Question about Paul Daley

[G.A.V.]

Now, I know he's forfeited it because he weighed in over the limit, but what is this about him being the first brit to go for a belt in the UFC or something? Since when is Dustin Hazelett holding a Welterweight title? I thought GSP held it, and there was no other belts other than division and interim titles? Someone care to clean this up for an idiot?

Thanks.

[solidchin]

Now, I know he's forfeited it because he weighed in over the limit, but what is this about him being the first brit to go for a belt in the UFC or something? Since when is Dustin Hazelett holding a Welterweight title? I thought GSP held it, and there was no other belts other than division and interim titles? Someone care to clean this up for an idiot?

Thanks.
where did you haer that from

[G.A.V.]

where did you haer that from
Something about it on the UFC preview I'm watching, and I heard it a few days ago. I've probably got it mistaken but there's something involving him being the first brit to get a title shot or some bollocks, I've just not payed enough attention, haha.

[Thom]

Now, I know he's forfeited it because he weighed in over the limit, but what is this about him being the first brit to go for a belt in the UFC or something? Since when is Dustin Hazelett holding a Welterweight title? I thought GSP held it, and there was no other belts other than division and interim titles? Someone care to clean this up for an idiot?

Thanks.

:huh

Who told you that Daley was going for a belt?

FYI the only thing that Daley forfeited by missing weight was 10% of his purse.

[Thom]

Something about it on the UFC preview I'm watching, and I heard it a few days ago. I've probably got it mistaken but there's something involving him being the first brit to get a title shot or some bollocks, I've just not payed enough attention, haha.


Sounds like you're confusing Daley with Dan Hardy.

[G.A.V.]

Sounds like you're confusing Daley with Dan Hardy.
I'm definitely not. I know he's the first going for a belt but I'm sure I've definitely heard something about Paul Daley, probably isn't belt related but i dunno.

...I'm going back downstairs to look at the TV more and pay full attention. Nevermind, I really don't care about any of the fights other than the pounding Evans is gonna take.

edit: Just to clarify, I'm not a complete idiot who is tuning into this event because I thought a brit was going for a world title. I'm fully aware of Dan Hardy and his achievements in the UFC. I probably just misheard something about Paul Daley. But hey, it doesn't matter, from what it looks like at the weigh ins, it's going to be a one round job for Hazelett anyway.

[Thom]

I'm definitely not. I know he's the first going for a belt but I'm sure I've definitely heard something about Paul Daley, probably isn't belt related but i dunno.

...I'm going back downstairs to look at the TV more and pay full attention. Nevermind, I really don't care about any of the fights other than the pounding Evans is gonna take.


I don't know what to tell you. It's only Daley's second fight in the UFC. Even if he wins (personally, I think that he's going to get subbed), he's got a long road before he gets anywhere near a title shot.

[solidchin]

Something about it on the UFC preview I'm watching, and I heard it a few days ago. I've probably got it mistaken but there's something involving him being the first brit to get a title shot or some bollocks, I've just not payed enough attention, haha.
i think they were saying that if he beats hazelett the way he beat kampmann then he,s looking to get a title shot straight away

[G.A.V.]

i think they were saying that if he beats hazelett the way he beat kampmann then he,s looking to get a title shot straight away
I've just heard some type of bullshit about the "first time a brit has done this in the ufc" a few times this week and misheard. And yeah, I reckon he's just gonna be flattened tonight, I feel he doesn't seem to be taking the fight as serious as it is. I don't know much about Hazelett, I think I've seen him fight before, but from what I've seen and what I've read on these forums, he's not exactly gonna lie down.

Haven't a clue about anyone on the card though, other than Rashad, Thiago and Volkmann (who I hope wins/is winning/has won)

[Dynamite Kid]

Something about it on the UFC preview I'm watching, and I heard it a few days ago. I've probably got it mistaken but there's something involving him being the first brit to get a title shot or some bollocks, I've just not payed enough attention, haha.

Maybe perhaps they are referencing to when Daley fought Jake Sheilds for that Elite XC trash title?

[G.A.V.]

Maybe perhaps they are referencing to when Daley fought Jake Sheilds for that Elite XC trash title?
I have no idea, I just remember something about Paul Daley being the first british something in the UFC, and from what I remember it was UFC related seen as it was mostly said in UFC articles and that build up show.

