***spoilers*** UFC News and Discussion Thread

[Just Joe]

25 minutes ago, Maxx said:

Yeah, I can't see how they justify not giving Aldo a rematch.  Yes he went down in 13 seconds, but that was his first loss in ages, and he's destroyed the rest of the division, some guys multiple times.

Wasn't he offered the fight when RDA pulled?

[Benjamin]

Yup. Said he wasn't ready.

But considering what he tweeted after Conor lost, I think that's the route they'd go.

[Bobfoc]

I caught the tail end of this show, which included the Tate/Holm and McGregor/Diaz fights. These were the first UFC matches I had seen in a couple of years, so I'm far from an MMA expert, but McGregor's tactic of swinging wildly for the knockout always looked as though it would leave him open for some stiff counters, and that's what seemed to end up happening. I know he's meant to be the great entertainer who got the 13-second knockout last time round, but such a reckless approach can surely only get you so far before it comes back to bite you.

[Benjamin]

Conor has this unbelievable belief in himself that he cannot be hurt. When he has that mentality, he fights with absolute confidence and that can be a problem for him. 

[Liam]

I've heard rumours of GSP vs Lawler (sp?..might be Lawlor ) at 200 apparently. 

[Forky]

51 minutes ago, Benkid Nada said:

Conor has this unbelievable belief in himself that he cannot be hurt. When he has that mentality, he fights with absolute confidence and that can be a problem for him. 

I don't think overconfidence got him to be honest. He hits hard....for a featherweight. Nate's been rocked by guys a lot bigger and he just doesn't go down. Connor hit him with some good precise shots and Nate, much like he always does, kept coming forward and I don't think that was something that Connor expected.

If the rumours of Tate/Rousey are true then I hate the match makers. They have the perfect opportunity to open the division up a little bit and they're going straight for that quick money rather than looking at the big picture.

Also GSP/Lawler if it happens is bullshit!

[Rich]

@Forky Why is it bullshit?

[Forky]

I hate the idea of GSP walking away, bitching about the UFC and all it's policies and then coming back for a title shot. I get the reason, I just think it's bullshit for him to walk back in and get a title shot. It's the same way I feel about Jon Jones, except I feel a little stronger about that one since GSP didn't exactly hit and run on someone.

[Gazz]

At the end of the day, UFC is a business and they will always book the matches that will make the most money, which might not necessarily be the ones that make the most sense contendership wise.

[Chris2K]

I have no problem with GSP getting an immediate title shot, we've had loads of examples of former champions getting immediate re-matches when they've lost the title. In this instance GSP didn't even lose the belt (well, according to the judges), he just vacated it.

Jones is a different example in the sense that he was stripped of the title but there's also the issue in LHW division that there's Jones and Cormier and everyone else has lost to either one or both of them.

[Benjamin]

4 hours ago, Forky said:

I hate the idea of GSP walking away, bitching about the UFC and all it's policies and then coming back for a title shot. I get the reason, I just think it's bullshit for him to walk back in and get a title shot. It's the same way I feel about Jon Jones, except I feel a little stronger about that one since GSP didn't exactly hit and run on someone.

Why is it bullshit when he didn't lose the title?

[Forky]

Because he gave it of his own accord. I get that he had stuff going on or he didn't agree with this or that but I don't agree with him walking back in and getting the shot.

I know why they would do it but I don't have to like it.

[Noah]

Is Srar going to be as excited for this title change when it ultimately leads to her favorite fighter Ronda Rousey beating Tate and becoming champion again? 

[Forky]

I still say that I can't buy the Rousey/Tate match without Ronda beating Holm first. I don't understand how anyone can think it should.

[Quom]

Because it makes more sense to have the rematch for the belt. It also makes sense to get the belt back on Ronda ASAP since she keeps talking about her life after MMA. If she has a limited life-span you need to make as much money as quickly as possible. You also need her to make money hand over fist in an effort to change her mind. Ronda looked to be a cut above everyone that isn't Holm, I don't really see the point in making her fight her way back to the belt. Let her take it from Tate, then build it up and put her against Holm. 

The bigger concern should be if Holm will win if she fights again before getting the Rousey rematch.

[Cymbols]

Holly Holm vs Amanda Nunes would be a decent idea.

[Forky]

5 minutes ago, Quom said:

Because it makes more sense to have the rematch for the belt. It also makes sense to get the belt back on Ronda ASAP since she keeps talking about her life after MMA. If she has a limited life-span you need to make as much money as quickly as possible. You also need her to make money hand over fist in an effort to change her mind. Ronda looked to be a cut above everyone that isn't Holm, I don't really see the point in making her fight her way back to the belt. Let her take it from Tate, then build it up and put her against Holm. 

The bigger concern should be if Holm will win if she fights again before getting the Rousey rematch.

But is she really the money maker she was before the loss to Holm? I really think she needs to avenge that loss in order to be taken seriously again.

[Quom]

Yes, yes she is.

If Connor lost nothing by getting beaten by a guy that looked physically no more imposing than him then there is no way Rousey did. If anything it makes the fight more intriguing since it's more 'is Holm Ronda's kryptonite?' rather than 'is Rousey actually a bit shit?' 

If Rousey is actually a bit shit then putting her in the title fight still makes sense, she comes for the belt with a fuck ton of hype, loses and can walk away. It's going to make everyone a lot more money than having her lose in the co-main event.

[GhostMachine]

Rousey vs. Tate would be a more interesting fight, after her trash talking of Rousey when she lost to Holm. It could be the ICU or the coma ward for Tate.

[Benjamin]

The longer a Ronda / Tate rematch goes on, the more it'll favor Tate.

The more I think about it, the more I love a Nate Diaz / Robbie Lawler title fight. Considering the three people I'd be interested in getting a title shot are busy (Maia, Rory, Wonderboy) the fight makes so much sense and would be so fun. The Nick Diaz knockout of Robbie was one of the most memorable ever to me, and the story writes itself. Put Robbie / Nate on the co-main of UFC 200, with Rousey / Tate as the headliner, with the third billing going to a Nick Diaz fight. Nick Diaz / Bisping or something, who wouldn't want to see that? 

1 hour ago, Forky said:

But is she really the money maker she was before the loss to Holm? I really think she needs to avenge that loss in order to be taken seriously again.

Her fans don't really care if she's the actual best in the world. She's cultivated a persona that inspires and resonates with people, and she's very quotable and has an in-built, 4 year rivalry with the girl who has the belt, a girl who had to get around Ronda to win it. To me, it's a fight that sells itself. It's kind of like the Bones / Cormier and GSP / Lawler fights, except that Miesha beat the champ at the time, but many people would probably still consider Ronda as the best, because that's the persona cultivated.