General UFC Chit Chat/News

liverbear · 07-05-2012 8:45pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Cruz has blown his ACL, out of the Faber fight.

http://mmajunkie.com/news/28594/dominick-cruz-injured-forced-out-of-ufc-148-bout-with-urijah-faber.mma

Damn was looking forward to cruz winning that

belcher and nate looked awesome at ufc on fox

the_doctor199 · 07-05-2012 9:17pm

Not UFC specific, but a heads up for anyone heading to the MMA Show Live in Brum at the weekend...

PRESS STATEMENT PRESS STATEMENT PRESS STATEMENT

Monday 7th May 2012

OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE MMA SHOW LIVE POSTPONEMENT IN BIRMINGHAM

It is with deep regret that we have been forced to postpone The MMA Show Live at the National Exhibition Centre on Saturday 12th and Sunday the 13th of May 2012 due to circumstances beyond our control. We would like to apologise to disappointed fans for postponing the show and “we would like to thank everyone for their support and understanding, as we are deeply disappointed in having to make this decision.”

MMA Show ticket holders are invited to attend The Martial Arts Show Live in Hall 11 at The National Exhibition Centre Birmingham on Saturday the 12th and Sunday the 13th May 2012 FREE OF CHARGE.

All MMA Show ticket holders will receive replacement tickets for The MMA Show Live on Saturday the 20th and Sunday the 21st of October 2012 or you can contact The Ticket Factory about ticket refund procedures on theticketfactory.com or telephone 0844 338 0338.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused, and appreciate your understanding.

- Ends –

kearneybobs · 07-05-2012 10:21pm

liverbear wrote: »

Damn was looking forward to cruz winning that

belcher and nate looked awesome at ufc on fox

Here's a breakdown of the final fights of the night from the Gracie Brothers. Really interesting to see how it all played out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiC94pDO9nM

Mellor · 08-05-2012 3:21am

Somehow, I manage to find the Gracie brothers both very annoying and very interesting at the same time.

pauldoo · 08-05-2012 4:40pm

http://bjpenn.com/video?vidid=SIAWyh6mLi0

doesnt look good,doesnt seem to be getting up in a hurry

Fenian Army · 08-05-2012 4:55pm

I watched Hendo vs Shogun last night... epic.

Is Henderson an absolute freak of nature to still be competing at his age (like Zanetti and Giggs) or is it common enough for fighters to keep going at a good level at his age?

09-05-2012 12:53am

Fenian Army wrote: »

I watched Hendo vs Shogun last night... epic.

Is Henderson an absolute freak of nature to still be competing at his age (like Zanetti and Giggs) or is it common enough for fighters to keep going at a good level at his age?

No he's a freak of nature... the HGH and TRT helps too I'm sure.

MrStuffins · 09-05-2012 1:43am

Fenian Army wrote: »

I watched Hendo vs Shogun last night... epic.

Is Henderson an absolute freak of nature to still be competing at his age (like Zanetti and Giggs) or is it common enough for fighters to keep going at a good level at his age?

I think it also helps that it seems fighters will peak later than footballs do.

For example, Silva won the MW title at 31 and his best years were thereafter.

Or maybe i'm talking ballocks :P

Mellor · 09-05-2012 3:52am

kearneybobs wrote: »

Here's a breakdown of the final fights of the night from the Gracie Brothers. Really interesting to see how it all played out.

I was watching with the sound down. I remember think that Rogan were prob loving the LegLock>Truck>Twister moment in Paul Harris v Alan Belcher. From Grachie brothers comments Joe was excited. I actualy thought that Belcher had the twister it if he locked the right arm up at the bottom (see the Korean Zombie twister break down)

But Eddie Bravo has posted a breakdown too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npdc-ckeUhc

Deleted User wrote: »

No he's a freak of nature... the HGH and TRT helps too I'm sure.

Accusing fighters of PEDs isn't allwoed on the forum.
Not sure if you are ignorant of the difference, or just mis-typed. But you should prob edit

Ush1 · 09-05-2012 9:33am

Interestingly Rener and Eddie disagree on what the crotch ripper/banana split is.

Mr. Manager · 09-05-2012 11:28am

Benson Henderson's first defense of the UFC lightweight title is official.

