Swanson vs. Oliveira

This is the official discussion thread for Swanson vs. Oliveira. Let's see what you've got.

Swanson has a huge advantage on the feet... see @Danno's post.  I agree w/ him.

"@hiblet Oliveira doesn't wrestle at all...why would Swanson's TDD matter. He needs to be worried about Charles stand-up and submissions."

Just 'cause a guy doesn't wrestle doesn't mean he doesn't know how to take the fight to the ground. 

Oliveira is an ace BJJ practitioner and a VERY big part of BJJ is taking the fight to the ground. Don't forget, every BJJ contest starts on the feet and not everyone pulls guard.

Do Bronx only has 1 standing sub out of his 9, so I'm guessing he's taken one or two opponents to the ground and a few of them have better TDD than Swanson (ahem, Brookins, whom he took down and is a very good wrestler).

I'm not saying he's Chael Sonnen, but just because he's not a labeled a wrestler doesn't mean you don't need TDD against a guy who, according to most of the posts here, isn't going to want to "play the striking game" with Swanson.

MMA is a lot more than a bunch of wrestlers=takedowns, strikers=KOs, BJJ guys=submissions formulas.

Plus, at featherweight, he's bigger than Cub (I think), so he might even be able to take him down from the clinch without being a world class wrestler.

That being said, I also believe that with the 6'' height difference and the 3'' reach advantage Cub won't have such a large advantage striking either. Oliveira's no slump in the striking department, so he might use that to set up a take down.

* Edited at 09.03.2012, 10:32 AM ET *

Oliveira took Escudero down multiple times in their fight. The guy has decent takedowns, and i'm pretty sure he could take Cub down if he wanted to.

He better if he wants to win... and I think you're right.. he could def take Cub down.. but Cub on the feet is a way bigger advantage than Charles has on the ground.

Of course Oliveira could take down Cub, Cub got taken down by Ross Pearson a ****load of times and it's not like Pearson's an excellent wrestler or anything.

Kalibo i  disagree with you. I think Oliverira is going to do a lot better on the feet then you are giving him credit.  The idea that Swanson has a far larger advantage on the feet then Oliveria does on the ground seems pretty far fetch to me.  Also jsut because Cerrone could TKO Oliveria does not mean the much smaller Swanson can. Oliveria biggest problem vs cerrone is that he was way undersized. He had the height but Cerrone was simply significantly larger in every way somthing swanson does not ahve against Oliveria.

* Edited at 09.03.2012, 11:02 AM ET *

So many different takes on this fight.That's a sign of good matchmaking.

@Franklin880088 The reason why Oliveira lost to Donald Cerrone is because he tried to strike against the best striker of the lightweight division, it wasn't a size issue. Cerrone is just miles ahead of him when it comes to striking.

@Anik beat me to it... 

The best striker at LW? Really?

Examples of better strikers @messiah instead of just completely face palming...lol.

How about when Nate Diaz beat the absolute hell out of him for 3 straight rounds on the feet, didn't think I needed to make that example.

I know, it really sounds weird to say Donald Cerrone's the best striker in the lightweight division. It kills me to say it but if you think about it, who's actually better?

Cerrone and being the best at something just doesn't seem to match but I really can't think of any other better strikers in the lightweight division.

@theMMAmessiah Nate Diaz is a better boxer than Donald Cerrone and a more effective striker but in terms of technical ability, power, versatility and creativity of strikes, I don't think anyone's better than Cerrone.

and don't you dare bring up your boy toy, you know I'm gonna shoot that idea down real fast.

* Edited at 09.03.2012, 11:27 AM ET *

You just have absolutely no evidence to support that, I however have a 3 round fight where Cerrone did absolutely nothing to Diaz.

* Edited at 09.03.2012, 11:28 AM ET *

see the post under that one lol.

Nate is not a better striker than Cerrone... boxer?  Yes... total striker?  No.  To say Cerrone did nothing to Diaz is crazy... he only knocked him down with kicks about 15 times.  Anyways... this will be a good fight.. can't wait to watch it.

Cerrone is a better striker than Nate Diaz, Nate Diaz is just better at kicking the **** out of Cerrone lol.

Absolutely no evidence? Are fights no evidence? Have you ever seen fights from both of those guys? I said Nate Diaz was a more effective striker and he proved that when he made Cerrone his *****.

But Cerrone's got more power, more speed, more versatility and better technique with his strikes and it's just a straight up fact, you could easily tell by watching the fights.

Michael Bisping is a better striker than Dan Henderson, but Henderson knocked him the **** out. Anyone who faces Dominick Cruz is a better technical striker, but Cruz's style lets him win every ******* time.

"@Franklin880088 The reason why Oliveira lost to Donald Cerrone is because he tried to strike against the best striker of the lightweight division, it wasn't a size issue. Cerrone is just miles ahead of him when it comes to striking."


I disagree. I agree Donald is the better striker but I think the bigger factor was size. Cerrone jsut out gunned him. he was bigger stronger and was hitting significantly harder.  To me it was Cerrone superior size that made him dominate that fight not superior striking. If cerrone was the same size as Oliveria I believe that fight would have been significantly closer.

No... size doesn't make up for technique.  Donald still would have landed the same body shot no matter how big Charles is/was.  That shot would have folded just about anyone, regardless of size... it was a beauty of a body shot.