Originally Posted by Nick_V03
I think that Chuck didn't have the right game plan. He seemed way too predictable with his stand up, and was tentative at that. I know that Ferguson probably has better wrestling, but Chuck should have at least tried to get a take down. He has a solid submission game, so it's not like he would have nothing for him there if it did go to the ground. That might even have made Ferguson think twice about being so aggressive and letting those leg kicks go like that. History has shown that when a fighter is worried about the take down, he is usually more tentative standing. It could have made Tony fight in a more defensive manner, which would allow Chuck to not always feel the need to back up against the cage because of Tony being so aggressive.
He probably wouldn't have been able to have much success taking Tony down, but it would have at least made Tony know that he would have to be ready to sprawl, and not be so comfortable to just strike without risk the whole time.
About Ramsey, I wouldn't hold too much weight on him being unable to take Cope down. Chris probably had the best take down defense in the house. Torres was unable to take him down and Shamar was unable to take him down. Ramsey at least got one take down. Of course he was unable to secure position which led to Cope getting right back up, but I think it's safe to say that Chris Cope has very good defensive wrestling. Ferguson hasn't shown that his is better in my opinion.
Yea.. Cope is too much defensive.. he doesnt have to use the same game plan in back to back matches.. He loves throwing punches from the inside.. It wasnt enough to win against someone like Ramsey.