Bjorn Hansen's Take
HANSEN: Response to reader feedback on critical look at GSP's legacy
Apr 9, 2010 - 2:00:30 PM HANSEN: Response to reader feedback on critical look at GSP's legacy

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Bjorn Hansen, MMATorch Columnist

WARNING: The following contains opinions that have resulted in enraged nausea for some readers.

Continue with caution.

In my last column I critically examined the legacy of Georges St. Pierre (GSP). And while my words are “critically examined”, a lot of readers would say “ripped him a new one.”

The feedback?

A capuchin monkey with a learning-disability taking astrophysics at Harvard wouldn’t get called “stupid” more times than I have this past week. Ah, a day in the life of Tito Ortiz. I really struck a nerve with some readers; one was even “disgusted”.

I almost half-expected some stranger in public to tackle me down to the ground out of nowhere. Then, without inflicting any real damage, allow me up again, and repeat the process for twenty-five dreadful minutes. Now that’s what you would call “poetic justice.”

I’ve had some time to reflect and my opinion on the matter has evolved. Somehow when I called GSP’s performance “absolutely dominant”, I didn’t do it justice. Dan Hardy, in what was undoubtedly his only road to victory, landed zero arm strikes (according to CompuStrike.) That’s worth repeating: In five rounds of action, you and I both punched GSP as many times as Hardy did.

Keep in mind Georges only punched him six times, but he clearly had his sights set on other goals.

I also attacked St. Pierre because he didn’t “stand with him for one round and try to knock him out” as he declared in the pre-fight hype. I also lamented over his chain of failed submissions at UFC 111.

What I tried to say was that if he didn’t try to swing it out on the feet eventually, it would hurt him down the road. Who knows? The take downs may not be forever.

Let’s say they do, because Georges is a freak after all. Unless the takedown leads to a successful submissions or serious damage, then how much value does it have?

Either way, I’m not stupidly strategizing GSP’s game plan, using his opponent’s playbook. I realize Hardy wanted a standing brawl and GSP did the smart thing by avoiding that.

Max Kellerman, a boxing analyst (and the first host of Around the Horn on ESPN), has proclaimed “boxing is the greatest of all sports because it is about the literal imposition of will.”

But did Georges impose his will on Hardy?

CompuStrike says so (he did hold sixteen dominant positions after all). A lot of readers think so. But I don’t because I don’t think St. Pierre does.

Let’s look at some of GSP’s own words before and after the fight.

Before:

”I don’t want to only win…I want to take him out. I want to be known as the best pound for pound (P4P) of ALL time.

After:

“I am not very happy with myself. I made a lot of technical mistakes. I’m going to have to sit down with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu coach.

I want to apologize to my fans. I wanted to finish this fight in a beautiful fashion.”

If Georges' will was to finish the fight, then he has failed for fifteen consecutive rounds. If he had come out and said “I plan on doing to Hardy exactly what I did to Jon Fitch and Thiago Alves. No different.” Then his performance would have been just what he was looking for.

It wasn’t. He wanted a finish.

So is there really something so wrong in doing what flat out works? Absolutely, not. My contention is it’s not working the way he, himself, is aiming for it to work.

And it’s not like he didn’t have the door of opportunity screaming for him to open it. After fifteen seconds GSP had a takedown. After sixty, he had side control. About two minutes in, he had Dan Hardy’s back, with hooks in mind you. Nothing materialized.

Round after round this happened, and whether it was a failed joint-lock, or feather-handed ground and pound that never put Hardy in serious trouble, Georges couldn’t close. He had sixteen dominant positions over the course of twenty-five minutes, and yet he couldn’t close. Anecdotally, I heard he had trouble closing a screen door later that night.

GSP keeps his engine revving at a high pace throughout; but you never see him take it into a finishing gear. The gear that says to go with a balls-to-the-wall intensity, stamina for future rounds be damned. That’s the type of frenzy that referees reward with technical knockouts. I never saw that frenzy from Georges.

Let’s reexamine Georges’ pre-fight quote

”I don’t want to only win…I want to take him out. I want to be known as the best pound for pound (P4P) fighter of ALL time.”

Notice the causal connection he makes: "I want to take him out: I want to be known as the best P4P fighter of all time."

Now let’s look at two quotes from his Armour of Invincibility documentary:

“He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.” Muhammad Ali

“Accept challenges, so you may feel the exhilaration of victory.” (unnamed)

With that said, let me introduce you into what motivated me to write this article in the first place: Anderson Silva, the Dana-declared best P4P fighter on the planet, is eyeing fights in not only the heavyweight division, but welterweight as well.

Silva has been respectful enough not to demand fights with the champions of any weight class, but you have to imagine that’s where his sights are set.

We heard Georges refuse Anderson after UFC 100 because Silva was “too big.” That’s the line of defense Dana White took from that point.

It made sense too. Anderson had started bulking up for the light heavyweight division. But now what? Is that point not moot now?

We would never pit Brock Lesnar in the Octagon against B.J. Penn. The laws of physics would predetermine a winner; not the level of skill. But more realistic pairings exist for the pantheon of pound-for-pound fighters that includes: B.J. Penn, Georges St. Pierre, Anderson Silva, Fedor Emelianenko.

The only fighter in that cast that doesn’t fight larger opponents on a regular basis is GSP.

Why do fighters even bother fighting above their natural weight?

Imagine this:

After B.J. Penn rear-naked-choked Matt Hughes he progressively moved up to each weight class, finishing every champion including in the heavyweight division. If he was so bored at that point, if he pulled a Jim Brown and retired, without ever winning the lightweight belt, would there be any question as to who the best P4P fighter ever was?

I just think you get more bang for your punch by fighting above your class. I think it’s something so rare and hard to find someone who’s capable of defying the laws of physics.

It also lends itself to this imagined “pound-for-pound” concept. Beating heavier opponents has to mean a better “pound-for-pound” rating.

I find the juxtaposition between Georges’ and Anderson’s tactics to the same desire fascinating. Georges’ apparently wants us to fantasize about the “what if’s” while he supremely rules his natural division.

Anderson on the other hand is not satisfied with just wondering. He needs to know for himself.

Georges’ aspirations are to be the best pound-for-pound fighter ever. Yet he refuses to fight larger quality opponents and has seemed to lose his finishing touch.

If he only wants to continue his dominant reign as welterweight champion, that’s one thing. But you can’t fight in a league where they post “never leave it in the judge’s hands” on the wall and then repeatedly not finish. It disturbs MMA’s unique ability to not actually need scorekeeping, or referees. A knockout or tapout is like a gentleman’s agreement. Everyone knows what just happened.

GSP knows he needs to finish. The question is, when will it happen and against whom?

He’s in a foot race with Anderson to be the best pound-for-pound fighter of the era.

Whose methods will prove more fruitful in the end?

I think this Saturday will give us an inkling of what’s to come.



Questions? Comments? Email me at Bjorn.hansen@fiu.edu.