ESPN questions if Ronda hype was fraudulent. Chael says media created her (Video)

[Hard To Tell]

if Ronda is overrated then so is holly and nunes since Ronda whooped the girls who finished both of them

It's WMMA - they all suck.

 

[Anthony7]

People asking "Why didn't Ronda fight like she used too? Why didn't she clinch/takedown, etc?" need to realize is that all of Ronda's previous opponents would always charge and rush-in, pretty much giving the fight away to Ronda at that point allowing her to do the only thing she knows how. Judo throw/armbar.

I'm not a trainer or any genius martial arts expert of any kind. But it was frustrating seeing Ronda's opponents always fight the same like they never learned anything. I always said what someone needs to try to do with her is keep the distance, stay moving and strike her from the outside and that's exactly what Holly Holm did that destroyed her.

Ever since then the blueprint has been obvious. Nunes followed it the same way Saturday and Ronda still had no answer for it. Ronda's striking is non-existent and she doesn't shoot for takedowns. She can't do shit unless she gets the clinch.

 

[scardera]

if Ronda is overrated then so is holly and nunes since Ronda whooped the girls who finished both of them

 

[scardera]

All focus is always on Rousey in her wins and her losses, to the point that people think she can't possibly lose if she's sharp.

The women who beat Rousey were the ones who insisted on fighting on their terms. Holm insisted on a movement heavy counter game and smoked her. Nunes was super aggressive and broke her like she does to almost everyone.

On the other hand, look at some of Rousey's wins where her opponents did the work for her and fought on her terms:

A lot of her previous opponents did the work for her and made her look a lot better than she was. She's obviously a KILLER at what she's good at, but it's clear that she had a lot of help from her opponent in getting there. Look at these women LEAP into the clinch with her.

still cant believe how retarded Cat Zingano gameplan was....fuck

 

[KeepItRealist]

So typical. Chael was one of those hyping up Ronda until she lost. He's unbearable.

 

[ThunderL1ps]

All focus is always on Rousey in her wins and her losses, to the point that people think she can't possibly lose if she's sharp.

The women who beat Rousey were the ones who insisted on fighting on their terms. Holm insisted on a movement heavy counter game and smoked her. Nunes was super aggressive and broke her like she does to almost everyone.

On the other hand, look at some of Rousey's wins where her opponents did the work for her and fought on her terms:

All focus is always on Rousey in her wins and her losses, to the point that people think she can't possibly lose if she's sharp.

The women who beat Rousey were the ones who insisted on fighting on their terms. Holm insisted on a movement heavy counter game and smoked her. Nunes was super aggressive and broke her like she does to almost everyone.

On the other hand, look at some of Rousey's wins where her opponents did the work for her and fought on her terms:

A lot of her previous opponents did the work for her and made her look a lot better than she was. She's obviously a KILLER at what she's good at, but it's clear that she had a lot of help from her opponent in getting there. Look at these women LEAP into the clinch with her.

A lot of her previous opponents did the work for her and made her look a lot better than she was. She's obviously a KILLER at what she's good at, but it's clear that she had a lot of help from her opponent in getting there. Look at these women LEAP into the clinch with her.

Do you think that Rousey was sharp in her two losses? From being soft and lacking conditioning in the fight with Holm and standing like a statue and quickly dialing out for Nunes, I don't think one can say she looked sharp at all.

As for your GIFs, two of them are of Tate trying to strike with her and Rousey taking her out.

People had been talking for years on how to beat Rousey. You talk about it like it was some huge revelation when it had been going on for years. Finally they brought someone in that had the best fight of her WMMA career (Holm) while Rousey had her worst at the time. There wasn't much faith in Holm being able to do much to Rousey given her previous efforts in the UFC; she didn't look like someone that was going to beat her given how Rousey walked through everyone else.

 

[Mattitude V1]

Do you think that Rousey was sharp in her two losses? From being soft and lacking conditioning in the fight with Holm and standing like a statue and quickly dialing out for Nunes, I don't think one can say she looked sharp at all.

As for your GIFs, two of them are of Tate trying to strike with her and Rousey taking her out.

People had been talking for years on how to beat Rousey. You talk about it like it was some huge revelation when it had been going on for years. Finally they brought someone in that had the best fight of her WMMA career (Holm) while Rousey had her worst at the time. There wasn't much faith in Holm being able to do much to Rousey given her previous efforts in the UFC; she didn't look like someone that was going to beat her given how Rousey walked through everyone else.

There's obviously no getting past this idea with you. When a fighter loses, especially when they lose as a result of a glaring weakness like Rousey did, they won't look sharp. Looking sharp for Ronda means getting an armbar victory in a few seconds. So yeah, she's not going to look like that when she's forced to strike at range, without the possibility of a clinch. Look at any of her wins where she was striking when it looked like she was better technique wise than in her losses.