Jamie Varner: I Could Have Won a Boring Fight Against Joe Lauzon at UFC on Fox 4
Recent UFC Fight of the Night bonus winner Jamie Varner fell short in his bout against Joe Lauzon at UFC on Fox 4, but his wallet is now $50,000 thicker following the highly entertaining contest.
Varner, who had only recently made his return to the UFC after nearly five years out of the promotion, has seemingly resurrected his dwindling career, which included losses in three of his final four fights with the WEC.
Dominant victories since that point earned Varner another shot in the Octagon, which he took advantage of in May when he knocked out Edson Barboza at UFC 146.
Varner’s style has always made him highly entertaining, and a matchup with Joe Lauzon proved that he still has it. However, Varner believes that he likely could have won the fight at UFC on Fox 4 if it wasn’t for his all-or-nothing fighting style.
“I fight with reckless abandon, and I think that’s what got me fight of night,” Varner told Bas Rutten. “Because I fight so hard and I scramble, I put myself in bad positions, and I do get caught, and it sucks.”
The loss is obviously an unfortunate outcome for Varner, but he’s not losing much sleep over it. He believes that he’s making the right decision as a fighter by going for broke.
“I’d rather fight hard and have people enjoy watching me fight than just always go out there and fight not to lose,” he said. “I could have beat Joe Lauzon with the jab. I could have ran, thrown jabs, thrown kicks, kept him away and won a boring decision. But no, I wanted to put pressure on him. I wanted to be exciting; I wanted to go for the finish.”
We haven’t seen the last of Jamie Varner in the UFC, and despite the loss, which—at least partially,—was due to his style, he doesn’t seem to be planning on fighting more conservatively in the future.
If, in the future, we see the same Jamie Varner that we saw against Joe Lauzon, he could be raking in quite a few more Fight of the Night bonuses before his career is over.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?