UFC president Dana White today confirmed Henderson and former champ Frankie Edgar will meet at UFC 150 on Aug. 11. MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) first reported the likely date this past month.

White made the official announcement during tonight's new edition of "UFC Tonight" on FUEL TV.

.

Mr. Manager · 09-05-2012 11:29am

Although he won't fight UFC bantamweight champion Dominick Cruz, Urijah Faber will get to fight for a title.

A replacement opponent hasn't been determined, but UFC president Dana White today said Faber will fight the UFC's interim bantamweight title in July at UFC 148.

.

Ush1 · 09-05-2012 12:02pm

Don't think Frankie should have got that rematch.

Hope it's Faber vs Barao and Barao batters him.

Leeg17 · 10-05-2012 3:03am

Ush1 wrote: »

Don't think Frankie should have got that rematch.

How come? I don't think many will argue that Frankie deserves a rematch considering he defended his title twice in a rematch.

Also, from Dana's Twitter:

Jon Jones vs. Dan Henderson for Jones' UFC LHW title on Sept 1st in Las Vegas!!!!

scudzilla · 10-05-2012 9:54am

Anybody else catch Marcus Davis in his kickboxing match in Dublin last week??

Didn't end too well for him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIAWyh6mLi0

JoeyJJ · 10-05-2012 10:34am

Nice connection shin to chin. Think Marcus should hang up the gloves.

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 11:15am

Leeg17 wrote: »

How come? I don't think many will argue that Frankie deserves a rematch considering he defended his title twice in a rematch.

Also, from Dana's Twitter:

The second rematch was fair enough as the judges scored it a draw, BJ should never have got a rematch either though.

I don't like this idea that if the UFC doesn't like a decision, they will just rematch the fighters instantly. Obviously they aren't in charge of the judges but it totally undermines them and makes you think whats the point.

I think fundamentally you should only ever get a rematch if the judges score it a draw, including contentious decisions.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 11:28am

Ush1 wrote: »

I think fundamentally you should only ever get a rematch if the judges score it a draw, including contentious decisions.

Completely disagree.

If you've been robbed, you deserve a rematch. If it's a close decision, it's possible you deserve a rematch. If the fight has been stopped wrongly, it's possible you deserve a rematch, if you are still undoubtedly in the Top 2 in the world, it's possible you deserve a rematch..........

There are lots of reasons why a rematch might take place. I think just clampong down and saying "No Rematches unless it's a draw" would be stupid! Everything needs to be taken on it's merits.

Of course there are times where rematches aren't deserved, like BJ v Edgar. But that shouldn't mean rematches should be banished!

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 11:58am

MrStuffins wrote: »

Completely disagree.

If you've been robbed, you deserve a rematch. If it's a close decision, it's possible you deserve a rematch. If the fight has been stopped wrongly, it's possible you deserve a rematch, if you are still undoubtedly in the Top 2 in the world, it's possible you deserve a rematch..........

There are lots of reasons why a rematch might take place. I think just clampong down and saying "No Rematches unless it's a draw" would be stupid! Everything needs to be taken on it's merits.

Of course there are times where rematches aren't deserved, like BJ v Edgar. But that shouldn't mean rematches should be banished!

If you were robbed, that's subjective and what's the point of judges?

If it's close decision, I would say absolutely not! The judges scored it that way, you lost, you didn't finish the fight and you took that risk.

Same for the fight being stopped incorrectly, which is rare, but you obviously got in a bad spot and again, not a rematch for me.

Undoubtedly top 2 is again quite hollow reason. The judges are there to make the call, not the UFC.

Mellor · 10-05-2012 12:13pm

Ush1 wrote: »

I think fundamentally you should only ever get a rematch if the judges score it a draw, including contentious decisions.

That's terrible imo

Ush1 wrote: »

If you were robbed, that's subjective and what's the point of judges?

Judges sometimes get it clearly wrong sometimes. That's not really up for debate.

If it's close decision, I would say absolutely not! The judges scored it that way, you lost, you didn't finish the fight and you took that risk.