I dunno, who gives a shit, he's going to be beaten in the first round anyway, he can't even make weight and is taking him lightly, in my eyes.

[Dynamite Kid]

I have no idea, I just remember something about Paul Daley being the first british something in the UFC, and from what I remember it was UFC related seen as it was mostly said in UFC articles and that build up show.

I dunno, who gives a shit, he's going to be beaten in the first round anyway, he can't even make weight and is taking him lightly, in my eyes.

Definately a 50-50 fight but yeah I agree, Hazelett is really serious business. That guy's subs are awesome. If Daley took him lightly then he's gonna end up just like how Sheilds beat him. But Daley is a stud on the feet though. His standup is pretty flawless.

[G.A.V.]

He's getting flattened. Blinking like a mother fucker. Won't even be able to have the reaction speed to even question a Hazelett takedown nevermind a submission.

[G.A.V.]

Holy fucking shit.

COME ON DALY
I SWEAR (WELL HE MEANS) AT THIS MOMENT YOU MEAN EVERYTHING

[Dynamite Kid]

Holy fucking shit.

COME ON DALY
I SWEAR (WELL HE MEANS) AT THIS MOMENT YOU MEAN EVERYTHING

:lol:

What's going on? I'm not watching.

What's happening?

[G.A.V.]

:lol:

What's going on? I'm not watching.

What's happening?
Paul Daley hit a few kicks, that jew looking fella smiled, then Paul Daley punched his fucking head off.

No racism btw, I love the jews, I would like to clarify this because the last time I mentioned them, I was banned for a long time because I said I loved the Jews, despite one of them getting KO'd in less than a minute by Amir Khan.

*expects a ban*

But I seriously love them, honestly. They're better than the Muslims. They ruined Eastenders.

[Dynamite Kid]

Paul Daley hit a few kicks, that jew looking fella smiled, then Paul Daley punched his fucking head off.

No racism btw, I love the jews, I would like to clarify this because the last time I mentioned them, I was banned for a long time because I said I loved the Jews, despite one of them getting KO'd in less than a minute by Amir Khan.

*expects a ban*

But I seriously love them, honestly. They're better than the Muslims. They ruined Eastenders.

:lol:

Thanks dude:good

[Delroc]

i think your talking about when his trainer claimed he would become the first brit title holder in the ufc during the countdown show.

[G.A.V.]

Probably. I'm a fucking brit. I don't know what's going on, I'm told and I believe it.

...I should research your post but I suddenly lost interest and all I can see is typo's, alan patridge's voice, white text and

[Thom]

Damn, still can't believe that Hazelett decided to stand with Semtex. If Daley keeps facing guys that are stupid enough to stand with him in the UFC, he's going to have a lot of KO bonuses.

[G.A.V.]

So who do you say Daley should face?

I pick Koscheck, seen as that guy isn't in the fucking 109 lineup.

[Monoxide]

Koscheck got injured and forced out of UFC 109. I am sure he'll fight Daley. Koscheck will actually be smart and take Daley down and win...

[G.A.V.]

That's.. shit.

And I go for Koscheck.

[Ubersteve]

I wouldn't rule Kos out of trying to stand with Daley. Of course if Kos is smart enough to wrestle then he wins easily.

[achillesthegreat]

Daley wants to be the first UK UFC champ. Daley was a pound overweight and forfeits 10% of his purse. Hardy is the first bogus Brit to fight GSP for the belt first. Maybe then they will con people into think Daley is deserving when he is in the same division as power houses like Fitch, Alves and Koscheck.

[ollyc]

Daley wants to be the first UK UFC champ. Daley was a pound overweight and forfeits 10% of his purse. Hardy is the first bogus Brit to fight GSP for the belt first. Maybe then they will con people into think Daley is deserving when he is in the same division as power houses like Fitch, Alves and Koscheck.

You're being ott with your adjectives. Of course Hardy doesn't deserve a title shot (btw who does at this moment in time?) I thought he just about beat Davis, who deserved a rematch. But to refer to him as 'bogus' and a 'loser' (as you also referred to Bisping & Daley) is being unnecessarily reactionary.
Who do you think deserves to fight GSP? The truth is there are no deserving contenders.

[achillesthegreat]

You're being ott with your adjectives. Of course Hardy doesn't deserve a title shot (btw who does at this moment in time?) I thought he just about beat Davis, who deserved a rematch. But to refer to him as 'bogus' and a 'loser' (as you also referred to Bisping & Daley) is being unnecessarily reactionary.
Who do you think deserves to fight GSP? The truth is there are no deserving contenders.

