UFC on Fox 6: Did Glover Teixeira's Stock Rise or Fall with Win over Rampage?
Glover Teixeira did exactly what he needed to do to defeat mixed martial arts legend Quinton "Rampage" Jackson at UFC on Fox 6.
Teixeira caught Rampage early and often with hard punches, and he took his opponent down at will.
While executing this game plan, Teixeira also avoided Rampage's power and never found himself in serious danger for the bout's duration.
Sounds like a perfect fight, no?
It wasn't—not even close, in fact.
Before the fight, Teixeira was viewed as the next threat to Jon Jones' light heavyweight championship strap, and the fight with Rampage was supposed to solidify this notion.
His stock was impossibly high with these expectations, and anything short of a dominant finish would be a disappointment.
As it turns out, Teixeira merely cruised to a unanimous decision victory, and for that, his stock fell.
If Rampage had come out active, aggressive and prepared, Teixeira's decision would have been impressive.
However, Rampage looked tired from the bout's onset, and he never found his groove throughout the fight's 15-minute span.
Making matters worse, Rampage showed off some absolutely horrendous takedown defense—a clear sign that something was wrong.
This is a guy who, before the bout, touted some of the best takedown defense in UFC history, and he went down with uncharacteristic ease against the Brazilian Teixeira.
Put plainly, Rampage was off, and Teixeira still could not brutalize him.
Because of this, it is impossible to view Teixeira as the dominant force he was thought to be before the bout.
He is not the world-beating, face-smashing juggernaut many found him to be after he crushed Fabio Maldonado at UFC 153.
His aura as an utter destroyer is now gone, and for that, one has to conclude his stock has fallen.
If he had finished Rampage soundly, fans and critics would be clamoring for a title shot, but now he becomes just another top-10 light heavyweight who probably can't beat Jon Jones.
Shucks, I thought we had found our guy.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?