Is UFC 207's Card Better than UFC 205's and Underhyped?

CK Daimen

CK Daimen

White Belt
@White
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
141
Reaction score
0
I'm going to go ahead and say that I believe UFC 207 is a better card than UFC 205, knowing that I will almost surely be in the minority if not the lone person who says that.

There are two facts that make UFC 205 seem to be untouchable: Three Title Fights and incredible depth in card.

I do believe UFC 205 still has a deeper lineup from top to bottom, but when it comes to the main card, I believe UFC 207 is better.

Velasquez vs. Werdum is the equivalent to Weidman vs. Romero (In My opinion better)

Dillashaw vs. Lineker is better than Tate vs. Pennington

I believe that the Garbrandt/Cruz fight is the equivalent to the Welterweight and Strawweight title fights combined.

And I believe Rousey/Nunes is the equivalent to McGregor/Alvarez. McGregor's history chase is just as suspenseful as Rousey's return, but I personally believe Nunes is a stronger opponent than Alvarez.

To me, the biggest difference is Garbradnt/Cruz. Although 205 had three title fights, neither of the other two title fights were nearly as big to me as Cruz/Garbradnt, even without the trash talking buildup that's led up to it.

So, I believe that 207 is slightly better. I understand if you disagree, but the belief that it is even this close tells me that the card is underhyped. It is focusing a bit too much on Rousey's return and not what is actually an incredible lineup. The Velasquez/Werdum match is particularly neglected more than I would have ever thought possible.

What say you? Better than 205? Underhyped?
 
nope_zps9cfa59f3.gif~original
 
Shut the fuck up, that manlet title fight has nothing on the Woodley-Thompson fight on paper and it won't be anywhere close to as good as it in reality.
 
Also, when comparing Garbrandt/Cruz vs. the other two title fights, ask yourself this:

Do you think Woodley/Thompson would be likely to main event a PPV? Or JJ vs. Karolina? While Woodley/Thompson is possible, I don't think it would.

I do believe Garbradnt/Cruz is more than capable of main eventing a PPV.

I'm flexible on this thread because I admit that it's strictly a matter of opinion. But if you would agree that Cruz/Garbrandt is more likely to be a PPV main event than the other two title fights on 205, that is perhaps the biggest point of my argument: how big this second biggest fight on the card is.

I also believe the third biggest fight, Cain/Werdum is very underrated.
 
Woodley Thompson 2 is likely going to headline UFC 209. Well that or one of the Diaz bros. Also Cruz vs Garbrandt likely doesn't headline a PPV
 
CK Daimen said:
I'm going to go ahead and say that I believe UFC 207 is a better card than UFC 205, knowing that I will almost surely be in the minority if not the lone person who says that.

There are two facts that make UFC 205 seem to be untouchable: Three Title Fights and incredible depth in card.

I do believe UFC 205 still has a deeper lineup from top to bottom, but when it comes to the main card, I believe UFC 207 is better.

Velasquez vs. Werdum is the equivalent to Weidman vs. Romero (In My opinion better)

Dillashaw vs. Lineker is better than Tate vs. Pennington

I believe that the Garbrandt/Cruz fight is the equivalent to the Welterweight and Strawweight title fights combined.

And I believe Rousey/Nunes is the equivalent to McGregor/Alvarez. McGregor's history chase is just as suspenseful as Rousey's return, but I personally believe Nunes is a stronger opponent than Alvarez.

To me, the biggest difference is Garbradnt/Cruz. Although 205 had three title fights, neither of the other two title fights were nearly as big to me as Cruz/Garbradnt, even without the trash talking buildup that's led up to it.

So, I believe that 207 is slightly better. I understand if you disagree, but the belief that it is even this close tells me that the card is underhyped. It is focusing a bit too much on Rousey's return and not what is actually an incredible lineup. The Velasquez/Werdum match is particularly neglected more than I would have ever thought possible.

What say you? Better than 205? Underhyped?
Click to expand...


