Simple question doggers...Do most of you honestly believe that Tate is a better fighter than Holm or

GoshiShun17

GoshiShun17

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
11,123
Reaction score
8,832
Or that Tate is Holly's kryptonite??? Do you believe Tate beats Holm more than 50% of the time. I personally still feel that Holm is most likely to win in a fight between the trio of her Rousey and Tate but I see a bunch of losers coming out of the woodwork trying to act like Holm's victory over Ronda was a fluke.

I've never been a Ronda hater, in fact I'm probably more of a fan but you puss huggers are getting ridiculous. Yes Holm showed a slight weakness in this fight but I think her team will fix that, she was well on her way to out pointing Tate.
 
Last edited:
Holm looked like crap in her fights before ronda. she barely beat pennington. her problem is she is just a point fighter, and as long as she does that, she will always have problems. i guess seeing how bad she is on the ground shows why she is afraid to engage with people. she was completely lost. But last night she was pretty much exactly the same fighter she was in her ufc fights before the ronda fight

it was just a perfect combination of factors that made her look so awesome against Ronda.
 
No idea. Pretty uneventful fight that holly was going to win before the sub
 
holly's problem--her lack of a ground game--isn't any different than tate against ronda. holly can train and train and train on her ground defense, etc. just like tate trained against the armbar submission against ronda. yet, tate quit and tapped out twice when ronda armbarred her.

it's no different for holly either. she can train her ground defense, but against an experienced grappler, it's only a matter of time before holly gets submitted again. holly is just too inexperienced on the ground.
 
Ofc Holm is better. Sometimes underdogs win, its normal. If they rematch next week, Holm would again be the favourite and rightfully so.
 
More well rounded for sure. Holm looked like frightened toddler when it hit the mat.
 
Holm had the same problem McGregor did. Too one dimensional. Neither of them have a complete game and they paid for it.
 
Man, who the fuck can tell with the women's divisions? Results vs. expectations seem all over the place. I'm just gonna pretend it's because it's a murderer's row and everyone can smash everyone.
 
Meisha is a better wrestler and grappler than holm. Holm is a better counter striker.

With that being said, why would you think this victory was a fluke for meisha Tate? Sure they could fight again and holm could win but when the fight went to the ground Meisha was on a totally different level. Which means meisha could win again
 
in the end Miesha was the better fighter. Holm had every oppurtunity to ko her over the course of the fight,and if mieshas talent in one area caused her to be gunshy and not do this,and miesha chokes her out,miesha is the better fighter . I didnt think it would happen but it did.Do i think she can make adjustments and beat tate next time,of course..but...
 
Holly has more potential but her age is going to stop her
 
this fight reminded me alot of mirko vs nog. hahaha
 
WMMA just Isnt on par with men's MMA. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way towards women, they just haven't been around as long. We haven't seen really good well rounded WMMA fighters yet, but they are in the making and there are some good prospects coming up. I look at WMMA and see it I. The same place as men's MMA was 10-15 years ago.
 
waldywaldy said:
More well rounded for sure. Holm looked like frightened toddler when it hit the mat.
Click to expand...

came to say the same
this is MMA, Holly and Thatch showed that with zero ground game you will be fucked evenrually
 
The only difference I could see in this fight was Holm wasn't fighting for a belt to win it. She was fighting to not lose it. Big difference and I think it showed in her game plan. Gone was the speed and dynamic movement we saw vs Ronda. Now everything looked calculated and safe. She limited her own potential, possibly subconciously, and it cost her that fight. I mean
..she can improve her ground game substantially, but that's not why she lost that fight.
 
Zedy44 said:
The only difference I could see in this fight was Holm wasn't fighting for a belt to win it. She was fighting to not lose it. Big difference and I think it showed in her game plan. Gone was the speed and dynamic movement we saw vs Ronda. Now everything looked calculated and safe. She limited her own potential, possibly subconciously, and it cost her that fight. I mean
..she can improve her ground game substantially, but that's not why she lost that fight.
Click to expand...

It looked safe because she is a counter fighter. And when a fighter like Ronda bull rushes you, it makes your life easier. Which is why Ronda's game plan was terrible when compared to Tate's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,469
Messages
56,648,957
Members
175,333
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top