In Defense of GSP

krelianx

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
19,773
Reaction score
9,104
I discussed this on a different thread, but thought it makes a point worth making again.

A prevalent narrative is that GSP knowingly and willingly cherry picked the Bisping fight because he knew it was low risk, high reward, and that he avoided defending the title or challenging for it earlier precisely to avoid a higher risk fight. This already is to engage in a fair bit of revisionary history, since the odds for the Bisping fight were extremely even, with many parlors favoring Bisping, who was bigger, had reach, good td defense, and who was going against GSP after a three year hiatus, after a second ACL tear, and fighting for the first time at MW. So, to say it was an 'easy' fight is nothing but retroactive historical surgery.

But that's not the biggest point.

Firras, Danaher and GSP himself have all said they made the decision to return to challenge for the MW belt before Bisping was champion. Danaher expressly said he gave the idea to GSP as part of a strategy to address the major objections to his career: that he didn't move up in weight, that he didn't finish fights, and was not exciting. This is on record on the Rogan show. Now, you can claim that this is false, and that had it not been Bisping he would not have taken the risk. But this is speculation, with nothing to base itself on, and anybody who claims it is false has the burden of proof.

Yes, GSP didn't defend the belt after he won it with Whitaker, and relinquished it, even though he was contractually bound and said he would. However, he contracted colitis. This might seem like a 'convenient' scapegoat according to the low-risk narrative, but to suggest this was another fabrication to avoid a risky fight requires showing that he did in fact not have colitis and that he avoided MW even though he was well capable of competing in it.

But there is no concrete evidence for this either: he was diagnosed, visibly lost a lot of weight very quickly, to a point beneath even his WW days. He was reportedly very sick and vomiting blood the morning of the Bisping fight, and this condition was likely related to trying to gain weight forcefully for MW. He even mentioned he couldn't retain the weight as he had planned for that fight, and that he didn't feel his body react well to MW. Firras and Danaher also mentioned they even considered pulling the plug two weeks before the fight, because GSP was completely off. So much for avoiding risk taking.

So the testimony and evidence seems to show GSP simply did not react well to the MW adjustment and it compromised his health. To think GSP and everyone again invented all of this seems maliciously speculative to me. And to imply he relinquished the title or avoided fighting other MWs before Bisping was champion to avoid riskier fights is to put a distorting spin on the facts we know of the story, and to again engage in a lot of speculation. Anyone who disagrees would have to offer some morsel of evidence to show that GSP and his trainers are lying.
 
Last edited:
The haters just find reasons to shit on GSP because he never pissed hot like their dumb idols Jon Jones and Anderson Silva


giphy.gif


ImportantRingedArmyant-max-1mb.gif
 
I'd expect a team as intelligent as gsp has to save face in such a way

I wouldn't make a leap and suggest he was just looking for an easy fight

Bisping was just the smartest possible fight he could take. A fighter who was similarly aged, without Significant power, past his prime and holding a belt. High reward, low risk in every way. Relative to any other fight he could've taken

There's no reason to fault him for making the move though. GSP has already accomplished everything in the sport and had nothing to prove. It's silly to expect a fighter in their mid to late 30's to come back After a 3 year lay off and fight the absolute best fighters out there. He earned the right to choose fights that make the most sense for this stage of his career
 
I'd expect a team as intelligent as gsp has to save face in such a way

I wouldn't make a leap and suggest he was just looking for an easy fight

Bisping was just the smartest possible fight he could take. A fighter who was similarly aged, without Significant power, past his prime and holding a belt. High reward, low risk in every way. Relative to any other fight he could've taken

There's no reason to fault him for making the move though. GSP has already accomplished everything in the sport and had nothing to prove. It's silly to expect a fighter in their mid to late 30's to come back After a 3 year lay off and fight the absolute best fighters out there. He earned the right to choose fights that make the most sense for this stage of his career

The burden of proof is on you to show that they are in fact lying or fabricating this. To say 'you expect' says nothing objective, only about your subjective 'expectations'. You are calling Danaher, GSP, and Firras liars. You can speculate that was the case. But you have no actual support for that claim.
 
GSP is great at earning maximum profits while taking minimum risk. As a businessman he's obviously calculating and intelligent. As a straight up fighter, he obviously didn't/doesn't care to challenge himself to the maximum after a certain time. There is nothing wrong with it or any need to push a false narrative either way. Anyone with a decent intellect can ascertain GSP isn't another Silva/Fedor type. He's clearly a great fighter and GOAT picks will always be at least somewhat subjective. GSP is GSP. For sure one of the smartest and most successful fighters in all aspects. He's at the top in some attributes and lower in others.
 