I'm calling them bogus and losers relatively speaking. If Kos avenges his loss to Thiago or Alves avenges his loss to Fitch or Fitch beats Alves again then one of those 3 begin to put themself in line for a shot. I know GSP has beaten them all but they are all more deserving.

When I say bogus, I mean they are not the most deserving. When I say losers, I say that cos they have a tonne of losses and have yet to shown they are now on a completely different level. Both Daley and Hardy have shown they are good, better than what they were but not nearly on the level of Alves, Kos or Fitch. They are being hyped because they are Brits, can bang and are new names. Not the fairest reasons for them to get a shot really.

[ollyc]

I'm calling them bogus and losers relatively speaking. If Kos avenges his loss to Thiago or Alves avenges his loss to Fitch or Fitch beats Alves again then one of those 3 begin to put themself in line for a shot. I know GSP has beaten them all but they are all more deserving.

When I say bogus, I mean they are not the most deserving. When I say losers, I say that cos they have a tonne of losses and have yet to shown they are now on a completely different level. Both Daley and Hardy have shown they are good, better than what they were but not nearly on the level of Alves, Kos or Fitch. They are being hyped because they are Brits, can bang and are new names. Not the fairest reasons for them to get a shot really.

If. If 'Kos avenges his loss', if 'Fitch beats Alves again'; until the 'if's' are realised, Koscheck, Fitch & Alves are similarly 'bogus' challengers (admittedly still more deserving than Hardy). Whilst these fights are being scheduled, (they've not certain to be made), what would you like GSP to do? Twiddle his thumbs whilst Dana White struggles to unearth a worthy challenger? There aren't any, and won't be until the matches you proposed are made and the winners emerge. And even then GSP will dominate Fitch & Alves. Again. So the point being in the meantime Hardy will suffice as an opponent by way of default.
And as regards labelling Bisping, Daley & Hardy losers because they have 'tonne(s) of losses', using this logic I suppose Couture, Belfort, Henderson, Wanderlei, Lidell, Ortiz, Pulver etc etc are all 'losers' considering they've all got 'tonne(s) of losses'. Losses at a elite level admittedly, but numerous losses all the same, so losers they are, right?

[ollyc]

And furthermore how does Belfort beating Rich Franklin at a catchwweight of 195lbs deserve a title shot ahead of Marquardt or Henderson? Hardy isn't the first fighter to get an unmerited opportunity or even the least deserving to get a shot at a title, so why are you singling him out?

[achillesthegreat]

And furthermore how does Belfort beating Rich Franklin at a catchwweight of 195lbs deserve a title shot ahead of Marquardt or Henderson? Hardy isn't the first fighter to get an unmerited opportunity or even the least deserving to get a shot at a title, so why are you singling him out?

It doesn't and shouldn't. I've said in the past Henderson and Marquardt should get the shot. If you go through my posts, I'm sure you'll see that. However Belfort certainly has more clout than Hardy. If Hardy was a proven fighter and had a huge comeback win then I'd have no issue with that fight.

[achillesthegreat]

If. If 'Kos avenges his loss', if 'Fitch beats Alves again'; until the 'if's' are realised, Koscheck, Fitch & Alves are similarly 'bogus' challengers (admittedly still more deserving than Hardy). Whilst these fights are being scheduled, (they've not certain to be made), what would you like GSP to do? Twiddle his thumbs whilst Dana White struggles to unearth a worthy challenger? There aren't any, and won't be until the matches you proposed are made and the winners emerge. And even then GSP will dominate Fitch & Alves. Again. So the point being in the meantime Hardy will suffice as an opponent by way of default.
And as regards labelling Bisping, Daley & Hardy losers because they have 'tonne(s) of losses', using this logic I suppose Couture, Belfort, Henderson, Wanderlei, Lidell, Ortiz, Pulver etc etc are all 'losers' considering they've all got 'tonne(s) of losses'. Losses at a elite level admittedly, but numerous losses all the same, so losers they are, right?

Forget the IF, Fitch is already more deserving. Fitch has won 3 on the trot and beat an 11-0 Thiago who had just beaten Koscheck. He also beat Gono by UD where Hardy only beat him by SD.

