Henderson vs. Pettis 2 Results: Which Fight Stole the Show at UFC 164?
Coming into Saturday, UFC 164 was supposed to deliver from the get-go. Fortunately for UFC fans around the world, it did just that.
Even the preliminary battles on Facebook offered subsequent action which featured swift submissions and precise boxing from some of the UFC's best young talents.
However, through all the glitz and glamor, one fight stood out more than the rest; a lightweight title grudge match between Benson Henderson and Milwaukee's own Anthony Pettis.
After successfully pinning Pettis against the cage for the majority of the first round, Henderson quickly absorbed numerous painful body kicks by the challenger.
The effort by Pettis to launch kick after kick seemed to deter Henderson from doing anything offensively. But once Pettis grew too comfortable and decided to throw an unorthodox strike, Henderson soon found himself in full guard.
It seemed as if Henderson would ride the round out and escape the first five minutes, but Pettis threw up a slick armbar that left Henderson scrambling for an answer.
However, in unfamiliar fashion, Pettis verbally tapped the champ to take home the title and secure yet another victory over Henderson.
It was a finish that's usually unseen in any fight, let alone a championship grudge match, but it's something you need to expect when watching Pettis.
The young phenom is capable of pretty much anything inside the cage, such as Saturday night.
What people are going to take from Saturday night's changing of the guard is that in order to be the best and beat the best, you need to go for the finish.
Guys like Pettis are going to flourish in the eyes of a challenge when they continue to try to win fights outside of a decision.
All in all, a great fight and a flashy finish over one of the best lightweights in recent memory. Milwaukee got what it wanted as Pettis capped off a heroic showing.
For more UFC news and coverage, Follow @DHiergesell.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?