Dricus du Plessis offered his perspective on what he saw as a significant reality check for Bo Nickal following his recent defeat.
Leading up to the fight, Nickal possessed an unblemished 7-0 professional MMA record and the distinguished background of a three-time NCAA wrestling champion. He was widely favored to win against the more experienced Reinier de Ridder. However, it was de Ridder who emerged victorious via a second-round knockout, initiated by a forceful knee to Nickal`s body.
Du Plessis stated he wasn`t surprised by de Ridder handing Nickal his first loss. He suggested that the sense of satisfaction among many watching Nickal`s defeat stemmed from both Nickal`s self-promotion and his demeanor during the fight.
Speaking on *The Sias du Plessis Show*, du Plessis commented on Nickal`s relatively short time in the UFC (four or five fights), stating that a fighter needs to be cautious with their words early in their career. He felt Nickal had faced opponents who were “nobodies” and had shown disrespect by criticizing championship fights and other fighters` skills, particularly their wrestling. Du Plessis remarked that seeing Nickal receive “humble pie” was “satisfying” because, in his view, Nickal had disrespected those who had achieved more than him.
Du Plessis felt Nickal carried an unwarranted aura of being a champion, focusing heavily on his wrestling abilities. “This is fighting,” du Plessis emphasized, “and, in my honest opinion, that knee, it was a proper knee, Bo Nickal gave up. Bo Nickal was broken mentally. That’s why he took a knee. He wasn’t dropped by the knee, the knee caught him and it was a good knee, but if you’re getting downed by knees like that, good luck at the top because the shots are a lot harder.”
During his rise, Nickal expressed confidence in his abilities, even suggesting he could easily handle top contenders like Khamzat Chimaev. However, previous wins against Paul Craig and Cody Brundage, where Nickal wasn`t flawless, had already hinted at his lack of deep experience.
Du Plessis believes Nickal learned a crucial lesson: excelling in MMA demands more than just being world-class in a single sport.
While du Plessis didn`t have an issue with Nickal`s general hype, he reiterated his problem was Nickal speaking critically of fighters who had accomplished things Nickal had not. He stressed again that despite Nickal being a three-time NCAA champion, MMA is a different challenge, and Nickal discovered this the hard way.
Du Plessis thought Nickal expected an easy fight against Reinier but praised de Ridder`s strategic approach. He regards de Ridder as a “very good fighter” and potentially a “problem” for others in the division.
He offered significant praise for de Ridder, also known as “The Dutch Knight,” noting his effectiveness both standing and on the ground against Nickal.
According to du Plessis, the turning point in the fight came when Nickal couldn`t dominate with his wrestling in the initial round. When de Ridder managed to get Nickal down, and they later returned to their feet, Nickal appeared fatigued and out of his element, looking like a “fish out of water.” Du Plessis observed that Nickal`s wrestling is typically his primary weapon, and when it wasn`t effective – with his takedowns being defended or him being taken down – he was matched against a fighter (de Ridder) possessing a broader skillset. Du Plessis specifically criticized Nickal`s striking as “terrible” and clarified that Nickal is a “great wrestler” but not necessarily a “great grappler.”
