GDT: UFC 293: Adesanya vs. Strickland

[m9]

I think it was less who has he lost to than it is who has he beat?

I've always said he's a good fighter, but I thought his ceiling was limited. Imavov, Hermansson (by SD), Hall, Jotko, Allen. These are all good fighters that he has beat, but none of them suggest he's championship level. I don't think I need to list out all the guys that Izzy has beat for comparison.

Agreed this was the thinking. This is the part where I think I may need to start re-thinking things though as when some of these guys stay active they don't always get the name/ranked fights so you just need to judge them on if they beat the guys that are in front of them. And for the most part, Strickland has. We basically just saw something similar with O'Malley. I don't really know yet, it's just something I want to think about.

I take your point about losing a split decision to Cannonier, but at the same time, while Izzy-Cannonier was boring, pretty much everybody thought it was a clear 50-45 or 49-46 win for Izzy. And even though they both got KO'ed by Pereira, Izzy was up 3-1 on all of the judge's scorecards and obviously KO'ed him in the rematch.

I picked Cannonier to do well against Adesanya which obviously looks bad in retrospect but I really do think he has the right style to beat Izzy and in my head it showed some similarities to what Strickland did on the weekend in terms of staying close and not giving Adesanya any space. He fought an awful fight that night, completely froze up. But yes, agreed with all this.

On paper, it didn't seem like a good style matchup either. Strickland doesn't have the wrestling of even Whittaker or Vettori (not that either is that great of a wrestler). Doesn't have the power of Pereira or Cannonier or Romero. He has exactly 1 submission in the UFC in his debut in 2014. So it seemed like it was going to be a stand up fight. Looking at their resumes, including Izzy's decorated kickboxing career, there was no real evidence to think Strickland is a better striker. If anybody picked Strickland, I don't see how it was anything but a "gut feeling" or "MMA is a crazy sport" or "I don't like Izzy, so I'm picking Strickland because that's what I want to happen" type of pick.

This is the part I think maybe people got wrong. A basic boxer who isn't afraid to keep the fight "in a phonebooth" or whatever is exactly the right style matchup to beat Adesanya and we saw it Saturday night. Guys run into issues when they stay at range and let issue get off his kicks but Strickland has this in-close, jab/hook, pressure style that I think a) Strickland has proven to be effective in past fights and b) stylistically should work against someone like Adesanya. These are also two fighters who go to a ton of decisions, so we should have seen a decision coming. We also know Adesanya has had fights go to closer than they should be decisions. So I don't know, maybe the clues were there but just nobody looked?

Point being, Izzy being a massive favorite was the rational conclusion to draw IMO. I don't know that there was really some blatant thing we all missed. It's just yet another reminder that anything can happen in this sport. I think if you watch it long enough, you will eventually learn this lesson only to forget this lesson many times. I know within the least 1.5-2 years, I re-learned this with Nunes-Pena, applied it to fights like Usman-Edwards and Valentina-Grasso (I picked Usman and Valentina, but I didn't count out Edwards or Grasso), only to forget it with Izzy-Strickland.

Ultimately I still agree he should have been the large favorite. But Strickland's camp said he was going to employ this style and people generally agreed that this was the only way he could win the fight. And hey, it worked. This wasn't a lucky fight - this was a style that has worked for Strickland in the past vs lesser competition that worked against the top competition. So yes, the odds were correct but I do think people (including myself) missed a fairly obvious way Strickland could win.

 

[pistolpete11]

My opinion is that Izzy overlooked Strickland, particularly Strickland's head defence. Usually Izzy can just evade then counter and he scores his rounds by countering. He didn't change his gameplan, he did the exact same thing he always does but when he went to counter he wasn't hitting Strickland. He even said so in his corner, I think he said "I can't find him" or "I can't find my left hand" or something.

Strickland didn't have amazing output or anything like that which would overwhelm Izzy. He just walked forward, landed his shots, and when Izzy tried to hit him, he was out of range or he was blocking it. Izzy only landed 22 of 154 significant head strikes. It's similar output to most of his fights, for example in the Cannonier fight he threw 164 and landed 60 significant head strikes for a 36% land rate vs the abysmal 14% land rate in the Strickland fight.

People saying Izzy looked bad or he didn't show up don't understand that Izzy performed how he normally performs. He's a low output striker who relies on counters/evading to win rounds. He always gets walked down, Pereira was doing it when Izzy caught him and put him to sleep. He just couldn't hit Strickland.

