Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General UFC Chit Chat/News

15152545657329

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    What would happen if this fight was again close but this time Henderson lost?

    Do we just have this fight indefinitely?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Well it's quite clear we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

    I'm of the opinion that MMA is a much more complicated sport than the likes of Boxing. A lot of things need to be taken into account and there are some instances where people deserve rematches.

    To just refuse to take details into account is unfair IMO and if you start engaging in unfair practices you will start to losr credability.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    What would happen if this fight was again close but this time Henderson lost?

    Do we just have this fight indefinitely?

    Perhaps. Again, it all depends on what happens doesn't it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Perhaps. Again, it all depends on what happens doesn't it?

    I just said if what happened was another close decision but this time to Frankie.

    So yeah, just keep having the same fight over and over because that's "fair".


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    100% no.

    Just a quick point about this, to be this part of your post shows me that you have a blinkered view of title contention.

    You failed to take into account here the nature of the fight, but more importantly, that there WAS no "next guy" as far as the MW division was concerned. They had to manufacture one, a guy who had never fought at 185 in the UFC.

    I don't think having a blinkered view of anything is very healthy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I just said if what happened was another close decision but this time to Frankie.

    Well I can't make the decision now because I don't know any of the facts. The facts don't exist, it's a hypothesis. Again, each situation should be taken on it's merits
    (I've said this so much I feel like Johnny Giles :-P )
    So yeah, just keep having the same fight over and over because that's "fair".

    Nobody said they should fight over and over.

    And ot's quite scary that you seem to be using the word "fair" as some sort of negative aspect of how fights should be made!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Just a quick point about this, to be this part of your post shows me that you have a blinkered view of title contention.

    You failed to take into account here the nature of the fight, but more importantly, that there WAS no "next guy" as far as the MW division was concerned. They had to manufacture one, a guy who had never fought at 185 in the UFC.

    I don't think having a blinkered view of anything is very healthy.

    I honestly think you have the blinkered view if you think Sonnen should have got a rematch and your concept of number 2 should always be fighting the champion, not that these have much to do with what I'm saying anyway.

    There was no next guy, great?? Have him fight Sonnen for the rest of all time so!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Well I can't make the decision now because I don't know any of the facts. The facts don't exist, it's a hypothesis. Again, each situation should be taken on it's merits
    (I've said this so much I feel like Johnny Giles :-P )

    lol, but I've given you the facts???:confused:

    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Nobody said they should fight over and over.

    And ot's quite scary that you seem to be using the word "fair" as some sort of negative aspect of how fights should be made!

    Please don't sidetrack the over arching issue. If Henderson lost a close decision to Frankie, and Frankie rides off into the sunset, how fair is that on Ben Henderson?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I honestly think you have the blinkered view if you think Sonnen should have got a rematch and your concept of number 2 should always be fighting the champion, not that these have much to do with what I'm saying anyway.

    Firstly, I never said Sonnen deserved a rematch. I just asked did YOU think that.

    I also don't see the problem with the No.2 guy fighting the Champ. Why wouldn't he be the most deserving guy?

    What i'm saying is, the most deserving guy should be fighting for the belt.
    There was no next guy, great?? Have him fight Sonnen for the rest of all time so!

    I have no idea why you're being so dramatic. Calm down a bit, I feel like i'm talking to my sister or something.

    I was just pointing out how unlogical your argument is that's all. First your argument was "the next guy" should get a shot.

    You're saying here that even if there is no "next guy", it's better to just create one rather than give the most deserving guy a shot, who was Sonnen at the time. That might be your opinion but don't expect people to agree with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    lol, but I've given you the facts???:confused:

    No you haven't. Believe it or not, there is more to a fight than the quick description of how a hypothetical fight might have been scored.

    Please don't sidetrack the over arching issue.

    I'm not side-tracking, I was replying to your post.

    If Henderson lost a close decision to Frankie, and Frankie rides off into the sunset, how fair is that on Ben Henderson?

    Again, and i'm not sure why I keep having to say this to you but please try to take it on board this time............

    IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS!!!!! YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALL OF THE FACTS INTO ACCOUNT!!!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Firstly, I never said Sonnen deserved a rematch. I just asked did YOU think that.

    Fine.
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    I also don't see the problem with the No.2 guy fighting the Champ. Why wouldn't he be the most deserving guy?

    So you did think Sonnen deserved a rematch? Or Vitor > Chael?:confused:
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    What i'm saying is, the most deserving guy should be fighting for the belt.

    Yes, we've been through this.


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    I have no idea why you're being so dramatic. Calm down a bit, I feel like i'm talking to my sister or something.

    "boner for judges":rolleyes:
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    I was just pointing out how unlogical your argument is that's all. First your argument was "the next guy" should get a shot.

    You're saying here that even if there is no "next guy", it's better to just create one rather than give the most deserving guy a shot, who was Sonnen at the time. That might be your opinion but don't expect people to agree with it.

    Yes, what I have said has been consistent. Anderson finished Chael(who got banned after anyway) and Vitor "deserved" the next shot. I had no problem with that.

    I'm sure lots of people wanted an instant rematch but he had 25 minutes to beat Anderson and couldn't, who's next? If you want the second shot that bad work your back and here Chael is with no excuses. No log jam for the title and we got to see one of the best knockouts of all time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    There is more to a hypothetical fight? This is interesting and not very clear. I've come up with the scenario and given all relevent facts to you.

    It's quite clear we differ on what are "relevent facts".

    How the fight goes isn't important

    We also differ on this point.
    to make it easier for you, lets say it's the exact reverse of the first fight? Happy? It's a contentious decision that possible could go either way but Henderson loses? Rematch?

    Well, it's quite obvious that, since I think a rematch is reasonable in this case, I think a rematch in the exact same circumstances would be reasonable in that case too.
    Fair is used with negative connotations because the scenario would feed into a system with undermined judging, vested interest in results by the promotion and being generally not logical.

    How you can call something is not logical but at the same time ignore 99% of the facts of a situation makes no sense.
    Please elaborate on the facts needed? What was needed for Frankies rematch other than it was close?

    I don't have to tell you what facts are needed. This is getting a bit silly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    It's quite clear we differ on what are "relevent facts".




    We also differ on this point.

    It's a point to illustrate redundancy(in more ways than one really), I'm not sure how you can't see that?


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Well, it's quite obvious that, since I think a rematch is reasonable in this case, I think a rematch in the exact same circumstances would be reasonable in that case too.

    Which I think is silly and unsustainable, also not particularly "fair" to other lightweights.
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    How you can call something is not logical but at the same time ignore 99% of the facts of a situation makes no sense.

    Because it is not a logical way to do things and I'm not ignoring anything. Every close decision gets a rematch?
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    I don't have to tell you what facts are needed. This is getting a bit silly.

    I never said you had to tell me, I was asking you a simple question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Ush1 wrote: »
    It's a point to illustrate redundancy(in more ways than one really), I'm not sure how you can't see that?

    No, I see what you're getting at. We just disagree that's all.
    Which I think is silly and unsustainable, also not particularly "fair" to other lightweights.

    You don't know that because you don't know each situation. Cases taken on their merits and all that!
    Because it is not a logical way to do things and I'm not ignoring anything. Every close decision gets a rematch?

    Jesus! At this point having a conversation with you is pointless. You don't seem to be able to take on board that I don't see things as broad as you. I never once said "every" this and "every" that.

    What i've said repeatedly is, every situation is different and you have to take the facts on board. However, you still say "Every close decision gets a rematch?"

    I'm out!!!!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Jesus! At this point having a conversation with you is pointless. You don't seem to be able to take on board that I don't see things as broad as you. I never once said "every" this and "every" that.

    What i've said repeatedly is, every situation is different and you have to take the facts on board. However, you still say "Every close decision gets a rematch?"

    I'm out!!!!!!!

    I see no more merit in Frankie Henderson rematch, than in Hominick Yagin, Rampage Machida, Torres Mighty Mouse, Faber Cruz 2, Pettis Stephens etc etc ad infinitum.... None of the individual cases warrant any more "merit" than they were close decision fights.

