UFC champ Dricus Du Plessis reveals best opponent he's faced: 'One hell of a fight'
Du Plessis (23-2 MMA, 9-0 UFC) endured two hard-fought battles with Sean Strickland, but it was his recent title defense against Israel Adesanya at UFC 305 that hit different. Du Plessis submitted Adesanya in Round 4 after a back-and-forth battle.
"My toughest opponent to date, well that's a very open-ended question because there were fights that were the hardest for me," Du Plessis said in an interview with Betway South Africa. "I have to say probably Adesanya was the best guy I faced in his specific area, probably the fight I was most nervous for just in terms of how good he is.
"He can catch you with anything, anytime. All the time I spent looking up to him and studying him because he was the benchmark. Knowing what he's capable of, I think he's the best guy I've faced and obviously if you watch that fight, it was one hell of a fight. It was a tough night at the office for both of us."
Du Plessis will look to notch his third title defense when he takes on Khamzat Chimaev (14-0 MMA, 8-0 UFC) in the UFC 319 headliner on Aug. 16 at United Center in Chicago (ESPN+ pay-per-view, ESPN, ESPN+).
The South African champ has finished all but two opponents in his career.
"When you go on pure toughness, you have to go with either Brad Tavares or Sean Strickland," Du Plessis continued. "Just the amount of damage they were able to take and just keep going."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CSAC's Andy Foster explains shake-up to MMA scoring criteria, potential for future rule changes
Andy Foster, the California State Athletic Commission executive director and one of MMA's most influential regulators, is pushing this week for a major scoring shake-up. If successful, it'll prioritize damage over all else, offering a clearer pathway for judges to identify 10-8 and even 10-7 rounds. In boxing, a knockdown often triggers a 10-8. In MMA, that's not always the case. A proposed update to the Unified Rules of MMA could change that — pending a vote that's expected to pass this week at the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports' (ABC) annual conference in New Orleans. Once official, it will formalize what Foster says many judges already practice — that is, scoring based on the visible effect of strikes and grappling, with damage at the top of the criteria list. 'To get a 10-8 in mixed martial arts is now going to require significant damage,' Foster told Uncrowned's "The Ariel Helwani Show." That's "as close as we can get" to boxing's clearer 10-8 system, per the commissioner. Foster said the new language — if approved by ABC — solidifies how judges interpret dominant rounds. While 10-8s already account for 'damage, domination and duration,' damage takes precedence, always. 'Damage is the No. 1 scoring criteria through effective striking and effective grappling," he said. 'You've heard these other terms — effective aggressiveness, effective cage control — [but] the only thing that matters is how the techniques, through striking or grappling, impacted the opponent.' The change is also meant to bring consistency to judges, commentators and fans. The recent featherweight bout between Mohammad Yahya and Steven Nguyen at UFC Abu Dhabi sparked widespread debate, for example. There were six knockdowns in the opening round, and all three judges awarded Nguyen a 10-8. For Foster, "It should have been a 10-7 [even] under the current criteria." 'I would have hoped that fight would have been stopped after the fifth knockdown,' said Foster. 'I'd have had no issues [if it were stopped] after the fourth. For goodness' sakes, he had to have had some assistance back to the corner. There were a lot of places it could have been stopped. I would not have felt comfortable sending him out, [if it were] in California, for the second round.' Despite the criticism, Foster backed referee Jason Herzog — one of MMA's most respected referees, who oversaw the match. He said the two spoke shortly after the event. 'He's one of the best referees in the world," Foster said. "It's a difficult conversation. The hope is that he learns from this. Hopefully, every referee does. Six knockdowns is a bit much.' The exchange triggered a wider discussion about whether a set knockdown limit — like boxing's 'three-knockdown rule' — could apply to MMA. But Foster is unconvinced. "I'm definitely in disagreement with that," he said. 'The first three knockdowns were not what I'd call significant. Jon Anik mentioned a five-knockdown rule, I think. And I'm not in favor of that, either. 'Really, in practicality, [five is] a pretty good number, a gauge. But you have to look at factors going into it. If they're concussive knockdowns, [and if the] brain rattled.' Foster also pointed to the different cultures of cornering MMA and boxing bouts. Coaches in the latter sport withdraw their beaten fighters far more frequently than those in MMA. 'MMA is younger and boxing is older,' Foster said. 'You have older guys who have more information and have seen more. They are more wise and savvy — they'll save their fighter for another day. In MMA these guys … 'You're tough, can probably make it out.' It's just a different kind of thing.' Foster also emphasized his desire to minimize 10-10 rounds entirely. 