (or didn't until recently when it just became about money fights) shy away from bad match ups, and he doesn't give up when he is outclassed.

Both Diaz brothers could have been much better if they had better heads on their shoulders
 
Last edited:
613 said:
The thing with SF Nick is he either faced a great stylistic match up like Daley, or ranked fighters. It was fun to watch, but Nate could have looked just as impressive if he wasn't fighting stylistic nightmares like Bendo, Maynard, RDA, Guida, DHK and Rory. If Nick stayed and had to fight Fitch, GSP, Kos, 2008 Alves, Hendricks and Rick Story (not great but a bad match up) he probably wouldn't have nearly as impressive of a record. His opponents in SF had a combined SF record of only 7-16. He also convincingly lost the first round VS Penn, but Penn gassed like usual.

I have always had more respect for Nate because he doesn't (or didn't until recently when it just became about money fights) shy away from bad match ups, and he doesn't give up when he is outclassed.

Both Diaz brothers could have been much better if they had better heads on their shoulders
Click to expand...

Your first point - yes I totally see where you're coming from and happy to agree with you there. However, if we're admitting that Maynard and RDA (among others) are bad match ups for Nate, then we surely cannot suggest that Woodley is a good matchup? Especially given the big fact (that a lot of people seem to be overlooking) that Nate has fought most of his recent career at 155 and Woodley is a big 170. Ok, Nate fought McGregor at 170, but that's totally irrelevant because McGregor was even smaller than Nate. I fully respect Nate's career (hell, he's one of my favorite fighters) I just don't think he can beat Woodley for what I thought were obvious reasons.

No Nate is a true warrior and goes til the end. I agree it would appear that Nick gets frustrated and gives up easier when he's clearly outclassed - then proceeds to blame it on "game plans" and "modern UFC" or however he phrases it.

Final point - yes 100%, I think we both agree that it is unfortunate the Diaz brothers haven't made more of their opportunities. They seem to come off more like stroppy teenagers than professional career fighters. With their physical toughness, warrior mentality and clearly exceptional skill in both striking & grappling they could've really pushed themselves to be champions in their respective division. But they seem to prefer the anti-establishment lifestyle. Plus it doesn't help when they get busted for consumption of marijuana - which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Like as if marijuana is performance enhancing in any way whatsoever??
 
LargeMammal said:
Your first point - yes I totally see where you're coming from and happy to agree with you there. However, if we're admitting that Maynard and RDA (among others) are bad match ups for Nate, then we surely cannot suggest that Woodley is a good matchup? Especially given the big fact (that a lot of people seem to be overlooking) that Nate has fought most of his recent career at 155 and Woodley is a big 170. Ok, Nate fought McGregor at 170, but that's totally irrelevant because McGregor was even smaller than Nate. I fully respect Nate's career (hell, he's one of my favorite fighters) I just don't think he can beat Woodley for what I thought were obvious reasons.

No Nate is a true warrior and goes til the end. I agree it would appear that Nick gets frustrated and gives up easier when he's clearly outclassed - then proceeds to blame it on "game plans" and "modern UFC" or however he phrases it.

Final point - yes 100%, I think we both agree that it is unfortunate the Diaz brothers haven't made more of their opportunities. They seem to come off more like stroppy teenagers than professional career fighters. With their physical toughness, warrior mentality and clearly exceptional skill in both striking & grappling they could've really pushed themselves to be champions in their respective division. But they seem to prefer the anti-establishment lifestyle. Plus it doesn't help when they get busted for consumption of marijuana - which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Like as if marijuana is performance enhancing in any way whatsoever??
Click to expand...

Besides GSP (if we count him) i think Woodley is the worst possible match up for Nate at WW. He has great leg kicks, is much heavier and is a great wrestler. Basically everything the Diaz bros struggle with. Nate also doesn't have that game changing power to really catch Woodley if he is losing. Honestly, i don't think either Diaz brother is champion material. I just think Nate is closer then Nick. Woodley should beat Nate no problems
 
613 said:
Besides GSP (if we count him) i think Woodley is the worst possible match up for Nate at WW. He has great leg kicks, is much heavier and is a great wrestler. Basically everything the Diaz bros struggle with. Nate also doesn't have that game changing power to really catch Woodley if he is losing. Honestly, i don't think either Diaz brother is champion material. I just think Nate is closer then Nick. Woodley should beat Nate no problems
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Only thing I can add is just to expand on your first statement slightly by adding that (in my opinion at least) even with GSP and Woodley aside. I still don't favor Nate against the majority (to be fair - not all) of the current top 10 WWs. That's why I am so set in my opinion regarding this "could Nate beat Woodley" proposition.

