Forget the IF, Fitch is already more deserving. Fitch has won 3 on the trot and beat an 11-0 Thiago who had just beaten Koscheck. He also beat Gono by UD where Hardy only beat him by SD. I know GSP might dominate those guys but they are more deserving. Hardy should be put in with Koscheck or Fitch or Alves to really earn him a title shot. Look what Alves had to do to earn a title shot. Hardy and Daley are losers in a group of much lower level fighters. The names you mention are losers amongst the elite and you know that. Silly example.
Fair enough. But referring to Bisping, Hardy & Daley as losers is still pretty ridiculous. Not top tier fighters by any means, but certainly not 'losers' either.
I don't mean losers in the diss form. For Hardy and Daley I mean literally losers. Bisping is just part of the British hype train that the UFC is trying to create for marketing purposes.
As i said before having multiple losses doesn't necessarily make you a loser in the literal sense. Hardy has six losses, (one by dq); Wanderlei has 10, Randy has 10, Henderson has 7, Pulver has 12, Belfort has 8 ... They may have been defeated by better opponents than the guys Hardy lost to, but using your logic you would still have to describle all the above mentioned as 'losers' in literal terms which would be inaccurate not to mention disrespectful.
What you are saying doesn't apply. Yes they are losers but amongst the elite. Being a loser on the elite level and being a loser on a low level yet being steered towards a title shot before your time are completely different.
I've acknowledged twice that Couture, Belfort et all have lost (nearly)exclusively at an elite level (during their primes). See post 28. However if you're being literal, in categorising fighters with multiple losses as 'losers', then you have to apply this logic across the board. If Dan Hardy with six losses is a 'loser' then Pulver with his 20-12 record is a 'loser'. It doesn't matter that his level of opposition is far greater than Hardy's, if you're being 'literal'. Just admit that Hardy isn't a loser. He's just a decent fighter who has got an unmerited opportunity due to the the lack of worthy challengers for GSP's crown.
I agree that Fitch's unremarkable string of victories since GSP dominated him makes him the best challenger out there. But is he the most deserving? It's debatable. However think of it from the UFC's perspective. How the hell are they going to market a fight between a guy who just four fights ago was quite frankly, outclassed? For me there's not enough time in between him being dominated, and him being hyped by the UFC as guy whose re-emerged a better fighter, a viable contender. See Nate Marquardt as an example. Should he beat Sonnen (& he will, devastatingly), enough time would've passed where he can be rightly be marketed as a completely different fighter to one battered by Silva. If Ficth hadn't of been dominated it would've been different. If he'd have been competitive he probably would've had a rematch by now. If Alves/Fitch had already happened the winner would definitley have got a shot before Hardy. Until then they need a guy just to make up the numbers. Hardy's getting a shot because he's 4-0 in the UFC. They can market that. Show some footage of Markham getting sparked. Show some footage of Swick & Davis getting put on ***** street. Show some footage of his ring walk, face camoflaged, all bristling intent. Casuals might just buy into it. Of course then reality sets in, and GSP stops him early. But you can't keep ripping Hardy for the fact that the welterweight division is lacking a suitable contender. Btw, do you not remember Hardy conceding on Setanta's ultimate talk last June that he'd need another 18-20 months before he'd be ready for whom he perceived to be the best three welterweights in the division: GSP, Alves & Fitch. 18-20 months suggests he was hoping for a title shot around the conclusion of 2010, with about 7 or 8 fights under his belt. He's definitely being rushed.
The problem with ww is the guys who seem to be thought of as gatekeepers post GSP loss are all better than anyone else in the division. GSP can't fight Kos, Fitch and Alves every year.
I'm using the word losers relatively. They are being touted as deserving of fighting in a category of fighters (the elite) when they don't belong there. What Hardy has achieved should get him a shot at a Koscheck not a GSP. Hardy and Daley are losers who have a great opportunity but are being highly touted. Daley is following a path Hardy should have. Daley is going to fight a Koscheck next because thats what his accomplishments thus far deserve.
I agree with what you say about Fitch. From a marketing perspective he is a hard sell because they are selling a PPV. This brings up the issue of every event being PPV. All in all, this can be considered an inbetween fight as many boxers do. The card GSP is on will be stacked so making it PPV can be justified. I'm not ripping Hardy at all. I'm ripping the UFC. In a fair world, the fight should not be made. From a marketing perspective I understand this fight. Hardy said he'd happily fight Koscheck before GSP but the UFC didn't want that.
It's really too bad he isn't fighting Koscheck. Hardy has dynamite in his left hook, and if he could fight as elite a wrestler as Koscheck and win that would show him as a possible threat to GSP. I'm not saying I think Hardy would win, but if he could then a fight with GSP after would be much more of a draw than now when he is untested.