'If you're watching a fight for five minutes, and you can't tell me who won that fight, I'll find another judge,' Foster warned. 'It messes up the scoring. You need to pick a winner, and if people are putting 10-10s, there's a lack of consistency in the scoring.' While the idea of adding a fourth or fifth judge has been floated, Foster noted logistical challenges. 'That real estate where judges sit is pretty crowded if it's a TV fight,' he said. He also warned against too many rule tweaks too quickly. "I do not want any further changes for a while," he said, adding that ones implemented last year — from clarifying the ruling on grounded fighters, to legalizing 12-6 elbows, should have gone through a long time ago. "I think [those ruling changes] worked out more than fine." Foster also commented on the fate the now-defunct Global Fight League (GFL). The organization created promotional material, said it had signed fighters to teams, and even put together a draft. However, it fell apart financially and ultimately failed before it could even hold its first event, which was expected to take place in Foster's jurisdiction of California. Foster wanted "to see certain financial things" before GFL made it to a fight night. "I'm not going to go into a fight and not be sure the fighters can be paid," he said. "I'm not going to have a brand new promotion come into California, talking major money, more than what I'd consider market rate, and not put some checks and balances in." He's also working to boost California's unique fighter retirement fund through that state's DMV. Should the CSAC secure 7,500 license plates on pre-order, then the DMV will escalate their production. The proceeds would go toward fighter pensions. Though a promising initiative, it may be a long while before other major athletic commissions in the U.S., like Nevada and New York, follow suit. "I've not seen interest from other commissions," to replicate the fund in their regions, said Foster. Foster's rule changes — and the conversations they've sparked — speak to an evolving sport still working to strike the right balance between entertainment, safety and competitive clarity. 'When we talk about what we want for MMA, I'd like to see more high-level people doing the teaching — whether that's judges, refs, or corners," he said. "Everyone has a part to play."
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Roger Goodell explained why he doesn't think ESPN will change NFL RedZone
The deal had been rumored and reported for weeks, and on Tuesday, it became official. ESPN is acquiring the rights to distribute NFL Network and NFL RedZone in exchange for a 10 percent stake in the network. And while the deal obviously ruins any facade of objectivity ESPN has with respect to covering the NFL, fans are also concerned about what it will mean for the wildly popular NFL RedZone. RedZone — and its seven hours of commercial-free football — has been a staple of the NFL fan experience for 16 years now. And the last thing fans want is for ESPN to come in, replace Scott Hanson with Stephen A. Smith and load RedZone with ads. In an interview on SportsCenter Wednesday, Roger Goodell assured fans that nothing about RedZone would change. According to Goodell, RedZone would remain an in-house production for the NFL. Just instead, it will air on ESPN-owned platforms. Under that arrangement, ESPN wouldn't actually be able to change the content we see on RedZone. It would almost seem like ESPN is just simulcasting the typical version of RedZone. At least that's how Goodell described the beginning of this arrangement. Could ESPN slowly make changes to the product down the road? It wouldn't be surprising. But for now, it does sound like RedZone will remain the same viewing experience. That's good to hear. This article originally appeared on For The Win: Roger Goodell explained why he doesn't think ESPN will change RedZone
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Roger Goodell explained why he doesn't think ESPN will change NFL RedZone
The deal had been rumored and reported for weeks, and on Tuesday, it became official. ESPN is acquiring the rights to distribute NFL Network and NFL RedZone in exchange for a 10 percent stake in the network. And while the deal obviously ruins any facade of objectivity ESPN has with respect to covering the NFL, fans are also concerned about what it will mean for the wildly popular NFL RedZone. RedZone — and its seven hours of commercial-free football — has been a staple of the NFL fan experience for 16 years now. And the last thing fans want is for ESPN to come in, replace Scott Hanson with Stephen A. Smith and load RedZone with ads. In an interview on SportsCenter Wednesday, Roger Goodell assured fans that nothing about RedZone would change. According to Goodell, RedZone would remain an in-house production for the NFL. Just instead, it will air on ESPN-owned platforms. Under that arrangement, ESPN wouldn't actually be able to change the content we see on RedZone. It would almost seem like ESPN is just simulcasting the typical version of RedZone. At least that's how Goodell described the beginning of this arrangement. Could ESPN slowly make changes to the product down the road? It wouldn't be surprising. But for now, it does sound like RedZone will remain the same viewing experience. That's good to hear.