If they fight again, I think it's a different story because Izzy is too smart to let that happen again but this fight was pretty cut and dry. Izzy tried to do what he normally does and Stickland just wasn't there to get hit.

The gameplan was the same as usual, but to your point, Izzy was not as accurate as he normally is. So how much of that was Strickland's defense (which is very, very good) and how much of that was Izzy not showing up? I guess we will find out if they do the rematch.



Side note, the more we talk about it, the more OK I am with a rematch. There's been more discussion about this fight in the aftermath than before the fight. So clearly people are intrigued now. So why not make it then? I've seen people say it's unfair to Strickland that he has to beat him twice, but a) he's still the champ, nobody is taking that away from him b) he will be paid accordingly and probably more than any other fight because of the fan intrigue and c) why is fighting Izzy any more or less fair than fighting DDP or whoever else? The only person it is unfair to is DDP, but the UFC would probably love to use that to show other fights "See? This is why you don't turn down fight."

 

[pistolpete11]

Agreed this was the thinking. This is the part where I think I may need to start re-thinking things though as when some of these guys stay active they don't always get the name/ranked fights so you just need to judge them on if they beat the guys that are in front of them. And for the most part, Strickland has. We basically just saw something similar with O'Malley. I don't really know yet, it's just something I want to think about.

I think there is a bit of these are the best guys in the world. Even if you're ranked 15th, you're still 1 hell of a fighter, so on any given night type of thing.

But I think the success stories just stick out more. There are plenty of guys that get their shot to step up in competition and fall short.

This is the part I think maybe people got wrong. A basic boxer who isn't afraid to keep the fight "in a phonebooth" or whatever is exactly the right style matchup to beat Adesanya and we saw it Saturday night. Guys run into issues when they stay at range and let issue get off his kicks but Strickland has this in-close, jab/hook, pressure style that I think a) Strickland has proven to be effective in past fights and b) stylistically should work against someone like Adesanya. These are also two fighters who go to a ton of decisions, so we should have seen a decision coming. We also know Adesanya has had fights go to closer than they should be decisions. So I don't know, maybe the clues were there but just nobody looked?

I can understand it's better than staying at kicking range like Romero or Cannonier or rushing in like Whittaker 1, Pereira 2, or Costa, but what about it gave Izzy so much trouble? Even after watching it, I don't understand why it would work. Strickland statistically does have good defense, but it's not THAT good.

With a guy like Cannonier, I could understand that strategy a little more because of his power. He could have put Izzy's lights out at any given point and/or landed the harder shots to steal enough rounds. Basically what happened in R1 with Strickland (which in and of itself was surprising given Strickland hasn't really showed much power in the UFC). But Strickland won R3, 4, and 5 by simply outpointing Izzy and pretty clearly in R4 and R5. I can't wrap my head around it.

Luke Thomas was asked if he'd be doing a breakdown in the post fight show. He said 100%. So I'll be curious what Luke comes up with.

 

[Taytro]

Side note, the more we talk about it, the more OK I am with a rematch. There's been more discussion about this fight in the aftermath than before the fight. So clearly people are intrigued now. So why not make it then? I've seen people say it's unfair to Strickland that he has to beat him twice, but a) he's still the champ, nobody is taking that away from him b) he will be paid accordingly and probably more than any other fight because of the fan intrigue and c) why is fighting Izzy any more or less fair than fighting DDP or whoever else? The only person it is unfair to is DDP, but the UFC would probably love to use that to show other fights "See? This is why you don't turn down fight."

I'm not particularly interested in a rematch because the only thing that made this fight interesting was the prospect of Strickland winning. That already happened, so beside that it wasn't a particularly fun fight. I'd go as far to say as far as the actual fight goes, that it was boring. If the names weren't Strickland and Adesanya then we would say that was a boring fight.

Hopefully they mix it up, I honestly don't care who, how, or why. But I don't want to see that fight again. I'd be happy with Whittaker, Chimaev, DDP, etc. I'd actually love to see Costa vs Strickland (maybe not for the title but still).

 

[Avs_19]

I'm still shocked. Izzy really lost to a guy who has little power, doesn't throw kicks, and can't really wrestle. I agree with a few others here as to me this is one of the biggest upsets in UFC history for title fights and a bigger one than say GSP/Serra because it wasn't just one punch that set off the events leading to a finish or luck, if you will. If you told me Izzy is going to lose then I'd guess it had to have involved at least one of the things I mentioned such as power (Pereira), wrestling (Jan), or his movement being limited with some brutal kicks from someone. Literally none of that was a factor.