    And no, Frankie having to have two rematches previously makes no odds, the BJ one was without merit, and any knock ons from that would be also. Two wrongs don't make a right an all that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,127 ✭✭✭✭Leeg17


    Dana has just confirmed that TUF:15 is UK vs. Australia, airing in Autumn 2012.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Wow, this is goign in circles.
    I wrote a pretty clear reply but its gone. I'll try to get the gist of it down.

    Ush1 wrote: »
    But how would that apply to close decisions? By there very nature you can't say everybody knows someone won that fight.
    Nobody is saying every close decision deserves a rematch. You are repeated avoid the issue and takign in generalites that don't apply.
    I know there is problems with judging but that is for commisions to fix, not for UFC to have a rematch when they don't like the outcome of a fight.
    The rematch isn't because they don't like the outcome, its because its deserved. Different issue. So you can drop that too.

    I think it's a hollow reason for 3 reasons:
    1.It's debatable who is no.1 or no.2 in the world etc...
    2.You just lost to the no.1 anyway.
    3.How are you sure that even though he is no.2 that someone wouldn't do a better job?
    Ok so this is the issue.
    And you are right, that the No2 spot is subjective. I think we should agree that No.1 is the champ.

    But the fact that its subjective doesn't make a difference to the point. The winner of the title fight (weather its a new champ or the current one) is the new No.1
    The loser falls down the rankings. Sometimes, in a very tight devision, he'll drop to 4th or so. Sometimes, the two fighters will be so close in ability, and still that much better than the rest of the division that the loser will be the number 2. I'm not talking about subjective rankings, I'm talking about the actual second best in the world.
    You have to admitt that sometimes he'll still be 2nd best in the division, even though we'll never all agree when that happens, and we can't test for it or prove it. The fact that we know it must happen sometimes, is he reason NEVER having rematches outside a draw is bad.

    It's up to the UFC to decide when that happens, and that itself is less than perfect I agree. They will get it wrong sometimes, but they wil get it wrong sometimes, just like that could get any title shot wrong, give it to X when Y is better etc.
    I'd hate it if it was common, and every close fight gets one, or every defeated champ gets a rematch. But never having it outside a draw is wrong because sometimes, no matter how rare, the rematch is the best title match up.



    A fight can come down to one persons opinion of a single round. To me, thats insanely subjective when you are talking about whats at stake. The rematch is as much about the new champ proving himself than it is about the old champ getting the belt back.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Mellor wrote: »
    Wow, this is goign in circles.
    I wrote a pretty clear reply but its gone. I'll try to get the gist of it down.



    Nobody is saying every close decision deserves a rematch. You are repeated avoid the issue and takign in generalites that don't apply.

    So why is Frankie any more deserving than anyone else? What the difference from countless other close decision fights? I haven't avoided any issue.

    Mellor wrote: »
    The rematch isn't because they don't like the outcome, its because its deserved. Different issue. So you can drop that too.

    So you say, so they didn't like the outcome of the fight and undermined the judges for the job they're paid to do? Like I said, it's no more "deserved" than any other close decision( i.e. it isn't).
    Mellor wrote: »
    Ok so this is the issue.
    And you are right, that the No2 spot is subjective. I think we should agree that No.1 is the champ.

    But the fact that its subjective doesn't make a difference to the point. The winner of the title fight (weather its a new champ or the current one) is the new No.1
    The loser falls down the rankings. Sometimes, in a very tight devision, he'll drop to 4th or so. Sometimes, the two fighters will be so close in ability, and still that much better than the rest of the division that the loser will be the number 2. I'm not talking about subjective rankings, I'm talking about the actual second best in the world.
    You have to admitt that sometimes he'll still be 2nd best in the division, even though we'll never all agree when that happens, and we can't test for it or prove it. The fact that we know it must happen sometimes, is he reason NEVER having rematches outside a draw is bad.