The burden of proof is on you to show that they are in fact lying or fabricating this. To say 'you expect' says nothing objective, only about your subjective 'expectations'. You are calling Danaher, GSP, and Firras liars. You can speculate that was the case. But you have no actual support for that claim.
His team does have a history of double speak, I've always sort of taken them with a grain of salt. It's clear that he's had some brilliant pr people around him for quite some time

I don't really care enough to go back though, I have nothing against gsp and I support his decision to fight Bisping

I go with my gut in that gsp and his team were thinking similarly to myself in that fighting someone of Bisping's age and skillset made the most sense for that position of his career. I think fights like Woodley, Whittaker, yoel were high risk, low reward and risk which he doesn't need to take at that stage of his career. Calculated business decisions in consideration of the larger picture of his career and I don't fault him for it one bit

Just my thought though. Everyone is entitled to their opinion
 
The burden of proof is on you to show that they are in fact lying or fabricating this. To say 'you expect' says nothing objective, only about your subjective 'expectations'. You are calling Danaher, GSP, and Firras liars. You can speculate that was the case. But you have no actual support for that claim.

You are really trying to explain a concept like the burden of proof on this forum?

That's like trying to teach a pig how to read.
 
His team does have a history of double speak, I've always sort of taken them with a grain of salt. It's clear that he's had some brilliant pr people around him for quite some time

I don't really care enough to go back though, I have nothing against gsp and I support his decision to fight Bisping

I go with my gut in that gsp and his team were thinking similarly to myself in that fighting someone of Bisping's age and skillset made the most sense for that position of his career. I think fights like Woodley, Whittaker, yoel were high risk, low reward and risk which he doesn't need to take at that stage of his career. Calculated business decisions in consideration of the larger picture of his career and I don't fault him for it one bit

Just my thought though. Everyone is entitled to their opinion

Well, that is the thing, no you are not entitled to that opinion.

Not everybody is entitled to their opinions. Entitlement is an epistemic category and one of the two basic deontic statuses, alongside commitment. It is by definition relative to justification or warrant: one is entitled to a belief for which they have warrant. If I am committed to the claim that that the sun is made of cheese, that does not mean I am entitled to the claim. You are free to make the commitments you want, but you don't have entitlement for those commitments unless you can actually provide warrant.

You say their team has a 'history of double speak', which I interpret to mean that they made inconsistent declarations in the past. Well, the question is whether they have made inconsistent claims on this particular case which makes their declarations suspect, or whether any inconsistencies they have made in the past transfers warrant to believe that they might be lying in this case.

But you provide neither of this, and instead willingly admit you are guided by a 'gut feeling'.

That is basically saying: I don't have objective reasons, only subjective dispositions to offer here.
 
GSP is great at earning maximum profits while taking minimum risk. As a businessman he's obviously calculating and intelligent. As a straight up fighter, he obviously didn't/doesn't care to challenge himself to the maximum after a certain time. There is nothing wrong with it or any need to push a false narrative either way. Anyone with a decent intellect can ascertain GSP isn't another Silva/Fedor type. He's clearly a great fighter and GOAT picks will always be at least somewhat subjective. GSP is GSP. For sure one of the smartest and most successful fighters in all aspects. He's at the top in some attributes and lower in others.

You didn't read what I wrote, or else you just completely ignored it.
 
If you think about it, if you're constantly forcing yourself to eat including more than three meals per day, your stomach likely ends up having more acid than usual and the more frequent acid will probably eat away at your stomach causing open bleeding wounds.

Fasting and not eating probably results in less stomach acid and allows the stomach wounds to heal.
 
Well, that is the thing, no you are not entitled to that opinion.

Not everybody is entitled to their opinions. Entitlement is an epistemic category and one of the two basic deontic statuses, alongside commitment. It is by definition relative to justification or warrant: one is entitled to a belief for which they have warrant. If I am committed to the claim that that the sun is made of cheese, that does not mean I am entitled to the claim. You are free to make the commitments you want, but you don't have entitlement for those commitments unless you can actually provide warrant.

You say their team has a 'history of double speak', which I interpret to mean that they made inconsistent declarations in the past. Well, the question is whether they have made inconsistent claims on this particular case which makes their declarations suspect, or whether any inconsistencies they have made in the past transfers warrant to believe that they might be lying in this case.

But you provide neither of this, and instead willingly admit you are guided by a 'gut feeling'.

That is basically saying: I don't have objective reasons, only subjective dispositions to offer here.
I would say yes to the second paragraph

I could provide more than a few examples going back through history but I neither care nor have the energy to do so.

