[Hannibal]

I like Sakara at -138
I feel this fight will play out on the feet, where sakara will be technically superior. He's faster, hits harder, and throws a wider range of effective strikes with better mechanics.

I've seen Sakara fall apart and lose fights that he should have won, but i feel he is a little more disciplined recently.
Rivera is almost 10 years older, and quite frankly, i believe he is on his way out.

[Nick The Greek]

Rivera's been talking about this possibly being his last fight, he didn't show much against Bisping. Once Sakara puts some leather on him the wheels will come right off.

[Hannibal]

really liking this play! climbed to -144 about 30 seconds after i placed my wager ahaha

[Kaladarus]

I like Sakara here as well. Rivera's got a shot still, but like you said Sakara is a lot better all around.

[Ladle]

Could easily go either way. Sakara is a better boxer from distance, whereas Rivera's best work comes against the fence, throwing knees and uppercuts from inside. I won't be remotely surprised if Rivera wins, but I favour Sakara slightly on the basis that, given the kind of distance from which an MMA fight begins, he's better than Rivera. Rivera operates best from inside the phone booth, and that's a position he actually has to work to get to. He'll have to go through a bit of fire to get there.

That said, if Rivera can land a clean straight right on Sakara's chin during an exchange, Sakara is probably going to sleep. Even though Sakara is the more technical and varied striker here, there's no getting away from the fact that his chin absolutely stinks.

With all of that said, I don't currently see any value in either line. If I was forced to make a play, I'd take a flier on Rivera exposing Sakara's chin at +139.

[bjpenn85]

If i was to bet i would bet fight ends in round 1 or 2.

[Vaughany]

If Sakara was smart he'd surprise Rivera with a takedown - Sakara's ground game is underrated and superior to Riveras. Unfortunately I doubt Sakara will do this, and fact of matter is that Sakara tends to get TKO'd/KO'd by brawlers like Rivera.

[Beelzebubzy]

If Sakara was smart he'd surprise Rivera with a takedown - Sakara's ground game is underrated and superior to Riveras. Unfortunately I doubt Sakara will do this, and fact of matter is that Sakara tends to get TKO'd/KO'd by brawlers like Rivera.

exactly
Rivera has weak submission defense. Sakara is a bjj black belt under nogs.

[FightFightFight]

What was the line last time? I remember Rivera the favorite, and like him to win. Power and chin is greater than technique. Ask W. Silva.

[FightFightFight]

Rivera is great on the ground too.

[Hannibal]

Since when does someone with a good chin get knocked out by bisping?

[GunShard]

This is a difficult spot to bet on.

[FightFightFight]

Since when does someone with a good chin get knocked out by bisping?

Dude, he got brutally kneed in the face, illegally, and kept going. The KO was a direct result of that. Hes a tough ol' bastard.

[Chairib]

You have to wonder how much Jorge Rivera has left in the tank.

[jacktheknife]

Could easily go either way. Sakara is a better boxer from distance, whereas Rivera's best work comes against the fence, throwing knees and uppercuts from inside. I won't be remotely surprised if Rivera wins, but I favour Sakara slightly on the basis that, given the kind of distance from which an MMA fight begins, he's better than Rivera. Rivera operates best from inside the phone booth, and that's a position he actually has to work to get to. He'll have to go through a bit of fire to get there.

That said, if Rivera can land a clean straight right on Sakara's chin during an exchange, Sakara is probably going to sleep. Even though Sakara is the more technical and varied striker here, there's no getting away from the fact that his chin absolutely stinks.

With all of that said, I don't currently see any value in either line. If I was forced to make a play, I'd take a flier on Rivera exposing Sakara's chin at +139.

When you start to say to yourself "he can totally win by faking the shot, hitting the 2-3, ducking inside, working the body, faking the single leg, going back to the body, opening up his head so he can back up, work the straight right, and hit the flying double knee, provided he clicks his heels three times and pinches his nipples before the fight", you might realize that by expecting such a concise and undeviated strategy, you're unconsciously recognizing what we call a bottleneck.

