Yeah - that one slipped my mind.This wasn't good?
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69981284/1319536394.0.jpg)
One of my absolute worst takes ever was going with the tried and true good wrestler over striker thing. I had NO idea what the size disparity was, or the fact that every time Carla shot in on Joanna, her legs would have sprawled three states away.
I have precisely zero excitement about every Esparza fight. She just shoots for a TD and wrestles 95% of the time. Where are the finishes? Apart from her last fight against Xiaonan (KO), her previous 7 wins were all decisions.
And that will stop Dana? Lol you must be new to this
Who should she take? Marina again? She certainly shouldn't be fighting any lower.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s unwarranted criticisms. There’s a difference between fighters who look for subs and land hard shots on the ground, and fighters who only do it for control.
That and the fact that Andrade isn't a big draw either. Why would Dana feel compelled to give her any preferential treatment?
Highly debatable. Esparza controlled most of the action but Rodriguez did waaaaay more damage.
Because he's petty and warned Esparza not to sit on the sidelines. Dana is very likely to view her choice to wait as insubordination. He's Dana White, you must be new to this.
You're right, it doesn't earn her "fans," (though those aren't really MMA fans we're talking about, are they?)
Two of her five wins were bonuses
Again you're right, but we all know deep down you shouldn't be. Winning is the goal, winning the most makes you the best, being champion is being the best. These are all fundamental tenants and despite the UFC's precedence in favoring the popular, fans still take the liberty of assuming these things by default. But the problem is, you can't say wholeheartedly that the champ is the best while also saying what you said, that a streak of (unexciting) wins shouldn't be considered for title shots. The argument could easily be made that the fault here is not her being unexciting, but you being unexcited. She's doing her job, and if you don't like it, then you don't like all of her job, which is MMA, which means.. you don't like all of MMA.
You must be new to this. Rose is far more popular than Andrade. If Rose beats Weili again, Dana would much rather have her as champion than Andrade. Carla is an easier fight.
......if you ignore the dynamics and realities of the business.
Winning is indeed the goal, but Carla's style isn't really that effective. She has been depending on the judges gifting her decisions to "win."You're right, it doesn't earn her "fans," (though those aren't really MMA fans we're talking about, are they?)
Two of her five wins were bonuses
Again you're right, but we all know deep down you shouldn't be. Winning is the goal, winning the most makes you the best, being champion is being the best. These are all fundamental tenants and despite the UFC's precedence in favoring the popular, fans still take the liberty of assuming these things by default. But the problem is, you can't say wholeheartedly that the champ is the best while also saying what you said, that a streak of (unexciting) wins shouldn't be considered for title shots. The argument could easily be made that the fault here is not her being unexciting, but you being unexcited. She's doing her job, and if you don't like it, then you don't like all of her job, which is MMA, which means.. you don't like all of MMA.
So again, I ask... those aren't really MMA fans we're talking about, are they?
You wanna watch someone exciting get a belt for being exciting? Here ya go.
Big E's hilarious, go check him out.
Right, and that's the risk. The same way Derrick Lewis isn't really effective, cuz he's vulnerable too when he's swangin and bangin with zero technique. And once he lost, he's out of the convo until he wins again. Same here, once she depends on the judges and they don't gift her, she's out too.
If Rose beats Weili again, I agree that Carla should be next. One can't make an argument for anyone else.