Why not?
The judges scored it agaisnt you and your record gets marked as a loss, and you don't get the prize money.
Why can't you have another go, there's nothing in the rules to say you can't. Why not IF you deserve the next shot more than anyone else

Undoubtedly top 2 is again quite hollow reason. The judges are there to make the call, not the UFC.

What have the judges got to do with future matches? They score that fight and their job ends. The other guy is no.1 if its a title shot and you might be number 2, you might not. If you are then there's nothing wrong with a rematch

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 12:22pm

Ush1 wrote: »

If you were robbed, that's subjective and what's the point of judges?

The judges are there to decide who wins on points. However, you should know that a lot of judges at the big shows are not as knowledgable on the sport as they should be. This leads to a lot of bad decisions.

It would be silly to just say "Well, everyone knows you won the fight, but the judge was an idiot and because of this, you will be punished".

If someone deserves a rematch they should get one.

If it's close decision, I would say absolutely not! The judges scored it that way, you lost, you didn't finish the fight and you took that risk.

Same for the fight being stopped incorrectly, which is rare, but you obviously got in a bad spot and again, not a rematch for me.

Well, here we are, you are obviously not interested on taking fights and situations on their merits. You are only interested in being as broad and general as possible.

I personally would equate that to not being fair. Each fight is completely different. This is MMA, not boxing. There are many many ways to be finished in an MMA fight. And simply "getting into a bad spot" is no basis for losing a fight according to the rules.

Undoubtedly top 2 is again quite hollow reason. The judges are there to make the call, not the UFC.

You think the Top 2 in the world fighting for a title is a "hollow reason"? You don't think the Champ should be the No.1 guy in the world and the guy getting a chance at the belt should be No.2?

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 12:29pm

Mellor wrote: »

That's terrible imo

It makes sense logically and from a continuity point of view.

Mellor wrote: »

Judges sometimes get it clearly wrong sometimes. That's not really up for debate.

It happens but that's the judges call, it's what they're there for.

Mellor wrote: »

Why not?
The judges scored it agaisnt you and your record gets marked as a loss, and you don't get the prize money.

Yes, I see no reason for a rematch.

Mellor wrote: »

Why can't you have another go, there's nothing in the rules to say you can't. Why not IF you deserve the next shot more than anyone else

Not sure what you mean here. I'm sure the losing fighter would want a rematch but the fact is he lost. The fight went to a decision that could have went either way and he lost. It was close, went to a decision and was not close enough to be deemed a draw.

I'm not sure what you mean by dserve the title shot more? I think if you lose in this manner, you don't deserve an instant rematch and it's on to the next guy. Work your way back into contention and don't make the same mistakes next time.

Mellor wrote: »

What have the judges got to do with future matches? They score that fight and their job ends. The other guy is no.1 if its a title shot and you might be number 2, you might not. If you are then there's nothing wrong with a rematch

Future matches are based on a fighter winning or losing his current fight, and if it goes to a decision that is based on the judges. Are you saying you should get a rematch cause there nobody else who deserves a title shot? Disagree with that, besides no.1 and no.2 is subjective.

Arawn · 10-05-2012 12:34pm

Ush1 wrote: »

It makes sense logically and from a continuity point of view.

It happens but that's the judges call, it's what they're there for.

Yes, I see no reason for a rematch.

Not sure what you mean here. I'm sure the losing fighter would want a rematch but the fact is he lost. The fight went to a decision that could have went either way and he lost. It was close, went to a decision and was not close enough to be deemed a draw.

I'm not sure what you mean by dserve the title shot more? I think if you lose in this manner, you don't deserve an instant rematch and it's on to the next guy. Work your way back into contention and don't make the same mistakes next time.

Future matches are based on a fighter winning or losing his current fight, and if it goes to a decision that is based on the judges. Are you saying you should get a rematch cause there nobody else who deserves a title shot? Disagree with that, besides no.1 and no.2 is subjective.

So you're saying shogun shouldn't of got his rematch against macheida??

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 12:43pm

Ush1 wrote: »

I think if you lose in this manner, you don't deserve an instant rematch and it's on to the next guy.

This kind of thinking muddles the sport.

The top guy should be champion. The most deserving guy should be the guy challenging for the belt. Not just "the next guy". It's things like this that dilute the credability of the sport.

