Marcus Davis on Dan Hardy feud: "I wasn't as blood-red crazy angry as I led on."
*Please visit FiveKnuckles.com for more mixed martial arts media*
"A lot of people are talking about me and Dan Hardy. 'Oh, Dan Hardy got under his skin like that. What's it gonna be like with Nate Diaz.' A lot of people also gotta understand, I'm in the sports entertainment business. Not everything that you might hear or think or whatever, or about me and Dan Hardy, might be 100 percent true. Was I pissed off at the stuff that he did? Yeah, he got under my skin. But I wasn't as blood-red crazy angry as I led on that I was. He and I have actually crushed a lot of those differences - already behind us. I don't want anybody thinking that I don't want to fight Dan Hardy again or that I wouldn't do that again - of course I would." - Marcus Davis
Before UFC 99, Marcus Davis and Dan Hardy engaged in some hefty trash talk. Nationalities and nicknames were questioned, and Photoshop was used to create homosexual photos. But it might not have been as bad as fans were led to believe.
Last week, Davis spoke with Shambala Sports Radio about how he is a "sports entertainer," and while he was bothered by Hardy, their feud was played up for the fans. With hype comes fans, and with fans comes viewership. Hardy was eventually awarded the split decision victory, but even afterward, it did not seem like they made peace.
Perhaps if Davis can conquer Nate Diaz at UFC 118, and if Hardy can beat his undetermined UFC 119 opponent, Davis vs. Hardy II can be put in the works for late 2010.
Davis has expressed his interest in a rematch. The "Irish Hand Grenade" has gone 1-1 since their fight, suffering a loss to Ben Saunders before defeating Jonathan Goulet. Hardy, however, took a more prestigious route. Defeating Mike Swick earned him a shot at champion George St. Pierre. After a unanimous decision loss to St. Pierre, he was slated to fight Dustin Hazelett later this year before Hazelett was forced out with a prior commitment.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?