I disagree, respectfully of course. I think it would have been much closer than people tend to think. The wins Weidman and Rockhold had leading up to their title shots are of the same caliber of wins Bisping had during his entire UFC career.
Rockhold's best win on paper was Machida. Machida was old. Alternatively, Bisping beat Anderson, who was old. Who else for Rockhold... Boetsch, Costa? Bisping would have Bisping'd them via unanimous decision like he did to every fringe top 10-5 guy his whole career.
Weidman, what was his best fight leading up to the Anderson fight (which we can argue was a fluke)...Munoz? The snoozer with Maia? Weidman defended the belt against, what we can now say, are over the hill, post-roided contenders. Weren't Weidman's levels also a little iffy? He was about two inches from getting headkick KOd by Machida. Then he lost to Luke... who happened to lose to every contender, besides Branch, after he got KTFOd by Bisping. (Branch almost slept him btw)
I'm not overating Bisping, I'm bringing Weidman and Rockhold closer to Bisping's level because that's where they belong, especially Weidman. The 7/10 and 9/10 stuff, between these three especially, boggles my mind. It would be one thing if either of them kept winning after they lost the belt, but they didn't, they fell off hard.
Any win that either of them has against MW top ten is comparable to the wins Bisping has. Did they look great winning? Sure, but against who? And what happened when they fought the true elite?
How would I envision him beating Weidman? The same way he beats most of his opponents, by outpacing them. If Weidman beats him, he beats him like Chael did, by a razor thin controversial split decision. Not by a landslide 9/10 times. I think Parillo trained Bisping pieces Weidman up. Just my opinion, I know it's unpopular.