• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Jack Slack: An almost-complete Georges St-Pierre striking primer

jack slack called weidman's route to victory against anderson (doubling up on the jab)

Don't mind Redhawk he goes waaaay out of his way to discredit anything or anyone who says anything even remotely positive about Fedor.

Absolutely beta, fat-kid-wearing-pocket-protector insecurities right there in spite of the fact that Jack routinely cites Anderson as the best striker and holds him in the highest of regards. Jack wrote a breakdown of Fedor though dispelling myths like Fedor was sloppy, Arlovski was lighting him up, Fedor never lost his prime, etc... so now the absurdly insecure Red needs to shit on Jack to make Anderson look better.


Insecure. :redface:
 
Stopped reading where it says GSP isn't a safe fighter.

lol That's understandable.

I like Jack's articles, but GSP is a safe fighter. Jack may not say it here but the fact that every time he talks about GSP's striking he mentions how GSP seems to have forgotten how to throw his right is a demonstration of that. Jack seems to be one of those guys who tend to admire technique and let that admiration fog their vision for criticizing the fighters intent/aggression. People aren't claiming GSP never throws punches or engages, just that when he does it's more focused on darting in and out for points rather than it is on damage and threatening. It's the same with his ground game which was even demonstrated in a Gracie breakdown. That's why the vast majority of the strikes GSP employs are jabs - quick strikes that don't leave you exposed much but also don't yield as much power as other strikes.

Jack is also wrong when he says with success brings haters. I hate it when people say this because it's an utterly foolish statement that's used in an attempt to negate critics through false logic rather than intelligent rebuttal, and that's true for those trying to say such things to disarm the critics of EVERY successful fighter. If people only hated fighters, like GSP, simply because they were successful, then those same critics wouldn't be fans of other successful fighters, which they always are. No intelligent person should ever think such a false thought as "haters gonna hate" or "success brings haters". It's basically like saying "I don't have an intelligent rebuttal to your criticisms, so I'll make one up instead."
 
Jack Slack lost all credibility when he showed his bias.

Analyzing Anderson's striking while discrediting his opponents, then analyzing Fedor's striking and talking up his win over Zulu.

A man's ability to accurately describe technique doesn't go out the window if they show a little bias.

You're being an idiot
 
lol That's understandable.

I like Jack's articles, but GSP is a safe fighter. Jack may not say it here but the fact that every time he talks about GSP's striking he mentions how GSP seems to have forgotten how to throw his right is a demonstration of that. Jack seems to be one of those guys who tend to admire technique and let that admiration fog their vision for criticizing the fighters intent/aggression. People aren't claiming GSP never throws punches or engages, just that when he does it's more focused on darting in and out for points rather than it is on damage and threatening. It's the same with his ground game which was even demonstrated in a Gracie breakdown. That's why the vast majority of the strikes GSP employs are jabs - quick strikes that don't leave you exposed much but also don't yield as much power as other strikes.

Jack is also wrong when he says with success brings haters. I hate it when people say this because it's an utterly foolish statement that's used in an attempt to negate critics through false logic rather than intelligent rebuttal, and that's true for those trying to say such things to disarm the critics of EVERY successful fighter. If people only hated fighters, like GSP, simply because they were successful, then those same critics wouldn't be fans of other successful fighters, which they always are. No intelligent person should ever think such a false thought as "haters gonna hate" or "success brings haters". It's basically like saying "I don't have an intelligent rebuttal to your criticisms, so I'll make one up instead."

Sorry but success DOES bring haters.

It's not that hard to figure out... Your oversimplified explanation doesn't even begin to rebuke that.

There are haters for just about every successful fighters so your premise is false. The most basic and obvious reason is that they threaten the measure of greatness of other successful fighters among which, those said haters are fans.

Take Redhawk100 for example... he's one pretty obvious example.
 
Great read
Can't wait for Saturday even tho I'll be working
 
lol That's understandable.