The shorthand is that Sakara can win this a few ways and Rivera's got one apparent and risky avenue. Throw his age on top of it. I, for one, can't be bought that cheap for no +139.

[sirchadwick1]

Got in on this one late... planned on throwing a couple units on Sakara, but he's at -170 now. I'm not liking either guy at their current line.

[Vaughany]

Sakara is still -125 on bluesq.com. Im considering playing Sakara straight up and Rivera by TKO/KO at +225 or better. I guess Rivera could take a decision but his gas tank isnt great, as Chairib said above it's questionable what he has left. He has won 4 out of 4 fights that have gone the distance tho!

[Vaughany]

Rivera is great on the ground too.

Is he?

[rocky mattioli]

both guys are stand-up fighters....both guys are middle of the roaders....verrrrry few quality wins between them(sakara`s win vs leites was a horrible fight and by many accounts a gift)....


yuck........

[Ladle]

When you start to say to yourself "he can totally win by faking the shot, hitting the 2-3, ducking inside, working the body, faking the single leg, going back to the body, opening up his head so he can back up, work the straight right, and hit the flying double knee, provided he clicks his heels three times and pinches his nipples before the fight"

Uh, what the **** are you talking about? At what point did I mention any of that nonsense you just listed? I said Rivera is effective in the clinch and can definitely knock Sakara out if he lands a decent punch. Is that really so complex? Sakara has a tendency to get into brawls, and when he does so, he usually ends up getting knocked out, even if he's fighting someone who is a less technical striker (the McFedries and Alexander fights are proof of that).

you might realize that by expecting such a concise and undeviated strategy, you're unconsciously recognizing what we call a bottleneck.

And you're unconsciously talking bullshit. Clinching up with someone or landing a big punch in an exchange isn't a "concise and undeviated [SIC] strategy".

The shorthand is that Sakara can win this a few ways

What are the numerous ways in which Sakara can win? You expect him to take Rivera down? In spite of the fact that Sakara has never actively looked for takedowns against any opponent, even if he did have a marked advantage over them on the ground? Be realistic.

and Rivera's got one apparent and risky avenue.

Wrong. Rivera can win this fight by battering Sakara from the clinch, and he can win by landing a big punch on Sakara's flimsy chin if the fight degenerates into a brawl (which often happens in Sakara's fights). That's two very straight-forward avenues to victory for Rivera.

I, for one, can't be bought that cheap for no +139.

Oh yeah. Because it's just so unlikely that the fight will turn into a brawl and Rivera will land one good punch.

Lol.

Also, I didn't say I'd make that bet. I said it had more value than the Sakara line right now.

[bjpenn85]

sakara has some technical boxing skills, while rivera only uses 1 2 combinations.

[Chairib]

sakara has some technical boxing skills, while rivera only uses 1 2 combinations.

Sakara's striking is mostly comprised of boxing techniques, which actually limits him more than Rivera in MMA. He needs to keep a certain distance to throw effective strikes, which conversely means little or no clinch work as well as elbows or knees. He hardly ever uses those techniques which makes him easier to defend against.

His clinch game is a particularly large hole in his MMA game, whether on not Rivera can capitalize on it is the big question.

[jacktheknife]

Uh, what the **** are you talking about? At what point did I mention any of that nonsense you just listed?

Actually you did mention some of that nonsense, but i should have known that you'd take it literally.

Clinching up with someone or landing a big punch in an exchange isn't a "concise and undeviated [SIC] strategy".

You're right that "landing a big punch" is no strategy at all, it's the product of a strategy. Clinching up is, in fact, something you'd have to adhere to with some discipline if (by your admission) he has to eat shots to get there and it doesn't lead to anything quickly.

What are the numerous ways in which Sakara can win? You expect him to take Rivera down? In spite of the fact that Sakara has never actively looked for takedowns against any opponent, even if he did have a marked advantage over them on the ground? Be realistic.

