Originally Posted by County Mike
JB: The difference in those fights was that Rampage actually had to defend against shots from Forrest. Between throwing punches he wasn't just standing around like Anderson was.
THAT is why Anderson's fight was boring and Rampage/Forrest was not.
Yeah, I realize that, and I never said Silva's fight was exciting or that Jackson's fight was boring, but let's be honest. Most of the time the only shots Rampage had to defend against was leg-kicks. I even remember thinking to myself at the time, why is he just letting Forrest kick him in the leg over and over, why doesn't he let himself go? I don't think there is much argument that Griffin leg-kicked his way to victory in that fight. Silva may have been standing there a lot in the Leites fight, but that was also because when he did engage, his opponent would fall to the ground.
My point was not so much to say that that Rampage was boring or Silva was not boring. More to point out that this idea of some giant conspiracy with Silva intentionally fighting a boring fight is a bit ridiculous. Sometimes your strategy does not go the way you planned it and we see what happened with both of these fights. Yes, they were different fights, but the strike count is where the similarities stand out.
Both champions had to change their strategies on the fly to deal with what was being put in front of them. Both champions fought not to lose. The only difference is one did lose, and the other did not.