From all accounts, the fight was a great fight, fought by two game fighters. But besides the bias of this MMA forum, whom helped to set up the match, does Gannon really deserve that much credit for what he did aside from putting on an entertaining fight?
Here's the evidence:
It was Gannon and crew who challenged Kimbo to this fight, not the other way around.
Kimbo was just minding his own business when Gannon decided he wanted to make a name for himself at the expense of Kimbo.
Kimbo took the fight b/c it was just another fight to him, hopefully a good payday. Gannon took the fight b/c he wanted the adulation of everyone in the MMA community. There was no honor involved. Gannon simply wanted to take on this man b/c he wanted the hype that the MMA boards were giving Kimbo, which ironically Kimbo knew nothing about.
Then comes the tale of the tape.
Gannon would not have challenged Kimbo if he didn't think he could handily beat him. After all, Gannon is physically bigger, better trained, a top-level amatuer boxer, and a pro-MMA fighter. Kimbo is just another big buy who fights in backyards for money.
Next comes the actual fight.
The rules were being changed at the last minute by Kimbo's crew. No doubt to make for a more even fight that may favor their fighter who was a bareknuckle boxer. People say that Gannon fought the odds under Kimbo's rules, but did he really considering he's a high-level amatuer boxer??? Besides, since Gannon challeged Kimbo, shouldn't Kimbo get a say in what rules the fight should be fought under?
Also, Gannon himself stated that Kimbo's crew was clueless about the specifics of fighting, which is the kiss of death when dealing with a pro-MMA fighter who knows what's up.
Kimbo assumed no groundwork basically meant no grappling/submissions outside of the usual boxing clinch and no kicks meant no using the legs in any kind of striking.
If Kimbo was well-versed in those tactics, he would have easily used them in the infamous video that started it all to dispatch his opponent even quicker.
But against a shorter/smaller opponent who often led with his head, not once did he attempt to throw knees or go for a chokehold of any kind.
Kimbo's crew thought the designated rules were enough to keep the fight a bare-knuckle boxing match, but obviously they were out of their league and didn't know what was going down.
Gannon intentionally used this ambiguity in the rules to his advantage against a fighter who was untrained for such techniques. In this case, I'd have to say the odds were heavily against Kimbo, yet he put up a great fight.
We all know that a bigger, better trained pro-MMA fighter with an extensive background in boxing can take out a boxer who just fights in backyards. That wasn't the point of the fight. The point of the fight was to see someone we knew fight Kimbo.
So instead of fighting fair-and-square under Kimbo's implied rules, Gannon sneaks a few MMA techniques in against an unsuspecting opponent.
As for the Kimbo takedown, was it really a takedown attempt or just an attempt to clinch since he had been rocked and was down on one knee. Keep in mind, that if he hadn't clinched, he would have been open to more strikes while in a downed position.
Either way, his specific actions at that moment were no threat to Gannon. Gannon could have easily pushed off and teed off on Kimbo ala Rizzo vs. Tank, but he went for a questionable chokehold which Kimbo was only being fair in retaliating back with some punches on the ground, which incidently didn't do any damage.
Basically, what I'm saying is Kimbo should be the one getting all the praise. He was the true underdog who went in not knowing what he was up against.
Gannon was the agressor who challenged Kimbo after hearing all the hype MMA forums were giving him, not to mention the bigger, better trained fighter who knew exactly what he was up against and specifically used Kimbo's cluelessness of the rules against him.