Everything about the aftermath and Izzy's reaction was kinda weird too. Do we know if he even wants a rematch?

 

[Moncherry]

While watching the fight I was confused why Izzy was on the back foot for the entire fight, especially after getting dropped at the end of the 1st. He never dictated the fight and completely allowed Strickland to do so.

Was he too focused on countering? I have no idea why it played out the way it did.

That's how he fights pretty much all the time, nothing unusual about it.

 

[m9]

Side note, the more we talk about it, the more OK I am with a rematch. There's been more discussion about this fight in the aftermath than before the fight. So clearly people are intrigued now. So why not make it then? I've seen people say it's unfair to Strickland that he has to beat him twice, but a) he's still the champ, nobody is taking that away from him b) he will be paid accordingly and probably more than any other fight because of the fan intrigue and c) why is fighting Izzy any more or less fair than fighting DDP or whoever else? The only person it is unfair to is DDP, but the UFC would probably love to use that to show other fights "See? This is why you don't turn down fight."

I just think most rematches are better after some room to breathe, so ideally I would just do DDP/Strickland and then either have Adesanya take another fight if he wants to stay active.

The part that makes it difficult is you can't really have Adesanya headline a PPV if it's not for a title so I'm not sure how to play it. I think he would be just fine co-headlining a Volk PPV though, so if you could do Volk/Topuria and then say Adesanya/Whittaker 3 (for example) you've got a great PPV.

But yeah, I haven't gotten caught up on any Luke Thomas stuff post-fight yet (too much NFL going on to keep up) but will check it out in the next 24 hours. Interested on his thoughts as well.

I'm still shocked. Izzy really lost to a guy who has little power, doesn't throw kicks, and can't really wrestle. I agree with a few others here as to me this is one of the biggest upsets in UFC history for title fights and a bigger one than say GSP/Serra because it wasn't just one punch that set off the events leading to a finish or luck, if you will. If you told me Izzy is going to lose then I'd guess it had to have involved at least one of the things I mentioned such as power (Pereira), wrestling (Jan), or his movement being limited with some brutal kicks from someone. Literally none of that was a factor.

Everything about the aftermath and Izzy's reaction was kinda weird too. Do we know if he even wants a rematch?

I heard someone explain what constitutes an upset (other than just the odds) and they explained it as if the fight happened 100 times how many times do you think that one guy would win and the lower the number the biggest the upset. I think I like that. Like I truly feel GSP beats Matt Serra like 98 out of 100 times which to me makes that fight a massive upset. Whereas now that we've seen Strickland do what he did, I think we just kind of got it wrong PLUS Adesanya had a bad night. I don't think Adesanya wins that fight 98 out of 100 times. Not even close.

 

[pistolpete11]

I'm not particularly interested in a rematch because the only thing that made this fight interesting was the prospect of Strickland winning. That already happened, so beside that it wasn't a particularly fun fight. I'd go as far to say as far as the actual fight goes, that it was boring. If the names weren't Strickland and Adesanya then we would say that was a boring fight.

Hopefully they mix it up, I honestly don't care who, how, or why. But I don't want to see that fight again. I'd be happy with Whittaker, Chimaev, DDP, etc. I'd actually love to see Costa vs Strickland (maybe not for the title but still).

I had no interest in this fight going into it the first time. I'd have some interest going into the rematch.

But I grant you, it wasn't the most fun fight outside of the last 30 seconds of R1.

I just think most rematches are better after some room to breathe, so ideally I would just do DDP/Strickland and then either have Adesanya take another fight if he wants to stay active.

The part that makes it difficult is you can't really have Adesanya headline a PPV if it's not for a title so I'm not sure how to play it. I think he would be just fine co-headlining a Volk PPV though, so if you could do Volk/Topuria and then say Adesanya/Whittaker 3 (for example) you've got a great PPV.

But yeah, I haven't gotten caught up on any Luke Thomas stuff post-fight yet (too much NFL going on to keep up) but will check it out in the next 24 hours. Interested on his thoughts as well.

The problem with letting rematches breathe is you aren't guaranteed to get that fight down the line. One or both of these guys could lose, get hurt, etc. and they go in 2 separate directions. If it's a fight people want to see, make the fight when you can make it. I understand maybe not everybody wants to see the rematch, but again, there's a lot more discussion in the aftermath of this fight than there usually is on here.

