Comments on: Nate Diaz vs. Clay Guida – UFC 94 Fight Video

By: guidaisawesome

guidaisawesome — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:55:11 +0000

Clay Guida is a great fighter. Those of you that say he’s boring and he shouldn’t have one must not know mma. Clay Guida is a tough muthaf*cker and is very entertaining and exciting to watch. Yeah this wasn’t his best fight, but watch the fights against Tyson Griffin and Diego Sanchez. Guida lost both of those fights in split decisions (which I think is complete bullshit and Guida shoulda won) but they were both good fights. Guida vs Sanchez was ranked #13 in the 100 greatest UFC fights of all time.

By: ivo

ivo — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:18:16 +0000

NATE THE BEST

By: Tru173

Tru173 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:35:31 +0000

Lost any or whatever respect i had for the ultimate wrestler clay guida. Respect the 209 THE DIAZ BROTHERS are the shit.

By: AreYouFreakingStupid

AreYouFreakingStupid — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:28:40 +0000

Are you freaking stupid? Nate Diaz may have put on a few pounds since he became a professional fighter, but he is still what he’s always been…and what he’ll always be…

A PUNK. A punk who thinks he’s better than people and all around him are better than all those not around him. He’s not overly strong, he’s not overly slick. He’s overly LUCKY, is what he is.

Face it idiots. If we all had long & lanky arms and practiced for a while, we’d all get LUCKY, just like nate. His brother Nick, may be a different story in some light, but Nate should go back to Stockton and be a bag boy for the grocery store, atleast there his attitude comensurates with his pay.

By: krublows

krublows — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:58:19 +0000

Nate Won this fight.. Guida hardly did any damage.. it was all nate.. and all of those throws are take downs.. those judges are high

By: dubgli

dubgli — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:02:26 +0000

yep, just re watched it again. Still agree that this fight just did not have the ACTION to base the win over. You either picked the guy who was being held or the guy who was holding. It sucks, i know, i was booing this fight because Clay just held, but in no way does Nate win this fight. NO WAY! Nate tried take down attempts where Clay just got the better position after the takedown. I’m watching it again as i type. There is no way Nate won this fight at all. His striking was not enough to win the fight. He had spurts for like for a little bit at a time out of a 5 min round. It would have been a rob if Nate won this because he clearly did not win. Maybe he did not lose either, but he DEFINITELY DEFINITELY did not win. This goes back to my point that there isn’t enough in this fight to judge it. You’d have to simply give it to the holder, not the person who is being held. On a side note, what probably gave this fight to Clay was Nate’s loserish flexing after each round of being out muscled by clay. That gave me a good laugh because hes got nothing. To me that showed that he’s a sore loser or that he was beat so bad he didn’t know what was going on. Saying he didnt get beat that bad, he’s probably a sore loser.

By: tigercats12

tigercats12 — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:10:04 +0000

oh yeah, i saw the guy above talking about Guida “controlling” thematch. nope sorry held held on. if you have someone’s back for that long you should finsish not stand there.
also “Diaz should work on his takedown defence” have you been drinking? nate took guida down more and Stopped guida from taking him down many times.. get some glasses my friend.

By: tigercats12

tigercats12 — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:05:53 +0000

Guida, just didn’t want to LOSE. plain and simple.nate worked for more subs, defended everything thrown at him and owned the stand up.. if it had been a 5 round fight, nate would have subbed him..

By: dubgli

dubgli — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:12:53 +0000

well, sure clay was just controlling the guy the whole match, why would he win. He didn’t really do anything right? well when you control the whole fight and the other guy doesnt do anything at all or couldnt do anything at all, you have to give it to the guy who controlled the fight.. there isnt anything else to base the fight off.. It’s not like nate was doing anything impressive of overwhelming clay.. Now if the judges picked clays clench and hold and control over nate’s awsome consistent striking and ground game, then i would agree, it’s not right. But there just wan’t enough action in this fight to base the win off of anything else.

By: Dan McFee

Dan McFee — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:44:41 +0000

Iv gota stop reading these posts. No one here has any respect for the ground side of the game. I see fights where a guy might land like 2 punches per round and then get rag dolled the rest of the fight and then you guys come on here and bitch that “He dominated him on the feet wtf!” You ppl need to get a clue.