<{cruzshake}>
 
'Suga Daddy' said:
Woodley Thompson 2 is likely going to headline UFC 209. Well that or one of the Diaz bros. Also Cruz vs Garbrandt likely doesn't headline a PPV
Click to expand...

You may be right but what about before the lead in of 205? Now that Woodley/Thompson has eyes on it from the fans brought in to 205, it's more likely to main event a PPV NOW but not then.

I would agree that Cody/Cruz does not likely headline a PPV, but I would argue that it is MORE likely than the other two, and furthermore, that most people on here are more interested in seeing that fight.
 
CK Daimen said:
I'm going to go ahead and say that I believe UFC 207 is a better card than UFC 205, knowing that I will almost surely be in the minority if not the lone person who says that.

There are two facts that make UFC 205 seem to be untouchable: Three Title Fights and incredible depth in card.

I do believe UFC 205 still has a deeper lineup from top to bottom, but when it comes to the main card, I believe UFC 207 is better.

Velasquez vs. Werdum is the equivalent to Weidman vs. Romero (In My opinion better)

Dillashaw vs. Lineker is better than Tate vs. Pennington

I believe that the Garbrandt/Cruz fight is the equivalent to the Welterweight and Strawweight title fights combined.

And I believe Rousey/Nunes is the equivalent to McGregor/Alvarez. McGregor's history chase is just as suspenseful as Rousey's return, but I personally believe Nunes is a stronger opponent than Alvarez.

To me, the biggest difference is Garbradnt/Cruz. Although 205 had three title fights, neither of the other two title fights were nearly as big to me as Cruz/Garbradnt, even without the trash talking buildup that's led up to it.

So, I believe that 207 is slightly better. I understand if you disagree, but the belief that it is even this close tells me that the card is underhyped. It is focusing a bit too much on Rousey's return and not what is actually an incredible lineup. The Velasquez/Werdum match is particularly neglected more than I would have ever thought possible.

What say you? Better than 205? Underhyped?
Click to expand...
Thread idea to join date correlation: 99.97%.

Now leave and never come back.
 
I don't give a fuck about names, I care about fights and UFC 206 was better than 205 based on quality fights

If you care about names UFC 207 is at the same level of UFC 205, and I'n saying at the same level only because 205 had Conor

Based on names/popularity:

McGregor slighty better than Rousey
Nunes = Alvarez

Cruz slighty better than Woodley
Garbrandt > Thompson

Cain > Joanna
Werdum > KK

TJ Dillashaw > Romero
Weidman > Lineker

Tate > Smolka
Pennington > Borg


Basing fights level, on paper:

McGregor vs Alvarez = Rousey vs Nunes (It will be a one sided fight like McGregor vs Alvarez, a 50% fight but when the fight finally comes it'll be one sided, Nunes via TKO or Rousey via SUB)

Woodley vs Thompson slighty better than Cruz vs Garbrandt

Cain vs Werdum > Joanna vs KK

TJ Dillashaw vs Lineker = Romero vs Weidman

Smolka vs Borg > Tate vs Pennigton



Resume: UFC 207 has more popular fighters than 205 and also UFC 207 has better fights on paper than 205
 
No, Woodley/Wonderboy is better than Cruz/Garbrandt & JJ/KK combined (IMO anyway cos idgaf about JJ's fights anymore). Also, a female fight better than McGregor/Alvarez? Shoot yourself.
 
McGeezle said:
No, Woodley/Wonderboy is better than Cruz/Garbrandt & JJ/KK combined (IMO anyway cos idgaf about JJ's fights anymore). Also, a female fight better than McGregor/Alvarez? Shoot yourself.
Click to expand...
McGregor vs Alvarez wasn't a good fight, don't let the hype carry you, it was absolutely one sided, Conor wrecked Eddie so is Nunes vs Rousey, just a hype fight that will be one sided
 
Tramero said:
McGregor vs Alvarez wasn't a good fight, don't let the hype carry you, it was absolutely one sided, Conor wrecked Eddie so is Nunes vs Rousey, just a hype fight that will be one sided
Click to expand...
Why are we comparing 'on paper' to 'in hindsight'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,000
Messages
55,460,346
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top