I also have no interest in making him look bad whatsoever in this case. I don't wish to choose any side. His career decisions have seemed highly calculated, cerebral and have always made perfect sense. Such intelligence should be praised, not ridiculed.

But yes, I certainly have reason to not always take what's being said by his team at face value. A wise principle I apply to nearly every figure in the limelight

I like gsp but I offer no special exceptions to anyone when discerning truth. I'm well aware that there is a game being played as do they

I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I discussed this on a different thread, but thought it makes a point worth making again.

A prevalent narrative is that GSP knowingly and willingly cherry picked the Bisping fight because he knew it was low risk, high reward, and that he avoided defending the title or challenging for it earlier precisely to avoid a higher risk fight. This already is to engage in a fair bit of revisionary history, since the odds for the Bisping fight were extremely even, with many parlors favoring Bisping, who was bigger, had reach, good td defense, and who was going against GSP after a three year hiatus, after a second ACL tear, and fighting for the first time at MW. So, to say it was an 'easy' fight is nothing but retroactive historical surgery.

But that's not the biggest point.

Firras, Danaher and GSP himself have all said they made the decision to return to challenge for the MW belt before Bisping was champion. Danaher expressly said he gave the idea to GSP as part of a strategy to address the major objections to his career: that he didn't move up in weight, that he didn't finish fights, and was not exciting. This is on record on the Rogan show. Now, you can claim that this is false, and that had it not been Bisping he would not have taken the risk. But this is speculation, with nothing to base itself on, and anybody who claims it is false has the burden of proof.

Yes, GSP didn't defend the belt after he won it with Whitaker, and relinquished it, even though he was contractually bound and said he would. However, he contracted colitis. This might seem like a 'convenient' scapegoat according to the low-risk narrative, but to suggest this was another fabrication to avoid a risky fight requires showing that he did in fact not have colitis and that he avoided MW even though he was well capable of competing in it.

But there is no concrete evidence for this either: he was diagnosed, visibly lost a lot of weight very quickly, to a point beneath even his WW days. He was reportedly very sick and vomiting blood the morning of the Bisping fight, and this condition was likely related to trying to gain weight forcefully for MW. He even mentioned he couldn't retain the weight as he had planned for that fight, and that he didn't feel his body react well to MW. Firras and Danaher also mentioned they even considered pulling the plug two weeks before the fight, because GSP was completely off. So much for avoiding risk taking.

So the testimony and evidence seems to show GSP simply did not react well to the MW adjustment and it compromised his health. To think GSP and everyone again invented all of this seems maliciously speculative to me. And to imply he relinquished the title or avoided fighting other MWs before Bisping was champion to avoid riskier fights is to put a distorting spin on the facts we know of the story, and to again engage in a lot of speculation. Anyone who disagrees would have to offer some morsel of evidence to show that GSP and his trainers are lying.

Imo GSP always tries to put forward the narrative of "I want to or wanted to but there was/are things that are out of my control that are stopping me from __________". I think it's great that he came back after 3 years and beat Bisping at middleweight but I personally feel like it wasn't a legit championship because there was a interim champion at the time which was Whittaker and Bispping is older than GSP and a fighter that GSP had trained with before
 
As a GSP fan, his early odds against Bisping would have to be compared to his early odds against other prospective middleweights. Cherry picking doesn't assume he picked a winnable fight, its that he picked the MOST winnable fight. And though you're right that making counter claims against Danahers claim and GSPs affliction would require a burden of proof, simply not believing them does not require it. There is also a burden of proof on Danaher and GSP.

imo, he was the greatest before beating Bisping. Never had to do it and the "credit" for winning the middleweight belt only weighs as much as beating Bisping did, which, 2 fights later, wasn't much overall compared to the entirety of his Legacy.
 
Well, that is the thing, no you are not entitled to that opinion.

Not everybody is entitled to their opinions. Entitlement is an epistemic category and one of the two basic deontic statuses, alongside commitment. It is by definition relative to justification or warrant: one is entitled to a belief for which they have warrant. If I am committed to the claim that that the sun is made of cheese, that does not mean I am entitled to the claim. You are free to make the commitments you want, but you don't have entitlement for those commitments unless you can actually provide warrant.

You say their team has a 'history of double speak', which I interpret to mean that they made inconsistent declarations in the past. Well, the question is whether they have made inconsistent claims on this particular case which makes their declarations suspect, or whether any inconsistencies they have made in the past transfers warrant to believe that they might be lying in this case.

But you provide neither of this, and instead willingly admit you are guided by a 'gut feeling'.

That is basically saying: I don't have objective reasons, only subjective dispositions to offer here.
Deez nuts
 
Back
Top