I like Jack's articles, but GSP is a safe fighter. Jack may not say it here but the fact that every time he talks about GSP's striking he mentions how GSP seems to have forgotten how to throw his right is a demonstration of that. Jack seems to be one of those guys who tend to admire technique and let that admiration fog their vision for criticizing the fighters intent/aggression. People aren't claiming GSP never throws punches or engages, just that when he does it's more focused on darting in and out for points rather than it is on damage and threatening. It's the same with his ground game which was even demonstrated in a Gracie breakdown. That's why the vast majority of the strikes GSP employs are jabs - quick strikes that don't leave you exposed much but also don't yield as much power as other strikes.

Jack is also wrong when he says with success brings haters. I hate it when people say this because it's an utterly foolish statement that's used in an attempt to negate critics through false logic rather than intelligent rebuttal, and that's true for those trying to say such things to disarm the critics of EVERY successful fighter. If people only hated fighters, like GSP, simply because they were successful, then those same critics wouldn't be fans of other successful fighters, which they always are. No intelligent person should ever think such a false thought as "haters gonna hate" or "success brings haters". It's basically like saying "I don't have an intelligent rebuttal to your criticisms, so I'll make one up instead."

I think it's a little silly to start trying to judge "intent".

Just because someone does something with more intelligence and finesse doesn't mean they're not still doing it.

When people say GSP is NOT a safe fighter it's because most of the people who say he is act like he really doesn't do anything (unlike yourself who says "People aren't claiming GSP never throws punches or engages")

but people actually do say things to that effect, ESPECIALLY about his ground game where they often call him a blanket or say he just lays on opponents which is absolutely laughable

Whenever it comes to mind, it will never cease to make me laugh that people called his performance against Hardy blanketing when he on more than one occasion tried to break his arm...

but that's just one example. People have said that about all the performances except shields and kos 2 for obvious reasons and it's bullshit. He never blankets. I've seen people actually blanket (like sherk/franca) and Georges has never come close to that. He is always throwing strikes, advancing position, or going for subs.

As for striking, he has a smart defensive style, like an mma version of hopkins or mayweather. If that's a bad thing then seriously fuck everybody. Cause that's ridiculous.

I swear it often sounds like people want GSP to fight significantly less intelligently and open himself up to easy counters with constant big heavy shots. (and of course if he lost doing this, people would actually think the other guy was better)

but I hope that's just me being crazy and people wouldn't actually want an intelligent fighter to be less intelligent.

The sport is lacking in intelligent fighters as it is. You don't ask the very few we have to grit their teeth and fight like idiots for no reason.

EDIT: Also I definitely have to disagree with your complete dismissal of the "success brings haters" idea.

Now I would agree that LEGIT criticism shouldn't be simply swept under the "haters" rug but the fact is a lot of criticism comes simply from bias and anger. Everyone comes across a few fighters (or teams or whatever in sports) that rub them the wrong way and they want to see them lose and taken down a notch.

It happens to everybody.

Think of it like the whole fox news "when bush did X, fox loved it, but if obama did the same thing, they hated it"

a lot of the stuff GSP gets shit on for, if it were a fighter they actually liked they'd be defending it. Just look at machida and how many people came out in droves for years to defend his intelligent defensive style, but many of those same people are like "zomg gsp is sooo boring! sooo safe! why don't you learn to be aggressive like a real fighter!?"
 
lol That's understandable.

I like Jack's articles, but GSP is a safe fighter. Jack may not say it here but the fact that every time he talks about GSP's striking he mentions how GSP seems to have forgotten how to throw his right is a demonstration of that. Jack seems to be one of those guys who tend to admire technique and let that admiration fog their vision for criticizing the fighters intent/aggression. People aren't claiming GSP never throws punches or engages, just that when he does it's more focused on darting in and out for points rather than it is on damage and threatening. It's the same with his ground game which was even demonstrated in a Gracie breakdown. That's why the vast majority of the strikes GSP employs are jabs - quick strikes that don't leave you exposed much but also don't yield as much power as other strikes.

."

