I know this is old news but I keep hearing what I believe to be a mosconception about these fights. I see it often said on this forum that Anderson chose not to finish them to prove some kind of point or send some kind of message and Anderson himself has made some excuse for both these fights. For example: Honestly, to me the reason is quite simple; these two fighters have very poor striking and lack great takedowns yet have great BJJ. They posed no threat standing and were not able to take him down from far yet if they got a hold of him it could've ended badly for Anderson so he chose to stay on the outside and try and bait them into a pure striking match so he could find an opening but it didn't work and for the most part both Maia and Leites were very complacent and therefore we got a boring fight. I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious but it bugs me since it seems like a double standard. When GSP doesn't finish its because he isn't taking risks or he's just unable to but when Anderson doesn't finish he's holding back on purpose to prove a point. I think that way of thinking is silly and to me its clear that he just wasn't willing to risk being the aggressor as it could leave him open to the takedown so he coasted. Not because Maia disrespected him or because he respected Leites or whatever BS excuse Anderson or his camp says. Hell, Leites and his camp even called Anderson out on his silly excuse that he refused to finish Thales because they were friends.