I know GSP might dominate those guys but they are more deserving. Hardy should be put in with Koscheck or Fitch or Alves to really earn him a title shot. Look what Alves had to do to earn a title shot.

Hardy and Daley are losers in a group of much lower level fighters. The names you mention are losers amongst the elite and you know that. Silly example.

[ollyc]

It doesn't and shouldn't. I've said in the past Henderson and Marquardt should get the shot. If you go through my posts, I'm sure you'll see that. However Belfort certainly has more clout than Hardy. If Hardy was a proven fighter and had a huge comeback win then I'd have no issue with that fight.

Fair enough. But referring to Bisping, Hardy & Daley as losers is still pretty ridiculous. Not top tier fighters by any means, but certainly not 'losers' either.

[achillesthegreat]

Fair enough. But referring to Bisping, Hardy & Daley as losers is still pretty ridiculous. Not top tier fighters by any means, but certainly not 'losers' either.

I don't mean losers in the diss form. For Hardy and Daley I mean literally losers. Bisping is just part of the British hype train that the UFC is trying to create for marketing purposes.

[ollyc]

I don't mean losers in the diss form. For Hardy and Daley I mean literally losers. Bisping is just part of the British hype train that the UFC is trying to create for marketing purposes.

As i said before having multiple losses doesn't necessarily make you a loser in the literal sense. Hardy has six losses, (one by dq); Wanderlei has 10, Randy has 10, Henderson has 7, Pulver has 12, Belfort has 8 ...
They may have been defeated by better opponents than the guys Hardy lost to, but using your logic you would still have to describle all the above mentioned as 'losers' in literal terms which would be inaccurate not to mention disrespectful.

[achillesthegreat]

As i said before having multiple losses doesn't necessarily make you a loser in the literal sense. Hardy has six losses, (one by dq); Wanderlei has 10, Randy has 10, Henderson has 7, Pulver has 12, Belfort has 8 ...
They may have been defeated by better opponents than the guys Hardy lost to, but using your logic you would still have to describle all the above mentioned as 'losers' in literal terms which would be inaccurate not to mention disrespectful.

What you are saying doesn't apply. Yes they are losers but amongst the elite. Being a loser on the elite level and being a loser on a low level yet being steered towards a title shot before your time are completely different.

[ollyc]

What you are saying doesn't apply. Yes they are losers but amongst the elite. Being a loser on the elite level and being a loser on a low level yet being steered towards a title shot before your time are completely different.

I've acknowledged twice that Couture, Belfort et all have lost (nearly)exclusively at an elite level (during their primes). See post 28.
However if you're being literal, in categorising fighters with multiple losses as 'losers', then you have to apply this logic across the board. If Dan Hardy with six losses is a 'loser' then Pulver with his 20-12 record is a 'loser'. It doesn't matter that his level of opposition is far greater than Hardy's, if you're being 'literal'.
Just admit that Hardy isn't a loser. He's just a decent fighter who has got an unmerited opportunity due to the the lack of worthy challengers for GSP's crown.

[ollyc]

Forget the IF, Fitch is already more deserving. Fitch has won 3 on the trot and beat an 11-0 Thiago who had just beaten Koscheck. He also beat Gono by UD where Hardy only beat him by SD.

I know GSP might dominate those guys but they are more deserving. Hardy should be put in with Koscheck or Fitch or Alves to really earn him a title shot. Look what Alves had to do to earn a title shot.

Hardy and Daley are losers in a group of much lower level fighters. The names you mention are losers amongst the elite and you know that. Silly example.

I agree that Fitch's unremarkable string of victories since GSP dominated him makes him the best challenger out there. But is he the most deserving? It's debatable.
However think of it from the UFC's perspective. How the hell are they going to market a fight between a guy who just four fights ago was quite frankly, outclassed? For me there's not enough time in between him being dominated, and him being hyped by the UFC as guy whose re-emerged a better fighter, a viable contender.
See Nate Marquardt as an example.
Should he beat Sonnen (& he will, devastatingly), enough time would've passed where he can be rightly be marketed as a completely different fighter to one battered by Silva.
If Ficth hadn't of been dominated it would've been different. If he'd have been competitive he probably would've had a rematch by now.
If Alves/Fitch had already happened the winner would definitley have got a shot before Hardy.
Until then they need a guy just to make up the numbers.
Hardy's getting a shot because he's 4-0 in the UFC.
They can market that. Show some footage of Markham getting sparked. Show some footage of Swick & Davis getting put on queer street.
Show some footage of his ring walk, face camoflaged, all bristling intent.
Casuals might just buy into it.
Of course then reality sets in, and GSP stops him early.
But you can't keep ripping Hardy for the fact that the welterweight division is lacking a suitable contender.
Btw, do you not remember Hardy conceding on Setanta's ultimate talk last June that he'd need another 18-20 months before he'd be ready for whom he perceived to be the best three welterweights in the division: GSP, Alves & Fitch.
18-20 months suggests he was hoping for a title shot around the conclusion of 2010, with about 7 or 8 fights under his belt.
He's definitely being rushed.

