I like the Smilin line over Brunson, the chance of Watson against Camozzi...(maybe cozz i still have the image of him getting swallowed on the ground by the alligator) and i like Oritz to get the job done.I Might just swap Brunson and Ortiz on your card and play Alvey instead of Gates.
Good luck Still plenty of action remaining to finish the year with a good record
0
I tend to agree with you on most buddy
I like the Smilin line over Brunson, the chance of Watson against Camozzi...(maybe cozz i still have the image of him getting swallowed on the ground by the alligator) and i like Oritz to get the job done.I Might just swap Brunson and Ortiz on your card and play Alvey instead of Gates.
Good luck Still plenty of action remaining to finish the year with a good record
I like the Smilin line over Brunson, the chance of Watson against Camozzi...(maybe cozz i still have the image of him getting swallowed on the ground by the alligator) and i like Oritz to get the job done.I Might just swap Brunson and Ortiz on your card and play Alvey instead of Gates.
Good luck Still plenty of action remaining to finish the year with a good record
Alvey is always one flukey punch a way from ending a fight, but he will have a hard time doing so when he will be on his back after approximately 10 seconds into each round.
Watson will likely lose due to lack of volume.
Ortiz might win but his grappling will have to be on point. Gates is significantly bigger and that might be easier said than done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by oli_renaud91:
I tend to agree with you on most buddy
I like the Smilin line over Brunson, the chance of Watson against Camozzi...(maybe cozz i still have the image of him getting swallowed on the ground by the alligator) and i like Oritz to get the job done.I Might just swap Brunson and Ortiz on your card and play Alvey instead of Gates.
Good luck Still plenty of action remaining to finish the year with a good record
Alvey is always one flukey punch a way from ending a fight, but he will have a hard time doing so when he will be on his back after approximately 10 seconds into each round.
Watson will likely lose due to lack of volume.
Ortiz might win but his grappling will have to be on point. Gates is significantly bigger and that might be easier said than done.
Alvey is always one flukey punch a way from ending a fight, but he will have a hard time doing so when he will be on his back after approximately 10 seconds into each round.
Watson will likely lose due to lack of volume.
Ortiz might win but his grappling will have to be on point. Gates is significantly bigger and that might be easier said than done.
watson and camozzi threw the same amount of strikes when going the distance against alvey and larken. no tds by either fighter so a pretty good camparison when comparing output.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MR219:
Alvey is always one flukey punch a way from ending a fight, but he will have a hard time doing so when he will be on his back after approximately 10 seconds into each round.
Watson will likely lose due to lack of volume.
Ortiz might win but his grappling will have to be on point. Gates is significantly bigger and that might be easier said than done.
watson and camozzi threw the same amount of strikes when going the distance against alvey and larken. no tds by either fighter so a pretty good camparison when comparing output.
watson and camozzi threw the same amount of strikes when going the distance against alvey and larken. no tds by either fighter so a pretty good camparison when comparing output.
Not exactly the greatest comparison because Alvey & Larkin are completely different types of strikers with completely different skill sets. Regardless, trying to use MMA math to try and predict future fights never works out well.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Qncyk1:
watson and camozzi threw the same amount of strikes when going the distance against alvey and larken. no tds by either fighter so a pretty good camparison when comparing output.
Not exactly the greatest comparison because Alvey & Larkin are completely different types of strikers with completely different skill sets. Regardless, trying to use MMA math to try and predict future fights never works out well.
Not exactly the greatest comparison because Alvey & Larkin are completely different types of strikers with completely different skill sets. Regardless, trying to use MMA math to try and predict future fights never works out well.
agreed but sometimes mma math is all one has to go on. both larken and alvey are strikers that dont rely much on a ground game so taking away tds which can skew punch the punch stats one might be able to guess the strike output. larkin has the better striking technique but that could be negated by the fact that alvey argubaly has more power
imo, it really is a pick em fight
0
Quote Originally Posted by MR219:
Not exactly the greatest comparison because Alvey & Larkin are completely different types of strikers with completely different skill sets. Regardless, trying to use MMA math to try and predict future fights never works out well.
agreed but sometimes mma math is all one has to go on. both larken and alvey are strikers that dont rely much on a ground game so taking away tds which can skew punch the punch stats one might be able to guess the strike output. larkin has the better striking technique but that could be negated by the fact that alvey argubaly has more power
S.Mcman/ Nunes maybe UN is the way to go , Nunes has only gone over once in her fights.
This may be true, but McMann is not a finisher. She is nothing more than a lay and pray artist. She is more concerned with maintaining top position and will not take any risks to improve her position for subs or improved GnP positioning. So unless McMann gets Ko'd early by Nunes, which is unlikely considering how bad Nunes' takedown defence is, there is practically no way the under cashes.
0
Quote Originally Posted by RLeith35:
S.Mcman/ Nunes maybe UN is the way to go , Nunes has only gone over once in her fights.
This may be true, but McMann is not a finisher. She is nothing more than a lay and pray artist. She is more concerned with maintaining top position and will not take any risks to improve her position for subs or improved GnP positioning. So unless McMann gets Ko'd early by Nunes, which is unlikely considering how bad Nunes' takedown defence is, there is practically no way the under cashes.
agreed but sometimes mma math is all one has to go on. both larken and alvey are strikers that dont rely much on a ground game so taking away tds which can skew punch the punch stats one might be able to guess the strike output. larkin has the better striking technique but that could be negated by the fact that alvey argubaly has more power
imo, it really is a pick em fight
0
Quote Originally Posted by Qncyk1:
agreed but sometimes mma math is all one has to go on. both larken and alvey are strikers that dont rely much on a ground game so taking away tds which can skew punch the punch stats one might be able to guess the strike output. larkin has the better striking technique but that could be negated by the fact that alvey argubaly has more power
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
,
, 
. Risking 3.5 units to win 3 units. 
, Derek Brunson 
,
, 
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