I'm not like "They need to make the rematch!!!!1", but I moved from "yeah, no thanks" on Sunday morning to "I wouldn't mind it" today.

 

[pistolpete11]

Didn't realize he'd have it up so soon, but here's Luke's breakdown. Haven't watched it yet.

 

[m9]

The problem with letting rematches breathe is you aren't guaranteed to get that fight down the line. One or both of these guys could lose, get hurt, etc. and they go in 2 separate directions. If it's a fight people want to see, make the fight when you can make it. I understand maybe not everybody wants to see the rematch, but again, there's a lot more discussion in the aftermath of this fight than there usually is on here.

I'm not like "They need to make the rematch!!!!1", but I moved from "yeah, no thanks" on Sunday morning to "I wouldn't mind it" today.

Basically the way I would like the UFC to handle these situations is after the first fight both guys take another fight and then if they both win you get a rematch. Then if the guys are even you can do that trilogy fight without the fatigue of three straight fights and not completely holding up the division because you snuck in another challenger after the first one. In a case like this where we are talking DDP/Strickland it makes even more sense because either winner is an interesting fight for Adesanya. And if Adesanya can't win that "tune-up" fight in between, then no big deal he probably didn't deserve the rematch anyway.

All that being said I get why it's hard to do that in this situation given Adesanya probably wants the rematch, it's bigger business than any other fight, and it's really difficult to book Adesanya in a non-title fight unless you really nail it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Didn't realize he'd have it up so soon, but here's Luke's breakdown. Haven't watched it yet.

Decent watch, talks about the pressure & range management by Strickland and digs in deep about some of the specific "tricks" from Strickland in close. I think after watching this I feel like this was just three things:

a) Perfect gameplan from Strickland's team
b) Great execution from Strickland as well as the best version of Strickland we've seen
c) The worst version of Adesanya - inactive, just off in general, no adjustments or answers

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think there's also a chance Izzy takes some time off and they do Strickland vs DDP and then Izzy gets winner.

 

[pistolpete11]

Basically the way I would like the UFC to handle these situations is after the first fight both guys take another fight and then if they both win you get a rematch. Then if the guys are even you can do that trilogy fight without the fatigue of three straight fights and not completely holding up the division because you snuck in another challenger after the first one. In a case like this where we are talking DDP/Strickland it makes even more sense because either winner is an interesting fight for Adesanya. And if Adesanya can't win that "tune-up" fight in between, then no big deal he probably didn't deserve the rematch anyway.

All that being said I get why it's hard to do that in this situation given Adesanya probably wants the rematch, it's bigger business than any other fight, and it's really difficult to book Adesanya in a non-title fight unless you really nail it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

If they did the rematch and Izzy won, I don't think you necessarily have to do the trilogy right away just because of how superior Izzy's resume is compared to Strickland's. You could kind of write it off as a fluke.

Looking at recent immediate rematches where it ended up being 1-1.

Izzy-Pereira - they moved on
Nunes-Pena - they moved on
Moreno-Fig - a little tricky because of the draw, but after the third fight they were 1-1-1 and Moreno had to take another fight with KKF before the 4th.
Stipe-DC - ignoring the Lewis fight since it was the champ that took the extra fight, they did the trilogy.

So 3 of 4 they didn't do a trilogy right away.

So kind of like you're saying "No big deal, Izzy, just win another fight". You could say the same thing to Strickland if he were to lose the rematch.

Again, I don't feel super strongly about it, but I think there is some logic there if that's the direction they go.

Also, someone wrote into Luke's live chat asking at 34 with a long combat sports career behind him, 1-2 in his last 3, is this the beginning of the end for Izzy? He responded it might be, but if the UFC thinks it is, maybe they want to get at least one more PPV headline out of him before moving on.

Decent watch, talks about the pressure & range management by Strickland and digs in deep about some of the specific "tricks" from Strickland in close. I think after watching this I feel like this was just three things:

a) Perfect gameplan from Strickland's team
b) Great execution from Strickland as well as the best version of Strickland we've seen
c) The worst version of Adesanya - inactive, just off in general, no adjustments or answers

It was interesting, but it's still not totally making sense to me. Like surely Strickland isn't the first person to parry punches and check leg kicks that Izzy has fought. Why wasn't Izzy able to make any adjustments? Seemed he kept doing the same thing over and over again even though it wasn't working. I dunno. Maybe I'm underestimating how important a gameplan is going into a fight and it's hard to adjust mid-fight. Just think as high level as Izzy is, if there was anyone who could, he would be able to do it.

