[Ush1]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

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.

[Leeg17]

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

[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.

Originally Posted by Ush1

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.

[Ush1]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Originally Posted by Mellor

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).

Originally Posted by Mellor

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.

Originally Posted by Mellor

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.

[El Guapo!]

Originally Posted by Leeg17

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

Any word on coaches yet?

[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.

[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.

[p to the e]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[Chinpool]

Ross Pearson vs Mark Hunt it is

[Mellor]

Originally Posted by Ush1

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.

[JoeyJJ]

We should start a John Maguire for TUF campaign

[MrStuffins]

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

[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.

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by 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.

Jaysus!

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