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 1:29pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

The judges are there to decide who wins on points. However, you should know that a lot of judges at the big shows are not as knowledgable on the sport as they should be. This leads to a lot of bad decisions.

It would be silly to just say "Well, everyone knows you won the fight, but the judge was an idiot and because of this, you will be punished".

If someone deserves a rematch they should get one.

But how would that apply to close decisions? By there very nature you can't say everybody knows someone won that fight.

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.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, here we are, you are obviously not interested on taking fights and situations on their merits. You are only interested in being as broad and general as possible.

I personally would equate that to not being fair. Each fight is completely different. This is MMA, not boxing. There are many many ways to be finished in an MMA fight. And simply "getting into a bad spot" is no basis for losing a fight according to the rules.

I'll concede this as it really isn't my main point anyway, which was about decisions. Fair enough, that's a ref error though.

MrStuffins wrote: »

You think the Top 2 in the world fighting for a title is a "hollow reason"? You don't think the Champ should be the No.1 guy in the world and the guy getting a chance at the belt should be No.2?

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?

Championship fights can be as much to do with timing as "ranking".

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 1:33pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

This kind of thinking muddles the sport.

The top guy should be champion. The most deserving guy should be the guy challenging for the belt. Not just "the next guy". It's things like this that dilute the credability of the sport.

Yes, who is "the most deserving guy" is what is up for debate.

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 1:37pm

Arawn wrote: »

So you're saying shogun shouldn't of got his rematch against macheida??

I'm saying it's setting the wrong precedent.

I think Shogun won but I'm not a judge and neither is the UFC, that's pretty much my point.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 1:43pm

Ush1 wrote: »

But how would that apply to close decisions? By there very nature you can't say everybody knows someone won that fight.

No, of course you can't. But at the same time, there is always consensus. For example, imagine the Chael Sonnen fight was just a 3 round fight. I'm guessing you would agree that, had that fight finished at the end of round 3, he would've gotten a decision right? In fact, I seriously doubt ANYONE would be able to say Silva would've won in that situation.

This is what i'm taking about. When there are quite obvious mistakes made by the judges, a rematch is an option.

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.

Why not? It's not as if they can change the decision or the outcome. But what they CAN do is, they can give the guy another go if he's been hard done by. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.

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...

Well it shouldn't be debatable as to who is No.1! That's why we have Champions.

In fact, right now I don't think there is a doubt in ANY of the weight classes. The top guy in the world in each division is the UFC Champion. This is my opinion of course but I doubt anyone would argue. If they did, the only argument even worth listening to would be that Gil Melendez could take Henderson. I'd disagree, but it would be a valid viewpoint.

2.You just lost to the no.1 anyway.

Again, this might not be the case. The guy who won the fight might not have done so on merit. This is why a rematch situation is a good idea.

3.How are you sure that even though he is no.2 that someone wouldn't do a better job?

That's not the point. It's about being fair and giving people their due. Not just "Ah well, this guy was robbed. But f*ck him, put him to the back of the line and give somebody else a go".

Championship fights can be as much to do with timing as "ranking".

This is true. And fights can all be about styles.

But it's not about timing and styles. Again, it's about giving someone their due! It's about being fair.

And in the case of Edgar, I think it's fair!

It was unfair of them to give BJ a rematch, but I understood the reasons. And the rematch was probably the best thing to happen to Frankie because he beat him by an even bigger margin second time around.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 1:45pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, who is "the most deserving guy" is what is up for debate.

Well, if it's up for debate, then why are you creating a way to completely discount the claim of one fighter and his being deserving of a shot without taking into consideration any of the permutations that come with the sport?

If you do that, you're "debate" is invalid!

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 1:47pm

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm saying it's setting the wrong precedent.

You realise UFC didn't set the "precedent" of the rematch right?

Out of curiosity, do you think Chael Sonnen deserves a rematch v Anderson Silva?

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:17pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, of course you can't. But at the same time, there is always consensus. For example, imagine the Chael Sonnen fight was just a 3 round fight. I'm guessing you would agree that, had that fight finished at the end of round 3, he would've gotten a decision right? In fact, I seriously doubt ANYONE would be able to say Silva would've won in that situation.

This is what i'm taking about. When there are quite obvious mistakes made by the judges, a rematch is an option.

