GSP Versus Hardy: Flawless Victory.. Except For a Couple Little Flaws?

A J ArmChair MMA@armchairmmaContributor IMarch 28, 2010

NEWARK, NJ - MARCH 27:  UFC fighter Georges St-Pierre (top) battles Dan Hardy during their Welterweight title bout at UFC 111 at the Prudential Center on March 27, 2010 in Newark, New Jersey.  St-Pierre won by Unanimous Decision at 5:00 of the 5th round.  (Photo by Jon Kopaloff/Getty Images)
Jon Kopaloff/Getty Images

I didn't get the memo. I didn't realize that I was witness to a poor performance by Georges St. Pierre in not taking Dan Hardy's arm off or punching him in the nose more. Silly me, I now know better for next time?

Apparently our mob meet bandwagon mentality consensus on the welterweight champion's performance is we the fans and expert writers alike (I am a fan) believe that GSP's performance was perfect except for a couple imperfections.

Seriously people?

The fight that I watched reportedly saw GSP not only not lose a round but GSP didn't lose a minute out of 25. In 99 out of 100 other fights with any other opponent the kimura or the arm bar submits 99% of fighters fighting today (don't quote me on those numbers right?).

Sure the fight didn't end with a submission or knock out but not every fight title or not is going to end in those fashions. Does anyone remember Anderson Silva's title fight against Thales Leitis?

Most would agree Anderson Silva is better striker than GSP but at no point did Anderson truly have Leites in the danger GSP's submission attempts had Hardy in. If not for Hardy's determination coupled with rubber limbs the fight ends and everyone lives happily ever after right?

Let us also not forget Dan Hardy probably had 10lbs on a 190lb GSP. Hardy appeared to be very strong yet even so he was unable to ever get to and stay in an advantageous position. I swear Hardy looked like a middleweight compared to GSP.

Hardy did make the most of his opportunity though. He survived 5 rounds with the champ and earned some well deserved respect. Respect that the champ had already afforded the challenger which was ignored by the many who were expecting the fairy tale finish.

Hindsight is always 20 20. How the fight played out if Georges decided (note it was Georges who dictated every aspect of this fight) to stand is a mystery solved perhaps in the next fight down the line.

Those who think GSP should of ground and pounded Hardy out apparently missed that part of the fight where GSP attempted to score some g'n'p only to be nullified by Hardy.

GSP did near everything right in that fight given the circumstances. If the fight was supposed to play out differently Dan Hardy should of considered attempting a sprawl. To say GSP failed to try to finish Hardy means we need to take Anderson Silva out behind a barn and put him out of his misery for Anderson's performance against Thales Leites.

So how do you measure a fighter? By the fight they just had or the next fight down the road? I prefer the later.