    It's up to the UFC to decide when that happens, and that itself is less than perfect I agree. They will get it wrong sometimes, but they wil get it wrong sometimes, just like that could get any title shot wrong, give it to X when Y is better etc.
    I'd hate it if it was common, and every close fight gets one, or every defeated champ gets a rematch. But never having it outside a draw is wrong because sometimes, no matter how rare, the rematch is the best title match up.

    If you look at my original post it really doesn't matter if the next guy up is not 2nd best in the world(points 2 and 3).

    "2.You just lost to the no.1 anyway.
    3.How are you sure that even though he is no.2 that someone wouldn't do a better job? "

    The more rematches you give out, the easier and more flippant they become and the more undermined judges are. (Frankie said in the post fight after Ben that he had to have to 2 rematches "so what's fair?" with regards him getting a rematch)

    People were suggesting Diaz and Condit had a rematch which I think is absolutely insane. I could be wrong here, I think I read Dana White said to Condits camp that Diaz wants a rematch but Jacksons declined. Again, it seems like the Diaz GSP fight was their golden calf fight and the UFC tried to get a rematch. Not saying that is always the motivator but when you have the UFC asking for rematches willy nilly for what to me was not even a close decision, it makes the whole thing not fair.
    Mellor wrote: »
    A fight can come down to one persons opinion of a single round. To me, thats insanely subjective when you are talking about whats at stake. The rematch is as much about the new champ proving himself than it is about the old champ getting the belt back.

    Yes, that's the risk that happens when it goes to judges but they are the professionals and the ones trusted with that responsibility. At the upper echelons and when the fighters get more and more skilled I believe we will see more fights than before going to decisions and I reckon there will be lots of close calls so this rematch thing is an unfair solution to an unfair problem.

    The new champ can prove himself against another very, very skilled lightweight. Frankie could have a fight against maybe Pettis, winner of that is back in contention. Crowd gets a new fight and the division doesn't get held up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Leeg17 wrote: »
    Dana has just confirmed that TUF:15 is UK vs. Australia, airing in Autumn 2012.
    Any word on coaches yet?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭JoeyJJ


    Better not be Bisping! Dana liked Brad Pickets performance in Sweden, might be in with a shout. John Maguire could show them Gipsy JuJitsu. Hathaway doubtful I think Pearson could be the one however there was talk of a match against Cub Swanson. So I guess I haven't a clue who should do it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Best Aussie(or more Oz based) fighter I can think of is Ebersole? Dan Hardy may have been an option as the UFC like him a lot but he's fighting Ludwig. I agree John Maguire isn't a bad shout.

    Mark Hunt could be another option I guess. Noke and Sotiropoulos are both on 2 fight losing streaks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭p to the e


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Best Aussie(or more Oz based) fighter I can think of is Ebersole? Dan Hardy may have been an option as the UFC like him a lot but he's fighting Ludwig. I agree John Maguire isn't a bad shout.

    Mark Hunt could be another option I guess. Noke and Sotiropoulos are both on 2 fight losing streaks.

    Does the coach have to be Australian? I know it might end up going that way but it's not a given.
    If it does go that way maybe Ebersole moves up to Middleweight for a bout with Bisping.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Surely they wouldn't put Bisping in as a coach again so soon?
    I'd say Ross Pearson is likely. He is on the coaching team this season though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    Ross Pearson vs Mark Hunt it is :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Best Aussie(or more Oz based) fighter I can think of is Ebersole?
    Lombard is adoptive Aussie too but doubt it'll be him.
    Ever sole is a bit if a character so he might be good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,663 ✭✭✭JoeyJJ


    We should start a John Maguire for TUF campaign :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    "Congratuations fighter, you have won your preliminary fight and you now move into the TUF caravan!"


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,923 ✭✭✭kearneybobs


    On the ESPN UFC podcast, the host mentioned the possibility of the UK v's Oz TUF a few weeks ago. Started throwing names about for coaches. Also started referring it to it as 'The Smashes' ala The Ashes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    On the ESPN UFC podcast, the host mentioned the possibility of the UK v's Oz TUF a few weeks ago. Started throwing names about for coaches. Also started referring it to it as 'The Smashes' ala The Ashes.