I think there's also a chance Izzy takes some time off and they do Strickland vs DDP and then Izzy gets winner.

Not a bad idea.

The other thing, though, is that in a little over a month, Chimaev might be knocking on the door.

I wonder if Izzy-Chimaev is big enough to headline a PPV without a title on the line?

 

[m9]

If they did the rematch and Izzy won, I don't think you necessarily have to do the trilogy right away just because of how superior Izzy's resume is compared to Strickland's. You could kind of write it off as a fluke.

Looking at recent immediate rematches where it ended up being 1-1.

Izzy-Pereira - they moved on
Nunes-Pena - they moved on
Moreno-Fig - a little tricky because of the draw, but after the third fight they were 1-1-1 and Moreno had to take another fight with KKF before the 4th.
Stipe-DC - ignoring the Lewis fight since it was the champ that took the extra fight, they did the trilogy.

So 3 of 4 they didn't do a trilogy right away.

Fig/Moreno each had 3 straight v each other and Fig had 4 straight. It's probably a trilogy & a half.

They booked the trilogy for Pena/Nunes but Pena got hurt.

So kind of like you're saying "No big deal, Izzy, just win another fight". You could say the same thing to Strickland if he were to lose the rematch.

Again, I don't feel super strongly about it, but I think there is some logic there if that's the direction they go.

Also, someone wrote into Luke's live chat asking at 34 with a long combat sports career behind him, 1-2 in his last 3, is this the beginning of the end for Izzy? He responded it might be, but if the UFC thinks it is, maybe they want to get at least one more PPV headline out of him before moving on.

Yeah, kind of touched on this early on. We'll know more in the next fight or two.

It was interesting, but it's still not totally making sense to me. Like surely Strickland isn't the first person to parry punches and check leg kicks that Izzy has fought. Why wasn't Izzy able to make any adjustments? Seemed he kept doing the same thing over and over again even though it wasn't working. I dunno. Maybe I'm underestimating how important a gameplan is going into a fight and it's hard to adjust mid-fight. Just think as high level as Izzy is, if there was anyone who could, he would be able to do it.

This is where I think you can credit Strickland but also the fact is that Adesanya had a very poor night.

 

[m9]

I think there's also a chance Izzy takes some time off and they do Strickland vs DDP and then Izzy gets winner.

I think this is actually the most likely scenario. I don't love it because out of principle I'd still rather Izzy earn it, but it makes sense.

 

[pistolpete11]

Fig/Moreno each had 3 straight v each other and Fig had 4 straight. It's probably a trilogy & a half.

They booked the trilogy for Pena/Nunes but Pena got hurt.

Right, there was a draw, but even though they were even at 1-1-1, Moreno took another fight.

Fair enough about Nunes-Pena. I honestly have no recollection of them booking the 3rd fight and that makes Pena's "she's afraid to fight me" nonsense even more pathetic and cringey.

 

[16Skippy]

It was interesting, but it's still not totally making sense to me. Like surely Strickland isn't the first person to parry punches and check leg kicks that Izzy has fought. Why wasn't Izzy able to make any adjustments? Seemed he kept doing the same thing over and over again even though it wasn't working. I dunno. Maybe I'm underestimating how important a gameplan is going into a fight and it's hard to adjust mid-fight. Just think as high level as Izzy is, if there was anyone who could, he would be able to do it.

But he might be the first guy who was actually able to parry and check kicks to that extent. He turned out to be much better in the pocket and his insane defense let him push forward and get into his preferred range the whole time, all while herding Izzy into the fence and into Strickland's strong side.

I love Luke Thomas but I find Slack's breakdowns to be a little better and more to the point. I won't post the link because it's for his Patreons but here are a few takeaways I liked. But yea I agree the real question is why Izzy and his team didn't try much to adapt.

He did not have to be quicker than Israel Adesanya or stronger or more powerful, he just had to gum up the works of the Adesanya machine. All he had to do was make Adesanya’s “A game” hard to operate, and drag Adesanya down to his level.

Strickland’s style is somewhat wacky and of his own, but his victory here came down to that old principle of controlling the centreline. In the punching exchanges, Adesanya’s best shots are longer, straighter or arcing shots, rather than short hooking ones. Strickland picked off his jabs, crosses and the odd overhand, and shot back with his own less committed one-twos. Adesanya’s kicking game was defused by Strickland’s constant use of teeps and raising of knees to check. A raised knee can be a check but it can also be a faked teep, so Strickland would perform a march, raising each knee alternately, and force Adesanya to give ground towards the fence.

Despite the commentary team’s focus on boxing, the most punishing connections of the fight came when Adesanya punched, and Strickland poked the ball of his foot into Adesanya’s belly. Only occasionally did Strickland follow up on these intercepting counters with punches, but they clearly took their toll on Adesanya.

Israel Adesanya’s ringcraft is generally very good: when he finds himself near the fence he fakes, moves his head, direction changes, and escapes to the side where he faces the least resistance. But he was forced to do this dozens of times in this fight, while Strickland meandered across to meet him. Strickland faces a great deal of criticism for his stance and footwork—and I have been among those voices—but watching him saunter up to Adesanya and expend almost no effort as Adesanya side stepped and darted around the cage I came to understand the method of this madness.

 

[h2]

That's how he fights pretty much all the time, nothing unusual about it.

thanks?

 

[Moncherry]

thanks?

You asked why he was on the backfoot the whole fight and if he was too focused on countering, and the answer is because he usually fights on the backfoot while focusing on countering.

 

[pistolpete11]

Doesn't give all the secrets away or anything, but helps piece things together a little more. Definitely worth a listen.

Apparently Izzy told him after the fight something along the lines of "You saved that man's life." And when he asked him what he meant, Izzy said "You kept calling out all of my reads." He specifically called out that Strickland kept parrying one punch and that Izzy was trying to setup a same side high kick.

Also come away from it humanizing Strickland a little bit more. I think he's still probably an asshole with some f***ed up thoughts, but hey. Don't we all.

 

[CDJ]

Flawless gameplan flawlessly executed by the fighter. Major credit to Nicksick and Strickland, the belt couldn’t have been more earned.

 

[Taytro]

Also come away from it humanizing Strickland a little bit more. I think he's still probably an asshole with some f***ed up thoughts, but hey. Don't we all.

I like how no one thinks Strickland is performing or playing up his personality, and everyone just thinks that he's a deeply disturbed person. Colby is a bad actor and his personality took a 180 degree turn for his current persona, so no one believes it but why does everyone assume the Strickland that he's presenting to us is the real Sean Strickland?

By all accounts we hear from other people, Strickland seems to be well liked, competitive as hell, but well liked none the less.

 

[pistolpete11]

I like how no one thinks Strickland is performing or playing up his personality, and everyone just thinks that he's a deeply disturbed person. Colby is a bad actor and his personality took a 180 degree turn for his current persona, so no one believes it but why does everyone assume the Strickland that he's presenting to us is the real Sean Strickland?

By all accounts we hear from other people, Strickland seems to be well liked, competitive as hell, but well liked none the less.

I think he's deeply disturbed and playing it up. Both can be true.

But the humanizing thing is that his childhood was really f***ed up, so it's easier to understand why he's disturbed.

 

[CDJ]

I like how no one thinks Strickland is performing or playing up his personality, and everyone just thinks that he's a deeply disturbed person. Colby is a bad actor and his personality took a 180 degree turn for his current persona, so no one believes it but why does everyone assume the Strickland that he's presenting to us is the real Sean Strickland?

By all accounts we hear from other people, Strickland seems to be well liked, competitive as hell, but well liked none the less.

Awful childhood where he got raised by a skinhead and was kicked out of multiple schools. Currently the wall decor in his house is an array of automatic guns. Don’t even think he has furniture. He’s an absolute loon.

He does seem to be well-liked by his peers and I don’t think he’s a bad guy- he is just an edge lord. Adults cringe at it but people with the mental capacity of a 13 YO love it. It’s different from Colby because to me he’s not going after families and his insults seem rather benign (calling Izzy Chinese is a little different than talking about somebody’s kid or wife)

I do have an immense amount of respect for what he’s overcome to get to this point in his career/life even if I find myself rolling my eyes at a lot of what he says

 

[m9]

Strickland seems pretty authentic. If this is any sort of a character I would be pretty surprised.

Not really a comparison to Colby with an over-the-top, poorly acted gimmick.

 

[pistolpete11]

Strickland seems pretty authentic. If this is any sort of a character I would be pretty surprised.

Not really a comparison to Colby with an over-the-top, poorly acted gimmick.

He's not as fake or as big of a douche as Colby. Very few are.

But he's also said he wants to kill somebody in the octagon. Stuff like that, either he's playing up his madman persona or he's not at all likeable. Can't have it both ways IMO.