UFC on FOX 2 Results: What We Learned from Cub Swanson vs. George Roop
Featherweights were in action tonight at UFC on Fox 2 in Chicago, and Cub Swanson picked up his first victory since Nov. 2010 after knocking out George Roop in the second round of their bout.
With the victory, Swanson improves to 16-5 while Roop falls to 12-9-1.
What we'll remember about this fight
Swanson's highlight reel knockout of Roop is one to remember. With a jab and follow-up right hand, Swanson was able to find the mark and send Roop's mouthpiece flying out of his mouth while his head spun around almost 360 degrees.
After Roop fell to the canvas, Swanson swarmed on him with a few more strikes before the referee jumped in to save his opponent.
What we learned about Cub Swanson
Swanson is one to fight with his emotions, and while he did that here, it worked to his advantage against his much taller opponent.
After finding his range and using flashy strikes to get to his opponent, Swanson was able to set up the fight-ending blows.
It may have been his most impressive performance to date.
What we learned about George Roop
Roop has always shown some flaws in his striking defense, and it cost him the victory in this bout. He has gotten away with it before, but his tendency to back straight up and leave his chin out in the open was what led to him getting caught.
What's next for Swanson
A fight versus Daniel Pineda (16-7), who was last seen defeating Pat Schilling at UFC on FX 1, should give Swanson a chance to get his first two-fight win streak in over three years. Both have similar records and have won almost all of their fights by knockout or submission.
What's next for Roop
Roop has had some good success in the UFC, and his close decision loss to No. 2 ranked featherweight Hatsu Hioki still keeps him around in the UFC. A fight versus Manvel Gamburyan, who is 0-3 in his last three bouts, could help him get back on the winning track.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?