In this past weekend’s main event, two 135-pound contenders collided, both of whom were looking to secure their place behind Amanda Nunes in the queue for a shot at reigning bantamweight queen Julianna Peña.
After five rounds of action, which saw the #2-ranked Holm record an abundance of control time against the cage, the Brazilian fell on the right side of a split decision. While the verdict caused a fare amount of controversy, most acknowledge that Vieira’s offense secured her at least two rounds, with a couple others being close enough to swing either way.
In the aftermath of the event, some fans and pundits criticized Holm’s strategy, which seemed solely committed to control against the fence, which, as per the scoring criteria, is not credited in the eyes of the judges without some effective offense behind it.
Now, one of Holm’s former opponents has become the latest to suggest that the former champ’s clinch-heavy approach was a mistake.
Taking to Twitter following the culmination of the main event, Miesha Tate suggested that “The Preacher’s Daughter” got it all wrong with her gameplan on the night. Speaking from experience, the 35-year-old discussed the importance of forcing Vieira to be the aggressor.
“Not a good game plan by @HollyHolm I can say it bc I’ve made the mistake before too. she shoulda stayed on the outside & forced Ketlen to be the aggressor. Holly’s an excellent counter striker, she tired herself out by engaging in the clinch too much. Ketlen makes it look easy”
Vieira’s victory over Holm on Saturday night marked the addition of a second former titleholder to her record. In her previous contest, the Brazilian outpointed Tate across 25 minutes of action.
Having defeated Tate and likely secured her ascent deep into the division’s top five with her triumph against Holm, Vieira will be keeping a close eye on the rematch between Peña and Nunes, which was recently confirmed to be the headliner for UFC 277 on July 30.
Do you agree with Miesha Tate’s assessment of Holly Holm’s performance at UFC Vegas 55?