That time GSP ducked fighting Whittaker

[Dan O'Burke]

just now reading through this thread and lol, you destroyed dude and then I destroyed him again! Haha

Yessir!

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Everyone knew GSP was coming back to fight Bisping because it was an easy opportunity to get the MW belt and we all knew that he had no plans to defend it.

GSP denied it repeatedly saying he would defend the MW belt if he wins it and saying it was in his contract that he had to defend the belt - blah blah blah.

Then he beats Bisping and shortly after says he has ulcerative colitis so he can’t defend the belt. Whittaker was up next.

Y’all consider that an “official” duck by GSP? I do.

https://www.mmafighting.com/2017/8/...iddleweight-title-if-he-beats-michael-bisping

I don’t use the word duck. Fighters can manage their careers however they want.

But I did think it was funny when GSP would say, “it’s in my contract,” when people asked if he would defend the belt. What the hell did that even mean?

 

[snaportap21]

i don't consider gsp a two-weight champ. one fight beating the champion doesn't make you a champion to me. you have to fight contenders before and then fight the champion to become a true champion. i mean damn, even at least one contender before lol.

it's all marketing by the ufc. and gsp knew it. he knew that one win over bisping would give him that title. he didn't want to compete. he simply wanted the title.

He beat a defending champion. It is what it is. With that logic people who won belts from short notice fights aren’t champs either. If it makes you feel better, Shields was ranked top 5 mw when st Pierre beat him. Shields was only a year removed from the Henderson defense.

 

[SuperNerd]

The only people butt hurt GSP didn't defend the title, are the ones that want to be.

Look at how the TS frames Georges comments.
He says "GSP denied it repeatedly saying he would defend the MW belt if he wins"

but the quote in his linked post reads:

“I have to defend my title,” St-Pierre said. “It’s written in my contract. I have to defend my title if I win.”

Anyone not playing stupid knows these are very different comments.

It was clear from the words GSP chose, he wasn't intending to stick around.
It was clear the UFC wanted this fight, and wanted no blame in promoting this fight and delaying their MW division even longer. They tried to excuse their part by pretending they had some contract that bound Georges to fight.

Ping, Georges, and UFC all knew the situation, and cashed in. All three parties were happy, and they hustled you.

UFC and Georges told you he was bound by contract to defend and a lot of morons ate that up, believed it, thought it could actually be enforced, and chose to be upset for half a decade over it.

 

[SuperNerd]

I was at MSG the night he won the belt. I immediately knew he would never defend it. Turns out I was right.

Slow.

I knew he wasn't going to return when he signed his 4-fight deal in March 2017.

 

[IIIIIIII]

1. Yes, GSP cherry-picked the weakest MW champion in more than a decade.
2. Yes, most people knew he wouldn't fight the legit top MWs. There's a reason Dana put a mandatory-defense clause in his contract.
3. Why are we re-litigating this 6 years later? GSP is one of the GOATs. He had an amazing career. His double-champ status is a little dubious, but who cares?

well, it does mean something if some people still consider gsp a two-time champ, which i personally don't.

 

[ncboy]

i don't consider gsp a two-weight champ. one fight beating the champion doesn't make you a champion to me. you have to fight contenders before and then fight the champion to become a true champion. i mean damn, even at least one contender before lol.

it's all marketing by the ufc. and gsp knew it. he knew that one win over bisping would give him that title. he didn't want to compete. he simply wanted the title.

Conor doesn't like you

 

[laleggenda27]

well, it does mean something if some people still consider gsp a two-time champ, which i personally don't.

Factually, he is a two-division champ. There's really no "consider" about it. Obviously, there's levels to this. For example, GSP moving up and beating one-eye Bisping isn't the same as BJ moving up and destroying then-GOAT Hughes. Or Nunes smashing Cyborg. GSP's two-division-champ status is towards the bottom of the list. On the other hand, at least he actually beat a champion to earn his second belt, as opposed to guys who fought for vacant title against very flawed non-champions (Henry and Jones).

 

[killakillakilla]

Dana White, Dec. 2017-

“Listen, I had him sign a contract that said he would defend against Whittaker for a reason. Because I knew he wouldn’t.

“At the end of the day, there’s a reason I put that stuff in the contract for him to sign, Am I shocked? I don’t think anybody’s shocked. He came out, and he hand-picked Bisping and went away again. So, whatever. It is what it is.

“He doesn’t want to fight anybody at welterweight,” White said. “That’s why he fought Bisping. He didn’t want to fight Woodley. He didn’t want to fight ‘Wonderboy’ Thompson. He didn’t want to fight any of those guys. He only wanted to fight Michael Bisping. He did, and now he’s off again.”

https://bloodyelbow.com/2017/12/10/...dnt-defend-title-gsp-hand-picked-bisping-mma/

 

[King in the North]

Yeah I think he publicly said he was going to defend the belt repeatedly but after a dog fight with a one eyed 40 year old Bisping he realized it wasn’t a good idea. All time great. One of the GOATS. But didn’t like to take risks.

 

[Strijfy]

This whole thread:

Its like GroundHog day in here of late.

 

[Masturbin]

Yeah Gsp wanted to fight Rockhold, Romero, Jacare and Whittaker that's why he fought.... 1 eye Bisping the weakest mh champ in modern history by far.

 

[StonedLemur]

Thanks for this @BEATDOWNS it fits nicely in this thread lol.

 

[Killer Kadoogan]

everyone knows GSP was given the 185 title shot against the most easiest opponent, and was in no way ever going to face whittaker or a legitimate MW fighter. GSP moved slower than a fry in poutine covered gravy and looked tired out there. Bisping was the easiest shot to market GSP as a double champ and add to his aura/mystique/greatness as one of the elite of all time. pure marketing, pure wolf tickets, and pure gastrointestinal issues at the right time. anyone a fan of the game for this long knows this.

 

[Substance Abuse]

Its like GroundHog day in here of late.

What's next, Greasegate revisited? Lol

 

[krelianx]

You’ve used the term “mentally masterbate” 5 times in this thread.
What’s the deal?

His philosophy B.A has driven him nutty.

 

[StonedLemur]

What's next, Greasegate revisited? Lol

That was revisited like 6-8 months ago I believe lol.

 

[krelianx]

https://www.sbnation.com/platform/a...t-pierre-johny-hendricks-drug-testing-gsp-ufc

The last e-mail from Rodolphe reads this:

"From: Rodolphe Beaulieu

Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:52 PM

To: Keith Kizer

Cc: Michael Mersch; Firas; Ted

Subject: Re: RE:

Hello all,

We spoke with Georges today and he took his decision so for your information, Georges has decided that if Johny Hendricks does not want to do VADA and prefers your proposed enhanced steroid and drug testing by the Nevada Athletic Commission, Georges will also do it, in addition to VADA.

I will be out of the office without access to email or voicemail until Aug. 27th but in the meantime, please provide us with all documentation, a detailed invoice and payment instructions necessary to proceed with such enhanced steroid and drug testing by the Commission.

Best regards

Rodolphe"

No further communication from Kizer, or Johny. Georges ended up doing VADA testing on his own. Hendricks did nothing.

 

[The Don]

one fight beating the champion doesn't make you a champion to me.

But that's exactly what being a champion takes. Beating the man who holds the belt. You may have an easier path, you may have masterfully orchestrated your way up to the title shot, but to become a champion you must beat a champion.

 

[snaportap21]

You're being obtuse. He's not using logic in the technical sense in which it designates a field of study in the academic discipline of philosophy, or mathematical logic. Nor is he using logic in the sense of breaking down arguments into neatly organized sets of premises and conclusions, or formal symbolization, or analysis of the validity-soundness of arguments.

He's using logic in the vernacular, informal sense in which it designates roughly something like "the pattern of reasoning/justification that one gives for believing that p, including the reasons for p and consequences of p". These patterns of reasoning and justification can operate informally in all ways, by analogy, deduction, induction, etc.

I know it is tempting to lecture everybody on what "logic really is" since the term is used ambiguously and loosely. But it comes across as silly and pretentious.

There is such a thing as the vernacular use of the word "logic", which is not the same as the technical sense of the word, as I explained. This is not to say that there are two kinds of logic.

Also, what "facts" are is hardly uncontroversial. Some take them to be ontological valences modelled in analogy with propositional states. Others, like nominalist monists (Sellars), think they are discursive artifacts, and that nature has no propositional form.

"Speculation" designates an action, not a set of non-actualized possible worlds or states of affairs. What may have happened or has happened is not "logical" or "illogical" anymore than a fact regarding an actual state of affairs is 'logical' or illogical. There are facts about possibilities as well, (e.g. "I could have eaten a hamburger for lunch" is a fact, if the sentence is true) so the distinction is not where you draw it. Speculation is reasoning regarding the possible, and may be logically valid or sound.

For someone who claims to have studied philosophy you sure don't seem particularly bright.