I don't think realism entails watching Sakara counter the grappling of Thales Leites then expecting Rivera to get the better of it with his. It's not a chance to lean on, but Vaug is right, it's one Sakara likely gets the better of. Add a notch from the bigger depth of his kickboxing.

Oh yeah. Because it's just so unlikely that the fight will turn into a brawl and Rivera will land one good punch.

Yeah, I'm not really convinced by this outdated notion that Sakara "gets in brawls". If you haven't watched him at all since he fought Chris Leben, you could understandably be unaware that the guy can barely stop circling away nowadays. It's almost enough to make you think that something has made him a different and better fighter then he was 3 years ago.

In other news, it turns out ATT isn't just a phone company.

Also, I didn't say I'd make that bet. I said it had more value than the Sakara line right now.

Good, so lets not give the children any big ideas, hon.

[Ladle]

Actually you did mention some of that nonsense, but i should have known that you'd take it literally.

"he can totally win by faking the shot, hitting the 2-3, ducking inside, working the body, faking the single leg, going back to the body, opening up his head so he can back up, work the straight right, and hit the flying double knee, provided he clicks his heels three times and pinches his nipples before the fight"

I mentioned landing the straight right in an exchange. That was all. That's not the elaborate and intricate strategy you're trying to convey it as. Essentially, you tried to make some clever point about how I was "unconsciously" bottlenecking by completely distorting what I was saying. You're "unconsciously" being obnoxious.

You're right that "landing a big punch" is no strategy at all, it's the product of a strategy.

Both guys start throwing hayes > Rivera lands a big punch > Sakara drops like a sack of potatoes.

Oh man, that sure was a convoluted strategy which Rivera implemented to get the win there!

Clinching up is, in fact, something you'd have to adhere to with some discipline if (by your admission) he has to eat shots to get there and it doesn't lead to anything quickly.

He likely has to go through some fire to clinch up - as I said - but Alessio Sakara is no Joe Gans. It's not like Sakara is the kind of high-level striker who is going to erase Rivera the instant Rivera leaves himself exposed. Yes, Sakara is a better boxer from distance, but there isn't some gulf in stand-up ability between the two of them. It's totally plausible that Rivera could tie him up with regularity.

Also, what makes you think that it won't "lead to anything quickly" should Rivera get him against the fence? A few clinch uppercuts from Rivera and Sakara could be done. You should know that. This is a man who was once knocked out by a punch which seemingly didn't even land.

I don't think realism entails watching Sakara counter the grappling of Thales Leites then expecting Rivera to get the better of it with his.

Rivera is a better clinch fighter than Sakara, and has always put in his best work from that position. I'm not sure why you'd try to dispute that.

I don't think realism entails watching Sakara counter the grappling of Thales Leites then expecting Rivera to get the better of it with his. It's not a chance to lean on, but Vaug is right, it's one Sakara likely gets the better of. Add a notch from the bigger depth of his kickboxing.

First of all, it was hardly a masterful display of counter grappling against Thales Leites. Sakara deserved to lose that fight, and was positionally dominated repeatedly - and with ease - once Leites put him on the ground. He survived and escaped on the ground, but he showed nothing which would suggest that he can stop Rivera from kneeing and punching him in the face repeatedly if Rivera gets the clinch.

Secondly, whether or not you "lean on" that chance does not make it a realistic avenue for victory. As I said, Sakara has never actively looked for the takedown against any of his opponents, regardless of how much more skilled he was on the ground.

Yeah, I'm not really convinced by this outdated notion that Sakara "gets in brawls". If you haven't watched him at all since he fought Chris Leben, you could understandably be unaware that the guy can barely stop circling away nowadays. It's almost enough to make you think that something has made him a different and better fighter then he was 3 years ago.

Okay, there's no need to start making stuff up to support your point (though you've already done that once). Sakara isn't a "different fighter". Let's start being objective here.

1) He came out swinging for the fences against James Irvin before the eye poke incident.