[Ubersteve]

The problem with ww is the guys who seem to be thought of as gatekeepers post GSP loss are all better than anyone else in the division. GSP can't fight Kos, Fitch and Alves every year.

[achillesthegreat]

I've acknowledged twice that Couture, Belfort et all have lost (nearly)exclusively at an elite level (during their primes). See post 28.
However if you're being literal, in categorising fighters with multiple losses as 'losers', then you have to apply this logic across the board. If Dan Hardy with six losses is a 'loser' then Pulver with his 20-12 record is a 'loser'. It doesn't matter that his level of opposition is far greater than Hardy's, if you're being 'literal'.
Just admit that Hardy isn't a loser. He's just a decent fighter who has got an unmerited opportunity due to the the lack of worthy challengers for GSP's crown.

I'm using the word losers relatively. They are being touted as deserving of fighting in a category of fighters (the elite) when they don't belong there.

What Hardy has achieved should get him a shot at a Koscheck not a GSP.

Hardy and Daley are losers who have a great opportunity but are being highly touted.

Daley is following a path Hardy should have. Daley is going to fight a Koscheck next because thats what his accomplishments thus far deserve.

[achillesthegreat]

I agree that Fitch's unremarkable string of victories since GSP dominated him makes him the best challenger out there. But is he the most deserving? It's debatable.
However think of it from the UFC's perspective. How the hell are they going to market a fight between a guy who just four fights ago was quite frankly, outclassed? For me there's not enough time in between him being dominated, and him being hyped by the UFC as guy whose re-emerged a better fighter, a viable contender.
See Nate Marquardt as an example.
Should he beat Sonnen (& he will, devastatingly), enough time would've passed where he can be rightly be marketed as a completely different fighter to one battered by Silva.
If Ficth hadn't of been dominated it would've been different. If he'd have been competitive he probably would've had a rematch by now.
If Alves/Fitch had already happened the winner would definitley have got a shot before Hardy.
Until then they need a guy just to make up the numbers.
Hardy's getting a shot because he's 4-0 in the UFC.
They can market that. Show some footage of Markham getting sparked. Show some footage of Swick & Davis getting put on queer street.
Show some footage of his ring walk, face camoflaged, all bristling intent.
Casuals might just buy into it.
Of course then reality sets in, and GSP stops him early.
But you can't keep ripping Hardy for the fact that the welterweight division is lacking a suitable contender.
Btw, do you not remember Hardy conceding on Setanta's ultimate talk last June that he'd need another 18-20 months before he'd be ready for whom he perceived to be the best three welterweights in the division: GSP, Alves & Fitch.
18-20 months suggests he was hoping for a title shot around the conclusion of 2010, with about 7 or 8 fights under his belt.
He's definitely being rushed.

I agree with what you say about Fitch. From a marketing perspective he is a hard sell because they are selling a PPV. This brings up the issue of every event being PPV.

All in all, this can be considered an inbetween fight as many boxers do. The card GSP is on will be stacked so making it PPV can be justified.

I'm not ripping Hardy at all. I'm ripping the UFC. In a fair world, the fight should not be made. From a marketing perspective I understand this fight.

Hardy said he'd happily fight Koscheck before GSP but the UFC didn't want that.

[scurlaruntings]

Is Daley a converted Southpaw? Seemed to like that left hand.

[codeman99998]

Hardy said he'd happily fight Koscheck before GSP but the UFC didn't want that.

It's really too bad he isn't fighting Koscheck. Hardy has dynamite in his left hook, and if he could fight as elite a wrestler as Koscheck and win that would show him as a possible threat to GSP. I'm not saying I think Hardy would win, but if he could then a fight with GSP after would be much more of a draw than now when he is untested.