There isn't always a consensus though and even if there is, a concensus of guys on the internet and mma media?

Judges need to improve and I think these instant rematches have created an uneasy precedent. The Penn Edgar rematch happened I think because of this.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Why not? It's not as if they can change the decision or the outcome. But what they CAN do is, they can give the guy another go if he's been hard done by. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.

Why not? What's the point of judges then?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well it shouldn't be debatable as to who is No.1! That's why we have Champions.

In fact, right now I don't think there is a doubt in ANY of the weight classes. The top guy in the world in each division is the UFC Champion. This is my opinion of course but I doubt anyone would argue. If they did, the only argument even worth listening to would be that Gil Melendez could take Henderson. I'd disagree, but it would be a valid viewpoint.

lol, you seem to have skipped over the no.2, which is really the hub or the issue.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Again, this might not be the case. The guy who won the fight might not have done so on merit. This is why a rematch situation is a good idea.

Unless the fight was a draw, he lost.

MrStuffins wrote: »

That's not the point. It's about being fair and giving people their due. Not just "Ah well, this guy was robbed. But f*ck him, put him to the back of the line and give somebody else a go".

But the point being made is that just because he is number 2 he should be fighting him straight again. It's like saying "Jon Jones battered Rashad, but they should throw Rashad straight back in with him cause he still is number 2!". Makes no sense to me.

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is true. And fights can all be about styles.

But it's not about timing and styles. Again, it's about giving someone their due! It's about being fair.

And in the case of Edgar, I think it's fair!

It was unfair of them to give BJ a rematch, but I understood the reasons. And the rematch was probably the best thing to happen to Frankie because he beat him by an even bigger margin second time around.

Fair due,i.e. letting the judges get better and do their job rather than the promotion company deciding they want rematches when they don't like the result. Losing a close fight is still a loss and that's why judges are judges.

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:18pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, if it's up for debate, then why are you creating a way to completely discount the claim of one fighter and his being deserving of a shot without taking into consideration any of the permutations that come with the sport?

If you do that, you're "debate" is invalid!

Because my argument is really nothing to do with who is number 1 or number 2 in the world?

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:21pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

You realise UFC didn't set the "precedent" of the rematch right?

Out of curiosity, do you think Chael Sonnen deserves a rematch v Anderson Silva?

How do you mean the UFC didn't?

I think Chael deserves one now he has won 2 fights in between. My point is about instant rematches.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 2:32pm

Ush1 wrote: »

There isn't always a consensus though and even if there is, a concensus of guys on the internet and mma media?

Well, as I keep saying, everything has to be taken on it's merits. Each situation is different.

Judges need to improve and I think these instant rematches have created an uneasy precedent. The Penn Edgar rematch happened I think because of this.

Nope. The reason for the Penn v Edgar rematch is because people believed that BJ wasn't at his best. This was due to the climate, his desire to fight Frankie and other stuff.

The rematch happened and it turned out none of this was the case, it was the case that Frankie had BJ's number and was the better fighter.

Why not? What's the point of judges then?

I've answered that question already.

lol, you seem to have skipped over the no.2, which is really the hub or the issue.

Well I ddn't really. I left it til later in the post when talking about people being given their due.

If there is a debate between 2 guys as to who is No.2, then discounting one guy for foolish reasons like the ones we are talking about is not fair.

Unless the fight was a draw, he lost.

Yes. But you seemed to have ignore the part of my post where I said "On merit". Some victories are earned, some are given by mistake. Not each victory is the same.

But the point being made is that just because he is number 2 he should be fighting him straight again. It's like saying "Jon Jones battered Rashad, but they should throw Rashad straight back in with him cause he still is number 2!". Makes no sense to me.

Well no not really and this is where we have to bring in the different permutations of fights.

Rashad was beaten and beaten by miles. He wasn't even competitive in the fight. He doesn't deserve another go.

Frankie and Bendo was a close fight. A rematch is probably a good idea.

Again, what you're talking about is not applicable to MMA in the real world.

Fair due,i.e. letting the judges get better and do their job rather than the promotion company deciding they want rematches when they don't like the result. Losing a close fight is still a loss and that's why judges are judges.

You seem to have a boner for judges.

Are you telling me that judges don't get it wrong sometimes?

And, if you recognise that they DO get it wrong, are you telling me that even when they get it wrong that it's fair?

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 2:34pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Because my argument is really nothing to do with who is number 1 or number 2 in the world?

Well when you're talking about Championship fights, the debate should ALWAYS be about who No.1 in the world is.

This is MMA, not Boxing!

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 2:36pm

Ush1 wrote: »

How do you mean the UFC didn't?

You know what a precedent is right? The rematch, instant and otherwise, had been in existence way before Frankie Edgar had even been born.

I think Chael deserves one now he has won 2 fights in between. My point is about instant rematches.

He won 2 fights in between because of other reasons.

He was awarded an immediate rematch at the time. Do you think he deserved it?

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:50pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, as I keep saying, everything has to be taken on it's merits. Each situation is different.

As I keep saying, it doesn't usually. Frankie vs Henderson is defo a case where an instant rematch is unwarranted. Close losses, are a loss.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nope. The reason for the Penn v Edgar rematch is because people believed that BJ wasn't at his best. This was due to the climate, his desire to fight Frankie and other stuff.

The rematch happened and it turned out none of this was the case, it was the case that Frankie had BJ's number and was the better fighter.

The precedent is the number of these instant rematches. The more happen, the flippant they are.

That has just validated what I've said, it was so easy to give BJ the rematch and the UFC just made it happen.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I've answered that question already.

And I had answered yours.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well I ddn't really. I left it til later in the post when talking about people being given their due.

If there is a debate between 2 guys as to who is No.2, then discounting one guy for foolish reasons like the ones we are talking about is not fair.

What foolish reasons? If he lost to the number 1, it's on to the next guy? I feel like we're really going in circles here.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes. But you seemed to have ignore the part of my post where I said "On merit". Some victories are earned, some are given by mistake. Not each victory is the same.

Victories given by mistake??? Might Mouse McCall?? Again, I've been over this and a loss is a loss decided by the judges whos job it is.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well no not really and this is where we have to bring in the different permutations of fights.

Rashad was beaten and beaten by miles. He wasn't even competitive in the fight. He doesn't deserve another go.

Frankie and Bendo was a close fight. A rematch is probably a good idea.

No we don't though. We go, Frankie lost, Nate Diaz now get s a shot at the title. A close loss is still a loss.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Again, what you're talking about is not applicable to MMA in the real world.

lol, but this is the point that was being put to me??? It was said that the number 2 guy in the world should always be fighting for the belt.

MrStuffins wrote: »

You seem to have a boner for judges.

Are you telling me that judges don't get it wrong sometimes?

And, if you recognise that they DO get it wrong, are you telling me that even when they get it wrong that it's fair?

You seem to have a completely obtuse point of view of the issue.

Of course judges make mistakes, but it is not the place of the promotion company to then become the judges, do you not see a problem with that?

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:50pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well when you're talking about Championship fights, the debate should ALWAYS be about who No.1 in the world is.

This is MMA, not Boxing!

Just pointed out why this is a flawed argument.

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:56pm

MrStuffins wrote: »

You know what a precedent is right? The rematch, instant and otherwise, had been in existence way before Frankie Edgar had even been born.

The precedent is the flippancy and number of these rematches.

MrStuffins wrote: »

He won 2 fights in between because of other reasons.

MrStuffins wrote: »

He was awarded an immediate rematch at the time. Do you think he deserved it?

100% no.

El Guapo! · 10-05-2012 2:58pm

What's wrong with giving an ex-champ a rematch? Edgar was a great champion and is an incredible fighter and I think he deserves the fight.
At the end of the day it comes down to what the fans will pay to see. And since their last fight was a cracker, this one will certainly sell out.

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 2:58pm

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

Do we just have this fight indefinitely?

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 3:03pm

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.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 3:04pm

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?

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 3:07pm

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".

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 3:08pm

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.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 3:10pm

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!

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 3:11pm

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!

Ush1 · 10-05-2012 3:15pm

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???

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?

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 3:19pm

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.

MrStuffins · 10-05-2012 3:23pm

Ush1 wrote: »

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

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!!!!!!!

General UFC Chit Chat/News

Comments