2) He got stunned by Joe Vedepo with two hard right hands before landing that head kick. Yes, Joe ******* Vedepo stunned him with punches in a one minute twenty-seven second fight. Lol @ you for suggesting that Sakara is a markedly improved defensive fighter.

3) He was extremely wary of getting taken down in the Leites fight, and was clearly more focused on defending the takedown than putting forward offense. Not something he'd have to worry about when fighting Rivera.

4) Similar situation in the Weidman fight. Wary of getting taken down so we saw a lot of backing up and readiness to sprawl. Once again, not something he'd have to worry about when fighting Rivera.

Of those four fights, the two most indicative of the Rivera fight featured Sakara trying to instigate a brawl and getting tagged by woeful opposition.

If you haven't watched him at all since he fought Chris Leben, you could understandably be unaware that the guy can barely stop circling away nowadays.

Yeah, he was totally "circling away" whilst he was kicking Vedepo's head off, getting tagged by Vedepo with punches, and lobbing spinning back fists at Irvin. The "circling away" you're observing is a product of fighting guys who plan on taking him down. Rivera does not plan on taking him down.

You should try actually watching the fights so you can start making more informed judgements.

In other news, it turns out ATT isn't just a phone company.

[sirchadwick1]

Just remember guys... Sakara is an apocalyptic fighter. If you bet, its best to go with him.

[Vaughany]

Just remember guys... Sakara is an apocalyptic fighter. If you bet, its best to go with him.

Gd point

[Chairib]

I don't get it. Is this some kind of meme?

[sirchadwick1]

It was a Sherdog thread from a while back... titled "Does anyone really consider Alessio Sakara Apocolyptic Fighter". Thread has been removed... but there have been spoofs of it since to include Brandon Vera.

[Vaughany]

It was a Sherdog thread from a while back... titled "Does anyone really consider Alessio Sakara Apocolyptic Fighter". Thread has been removed... but there have been spoofs of it since to include Brandon Vera.

He means the failed GIF above!

[Chairib]

I feel like I know less about this after reading the explanations.

[sirchadwick1]

mmaforum.com/ufc/75981-does-anyone-really-consider-alessio-sakara-apocolyptic-fighter.html

Read there.

[jacktheknife]

I just did a 10 second breeze-through of a 3-page post that apparently agonizes over the minutiae of Alessio Sakara's every dry fart in-ring, as if one couldn't catalog Rivera's every misfiring synapse as well. This is me reminding everyone that handicapping is an exercise in emergence and not reductionism, and pulling the fire alarm on this joint before I catch this erupting strain of no life.

[Ladle]

I just did a 10 second breeze-through of a 3-page post that apparently agonizes over the minutiae of Alessio Sakara's every dry fart in-ring, as if one couldn't catalog Rivera's every misfiring synapse as well. This is me reminding everyone that handicapping is an exercise in emergence and not reductionism, and pulling the fire alarm on this joint before I catch this erupting strain of no life.

Translation: I now realise that my initial opinion is flawed, and as a result, I cannot respond to any of the perfectly reasonable and substantiated points listed by Ladle. I'm going to veil my submission with a verbose, pretentious paragraph which suggests that I'm somehow superior for not indulging in a debate, when in actual fact it proves that I'm weak and ill-informed.

Carry on spouting your revisionist history, kid. Alessio Sakara can barely stop circling away these days? Lol. You're too funny.

Honestly, for every excellent poster on this forum, there's an invalid who churns out shit, gets exposed in a debate, and then still expects to be taken seriously.

[Hannibal]

Ladle is right about everything, even when he is wrong.

[Ladle]

Ladle is right about everything, even when he is wrong.

I justify my opinions and respond specifically to each of my opponent's points. That's the difference between me and him. That's the difference between someone who knows how to debate, and someone who doesn't.

If you think that anything I said is wrong, then why don't you prove it? If you can put forward a convincing, substantiated argument which discredits my points, I'll concede that I'm wrong. I don't think you can though.