Your implication here seems to be GSP fights safe standing and on the ground, which as an intelligent fighter he does, but to what extent? GSP is certainly 'beating' his opponents, no matter what scoring criteria you use to judge the fights. He's certainly dishing out more damage than his opponents, and only you are implying his attacks lack power and intent. Bjj expert Diaz was crawling away from GSP's ground assault, something we have never seen him do. Condit shot a take down against GSP, why not try keep the fight standing against GSP's safe, damageless style?

The answer is, of course, that GSPs "safe, lay and pray, point striking" fighting style is a myth. His strikes have power. Condit was clearly shaken by GSP's punches, clearly the myth had got to him as well. He might not take stupid risks on the ground, underestimate his GNP at your own peril however.

For no small reason did Slack credit GSP as the most well rounded unarmed combatant on the planet.
 
Jack Slack lost all credibility when he showed his bias.

Analyzing Anderson's striking while discrediting his opponents, then analyzing Fedor's striking and talking up his win over Zulu.

So if someone has bias they have no credibility?
 
GSP is a very intelligent fighter, no doubt about it. If it weren't for his safety-first approach, he probably wouldn't have last this long as a champion.

But with that said, GSP's style since his loss to Serra has been safety-first. To suggest otherwise, as was done in this article, would be like trying to persuade readers into believing in something that isn't true.

Well yeah, anyone with a brain wouldn't want to get KTFO out again and lose their belt, now would they? I don't understand why GSP gets so much hate for fighting like an actual professional and not a UFC dark ages brawler. MMA would still be looked at as some side show type shit if it weren't for guys like GSP.

P.S. Read the actual article before posting next time.
 
Don't mind Redhawk he goes waaaay out of his way to discredit anything or anyone who says anything even remotely positive about Fedor.

Absolutely beta, fat-kid-wearing-pocket-protector insecurities right there in spite of the fact that Jack routinely cites Anderson as the best striker and holds him in the highest of regards. Jack wrote a breakdown of Fedor though dispelling myths like Fedor was sloppy, Arlovski was lighting him up, Fedor never lost his prime, etc... so now the absurdly insecure Red needs to shit on Jack to make Anderson look better.


Insecure. :redface:

Look, it's the Justin Bieber fan. Want to be embarrassed again?
 
Any expert on any topic has bias; you don't study something for years or decades without developing strong opinions about it. The question is whether the bias leads to the articles/opinions/conclusions, or whether the research/analysis leads to the bias.

Some of Sherdog hates any Slack article because they're convinced he's a biased Fedor fanboy who hates Silva (because his Fedor articles don't have disclaimers that Silva fought better competition). Others hate anything he writes because they're convinced he's a delusional Silva worshiper (because he says he's the best striker in MMA)...
...He's a fan of both. That's okay. You can be that. It's actually very common, outside of these forums.

Even if Slack thought Fedor was amazing and Anderson is overrated (which there's zero evidence he does), I'd still be interested in seeing what reasons he had for that opinion because I know he'd back it up with more than "anyone who disagrees with me is a nuthugger".
 
When you work for reputable MMA sites and analyze fighters, no. There shouldn't be a bias. It's unprofessional.

if u work for a reputable MMA site and happen to be human as well....

well... im afraid you're gonna have to stop reading articles, all together. i don't know how any person can be void of bias.
 
I remember reading one of his articles awhile back and it mentioned that GSP was "weak" to body shots (and iirc, this is what lead Serra beating GSP). I hope Hendricks throws some body shots, as it could throw GSP off his game.
 
Holy shit, some of you are sensitive as hell to anything that might be seen as criticism. GSP is safety-first fighter, there's no way around it. This is not a critique, just a simple fact. As for his constant action, there's a big difference between defensive and safe. GSP is always on the offensive but never on a manner that opens him up for counters (he barely throws any combos anymore). Again, simple fact, not criticism.

One can recognize the competence of that approach and at the same time be turned off by it. Yadda yadda yadda rock'em sock'em robots, just bleed, etc etc.
 
Thanks for posting and reading guys =)

Apologies to anyone who thinks I've discredited their favourite fighter at some point.

I've certainly never tried to discredit Anderson Silva though. I've probably written more Anderson Silva pieces than anything else.
 
Back
Top