(Jump to the 33:30 mark)

Laimon and Jackson get into a really interesting debate over whether GSP should have continued passing against Hardy, or stayed in guard and done ground and pound.  In some ways its less of a debate and more of Laimon just grilling Jackson to try to understand Jackson's thought process and ideas, but they definitely are coming at things from opposite angles: technique vs. "will;" positional improvement vs. ground and pound; and so forth.

In the end, I don't know that either guy gets the best of it.  I think both guys had valid points: Laimon on good technique breaking bones is better than "heart", Jackson is right that if the technique isn't quite there for whatever reason, it does become a battle of will; Laimon on GnP being better from mount than guard; Jackson on GSP being better served by not passing, etc.

But what do I know? (A: Very little!) That's why I hope all you intelligent BE community members will give your takes - who got the best of the debate?  In general and specific terms.

Alternate link -http://taggradio.com/archives/20100330.mp3