    Jaysus!

    If they call it The Smashes, i'm not watching it!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Jaysus!

    If they call it The Smashes, i'm not watching it!


    Looks like you're not watching it so! :pac:

    Link
    UFC® ANNOUNCES THE ULTIMATE FIGHTER AUSTRALIA VS UK - ‘THE SMASHES’™ TV SERIES

    AUSTRALIA TO TAKE ON THE UNITED KINGDOM IN THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL EDITION OF THE UFC’s REALITY TV PROGRAM

    REGISTRATION NOW OPEN TO PROSPECTIVE FIGHTERS
    London, UK - The Ultimate Fighting Championship® has confirmed it will film an Australian edition of its hit reality television series, The Ultimate Fighter® (‘TUF’), giving Aussie and British mixed martial artists the opportunity to secure a lucrative contract with the world’s preeminent mixed martial arts (MMA) organization.

    Registration is now open to all aspiring UFC fighters from Australia and the UK. Prospective competitors should visit http://au.ufc.com/TUFForm (Aus) or http://uk.ufc.com/TUFForm (UK) for registration forms, rules and qualification criteria. The live tryouts, scheduled for June 12 in Sydney and June 15 in London, will be open to fighters ranging in weight from 61kg to 77kg. Participants must be between 18 and 35 years of age and have had at least three verified professional fights (having won two).

    The Australian series, dubbed The Smashes™ – a play on the 130 year-old cricket rivalry, will see undiscovered professional MMA fighters from Australia and the United Kingdom live together in The Ultimate Fighter House in Australia and compete against each other for a prized UFC contract. This is only the second time in TUF’s seven-year history that teams will represent their country of origin, the first taking place in 2009, during the ninth series, as Team USA took on Team UK.

    “Australia and the UK have a fierce, long-standing rivalry, and where better to settle the score than in the UFC’s OctagonTM,” said Marshall Zelaznik, UFC’s Managing Director of International Development. “The popularity of MMA has exploded in Australia and the UK, with gyms opening all over the respective countries. There is an athlete in one of those gyms who hasn’t had the chance to show the world what he can do – The Ultimate Fighter is going give to him that opportunity. We’re going to discover the UFC’s future stars, you can bet on it.”

    The Smashes marks the second international edition of The Ultimate Fighter® franchise. The first, currently airing in Brazil, brought in record viewership numbers, recording 12 million viewers for the Premiere episode and attesting to the successful global expansion of the series. With its continued worldwide success, the UFC hopes to one day host several tournaments in different countries, crowning one unanimous winner across an international format.

    The series, The Ultimate Fighter, which debuted in 2005, is the longest running and most successful sports reality shows in the United States, and has been a springboard for some of the UFC’s most renowned fighters. Two of Australia’s best UFC talents, George Sotiropoulos and Kyle Noke, broke into the UFC via The Ultimate Fighter. Geelong’s George Sotiropoulos was featured in Season 6, eventually making the semifinals, while Dubbo’s Kyle Noke made it through to the quarterfinals in season 11.

    Two of Britain’s finest athletes also entered the UFC by winning The Ultimate Fighter. Michael ‘The Count’ Bisping, one of the UFC’s best and most recognized fighters, won Season 3 in 2006 under the training of UFC legend Tito Ortiz. Ross ‘The Real Deal’ Pearson then followed by winning Season 9 in 2009, when the United States met a team from the United Kingdom. His coach was none other than fellow countryman, Bisping, who built a 6-1 record during his first stint as a mentor. Bisping once again took on a role as coach in season 14, becoming the first fighter to make three appearances on the series.

    The show exploded the UFC’s popularity amongst American audiences. The first season, featuring UFC original legends Chuck Liddell and Randy Couture as coaches, included famed UFC names such as Forrest Griffin (light heavyweight winner), Josh Koscheck, Stephan Bonnar and Kenny Florian. The first finale, which took place on April 9, 2005, featured the iconic three-round battle between Stephan Bonnar and Forrest Griffin, and is remembered as one of the most important and famous bouts in UFC history.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement