Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
So you'll agree that context matters then? Shields has a gameplan to frustrate his opponents. Largely due to his lack of striking. And that despite his rudimentary (I'd go so far as to say downright terrible) striking acumen, he's a very hard guy to beat, much less put away?
So let's follow this logic through. In the context of the Henderson fight, you want to say that what Shields did was impressive in implementing his game plan, but don't want to give him too much credit for beating Henderson. I'm assuming you don't want to give him too much credit because you found it 'boring'. Yet he managed to beat Dan Henderson, a guy that many consider a top 10 fighter all time. Shields absolutely dominated Henderson. Won a unanimous decision on all 3 score cards.
Then when looking at the GSP fight, all you (and others) want to say is Shields almost won a fight that was largely contested on the feet, without looking at the context of what actually happened in the fight? Shields 'gameplan' against GSP seemed to be trying to (literally) blind the man in one eye. He almost succeeded, but despite that, GSP still won the fight. Something Henderson failed to do. The only reason the GSP fight was remotely close, was the blatant and illegal eye pokes that Shields was throwing. Once is an accident. Twice is being careless. Three, four, five times is blatantly trying to cheat. But we'll just ignore that in favor of the 'GSP got beaten up by Shields on the feet' narrative.
For what it's worth, I actually watched the Shields vs Henderson fight live when it happened (not at the event, but on TV). I never really thought Shields 'beat up' Henderson, I just used that term to prove that context matters. I figured you guys want to 'play dumb' with the Shields vs GSP fight, I can do the same with the Henderson fight.
In the end, GSP won, Henderson lost. But you guys go ahead and spin it in whatever way fits the narrative you're trying to push.
