I have to confess right off the bat that I enjoyed that fight very much and was impressed by Kampmann's performance. Every instant of the fight reminded me of another great fight: St-Pierre vs Hardy. Many here on Mania (let's not name them) did not hesitate one second to describe GSP's last performance as boring, cowardly and disappointing because it was mostly a ground game and went to a decision. If you're a regular on this site, you know all too well who I'm talking about here. Now all I want is to hear them say the same about Kampmann's last performance. Nothing more, nothing less and here is why:
Kampmann did against Thiago everything GSP did against Hardy.
But before I go any further in my demonstration, I will say this before anyone else feels the need to say it: Both performances, albeit very similar as I will expose, were not purely identical mainly because of these facts:
1. The Kampmann-Thiago fight was not a championship fight which means that it was a three round fight as opposed to the five rounder fight of GSP-Hardy. A big difference because their cardio and conditioning were not tested equally and because Kampmann had two less rounds to finish Thiago.
2. A larger percentage of the kampmann-Thiago fight was on the feet, 35% for Kampman and 16% for GSP-Hardy. You might think that's a big difference but remember that it's only 75 more seconds of stand up than in GSP-Hardy fight.
3. Contrary to Kampmann St-Pierre took absolutely zero damage from Hardy. Small difference as Kampmann took all of Thiago's big right hand strikes without flinching at all.
4. GSP was never taken down a single time by Hardy (not to be confused with reversals). Small difference here again because Kampmann was only taken down one single time (beautifully) by Paulo.
Now that I have laid out the most noticeable differences, let's take a look at the striking similarities .
St-Pierre and Kampmann both did this:
1. They assumed the role of the aggressor from the first second to the last of their fight, never letting up, always pushing forward.
2. They took their opponent down repeatedly and assumed control with efficient grappling.
3. They connected cleanly a few times with fast jabs and punches to the head.
4. They attempted several dangerous but unsuccessful submissions on a very resilient and tough fighter.
5. They made a few mistakes that saw them lose position and find themselves with their back on the mat but reversed the situation very quickly each single time.
6. They demonstrated flawless cardio and conditioning, never slowing down one second.
7. They dominated their opponent both positionally and on the scorecard.
8. They nullified all of their opponent's offences and were never in any danger.
9. They were fighting a strategically one-dimensional fighter who was solely looking for the big knock-out.
10. They were both going into the fight with respectable records, 16-3 for Kampmann and 19-2 for St-Pierre and they both improved on it.
Now what conclusions should we pull from all that? Was Kampmann's last fight boring? Is Kampmann a dry-humping coward for choosing to expose Paulo Thiago's inferior ground skills? Should kampmann be blamed for not finishing Paulo? Should Kampmann have used a Chuck Liddell-type strategy and get knocked the crap out?
Is Kampmann a true fighter worthy of your admiration for spending a full minute and a quarter more on his feet than GSP did against Hardy?
It's your call maniacs. If any form of logic is respected by the GSP-Hardy fight bashers, they have to come forward now and and lay the same accusations on Martin Kampmann. That's a big "if" I know but I'm curious to find out if they have any consistency in their judgement.