Consider the top 8 WW contenders at least...
Thompson
Lawler
Colby
Maia
RDA
Masvidal
Condit
Till

Is there anyone there you think Nate has a genuine chance of beating?

I accept that styles make fights and this is why he looked so good against Cerrone, who in all fairness is still in the WW top 10. And maybe he'd stand a chance against some of the strikers. But when you consider the above list I just don't see him making an impact at WW and I certainly don't think he's close to a title shot.

If Nate gets a title shot against Woodley then it would be the nail in the coffin for the credibility of the UFC's ranking system and it would be a very sad day. It's strange that in the time before the UFC had its own ranking system we actually seemed to have a better understanding of who the rightful contenders were in each division.
 
LargeMammal said:
Agreed.

Only thing I can add is just to expand on your first statement slightly by adding that (in my opinion at least) even with GSP and Woodley aside. I still don't favor Nate against the majority (to be fair - not all) of the current top 10 WWs. That's why I am so set in my opinion regarding this "could Nate beat Woodley" proposition.

Consider the top 8 WW contenders at least...
Thompson
Lawler
Colby
Maia
RDA
Masvidal
Condit
Till

Is there anyone there you think Nate has a genuine chance of beating?

I accept that styles make fights and this is why he looked so good against Cerrone, who in all fairness is still in the WW top 10. And maybe he'd stand a chance against some of the strikers. But when you consider the above list I just don't see him making an impact at WW and I certainly don't think he's close to a title shot.

If Nate gets a title shot against Woodley then it would be the nail in the coffin for the credibility of the UFC's ranking system and it would be a very sad day. It's strange that in the time before the UFC had its own ranking system we actually seemed to have a better understanding of who the rightful contenders were in each division.
Click to expand...

He is to small for WW. His best weight is LW. I don't think he will ever be champ at LW either. MAYBE if he gets to fight Conor again and Conor is still champ.
 
Yeah. Also RDA, Ferguson and Khabib.
 
no a chain wrestler that would take him down nonstop and not get subbed is

like a sonnen with better sub defense
 
LargeMammal said:
Agreed.

Only thing I can add is just to expand on your first statement slightly by adding that (in my opinion at least) even with GSP and Woodley aside. I still don't favor Nate against the majority (to be fair - not all) of the current top 10 WWs. That's why I am so set in my opinion regarding this "could Nate beat Woodley" proposition.

Consider the top 8 WW contenders at least...
Thompson
Lawler
Colby
Maia
RDA
Masvidal
Condit
Till

Is there anyone there you think Nate has a genuine chance of beating?

I accept that styles make fights and this is why he looked so good against Cerrone, who in all fairness is still in the WW top 10. And maybe he'd stand a chance against some of the strikers. But when you consider the above list I just don't see him making an impact at WW and I certainly don't think he's close to a title shot.

If Nate gets a title shot against Woodley then it would be the nail in the coffin for the credibility of the UFC's ranking system and it would be a very sad day. It's strange that in the time before the UFC had its own ranking system we actually seemed to have a better understanding of who the rightful contenders were in each division.
Click to expand...

good point about how we were better off before UFC did their own rankings
 
Yes and no, Woodley still has the bad habit of backing him self into the cage and banking on the idea that dudes are so afraid of his right hand that they wont tool him when he has no where to go. This has bitten him in the ass in the past. Nate is an excellent "in-fighter" and part of "in fighting" is neutralizing a guy who's out there to land a big wind up punch. In my mind the biggest issue for Nate in the match up is that Woodley is much bigger than him and is a far superior wrestler. Go back and watch footage, Woodley ends up with his back on the cage in nearly every fight he's ever been in, then go watch footage of Nate and Nick fighting dudes who make that mistake. Their most impressive fights are ones in which guys let them selves get trapped in that position.

giphy.gif


1_medium.gif
 
It’s hard to imagine a fight more one-sided than the RDA one, unless there’s a finish (which Woodley would likely get). So... maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,951
Messages
55,456,874
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top