Ufc 104 predictions? Spoiler warning!

rovert

Roper wrote: »

LOL at people getting worked up.

It wasn't that close a fight IMO, I thought it was a clear Shogun win and I watched it after I knew the result so was looking for what the judges might have seen from Machida. I love Machida I think he's an excellent, smart fighter but I thought he was out-thought and out-fought. That being said, if someone disagrees and thinks that Machida won, I'm not going to be insulting to them, I'm going to endeavour to discuss and enjoy debating the result with them. That's why it's a sport and not WWE- nobody is the villain here it's just a controversial sports result. They happen all the time in every game in the world and it's usually the officials who cause it.

WWE doesnt have judges

Kazooie wrote: »

I don't think the UFC get to pick the judges though. That's up to the Athletic comissions right?

Yep and that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Im beginning to question Roper's observational skills. :P

Bandit12

Kazooie wrote: »

I don't think the UFC get to pick the judges though. That's up to the Athletic comissions right?

Yeap. UFC don't pick them.

Tim_Murphy

johnny_adidas wrote: »

the UFC dont provide the judges

I know. If the UFC was being supplied with what they felt were incompent judges (Peoples seems to be at ever event) then it's hard to believe they wouldn't kick up quite a fuss over the issue.

rovert

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I know. If the UFC was being supplied with what they felt were incompent judges (Peoples seems to be at ever event) then it's hard to believe they wouldn't kick up quite a fuss over the issue.

They have but they know they are on a hiding to nothing, it is a very, very old issue. That is why Dana makes such an effort to continuely tell fighters not to leave it in the hands of judges.

It is not likely they are going to boycott one of their best states either.

Roper

rovert wrote: »

WWE doesnt have judges



Yep and that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Im beginning to question Roper's observational skills. :P

Yeah that was my point, you really read my post well and clearly understood it.:rolleyes:

I don't like the way you conduct yourself and your attitude towards people, such as your treatment of RealJohn for disagreeing with you. I think you, like a lot of people on the internet, should ask yourself the following question before writing a post- "would I say this if the person was standing in front of me?" Having the anonymity and distance of the internet is not an excuse to be the man you've always wanted to be. This is not second life.

Kazooie

dunkamania wrote: »

Correct, in this case, the California State Athelethic Commission, CSAC.

The CSAC is also responsible for the following, as well as as some sexual harrassment stuff too:


Suspending fighters for ‘faking a fight’ because one of them did a cartwheel pass.

Suspending Josh Thomson for wearing a t-shirt calling Frank Shamrock a bitch.

Allowing an HIV positive fighter to fight

Allowing an Hep C positive fighter to fight

Trying to cancel Frank Shamrock vs Phil Baroni over bogus health concerns

Hilariously inconsistent policy on cutting steroid suspensions in half

Refusing to license foreign refs who have had over 13 years worth of reffing experience

Re-licensed Mike Kyle, who assaulted another fighter with multiple illegal blows and had to be pulled off his victim by several referees

Cancelling events at the last second for bogus reasons

Delaying the Sean Sherk steroid thing forever because of complete ineptitude … not bothering to read the information Sherk’s lawyer sent them in advance

Constant delays in the Sean Sherk steroid case

Suspending Nick Diaz for weed without testing Nick Diaz for weed

Constantly cancelling fights at the literal last second

Demanding a bond covering TWICE the amount of fighter pay

Deviating from the Unified rules definition of ‘back of the head’

Cancelling Joe Riggs’ fight for a drug Riggs didn’t have in his system

Cancelling Aleks Emelianenko vs Paul Buentello seconds before Aleks was supposed to step on the scales for the weigh-in

Announcing failed steroid tests before confirmation

But apart from that they are usually on the ball.

Tim_Murphy

Worth noting that Peoples was a judge in at least one of the UFCs events in the UK, where they could have picked whoever they wanted for the job.

rovert

Roper wrote: »

Yeah that was my point, you really read my post well and clearly understood it.:rolleyes:

Your analogy still doesn’t make sense as I’ve already pointed out. :P = a joke by the way chill out. Sorry if you got upset.

Roper wrote: »

I don't like the way you conduct yourself and your attitude towards people, such as your treatment of RealJohn for disagreeing with you.

Then report me then, RealJohn was far more combative then I ever was in this thread. His comments were vaguely trollish in my opinion just look at his exchanges with Pride Fighter. Also what is your problem with saying that the judges are widely regarded as being highly incompetent in replying to his point?

Roper wrote: »

I think you, like a lot of people on the internet, should ask yourself the following question before writing a post- "would I say this if the person was standing in front of me?" Having the anonymity and distance of the internet is not an excuse to be the man you've always wanted to be. This is not second life.

If you are talking about what I said to RealJohn, then yeah I would say it to his face as I don’t what the big problem is with a I said?

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Worth noting that Peoples was a judge in at least one of the UFCs events in the UK, where they could have picked whoever they wanted for the job.

Playing devils advocate Ive heard that they prefer to use officals that they are familar with. But in a certion sense it is one in the plus column for Peoples.

dunkamania

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Worth noting that Peoples was a judge in at least one of the UFCs events in the UK, where they could have picked whoever they wanted for the job.

Good point, and it included the Hammill Bisping fight another example of solid judging

Tim_Murphy

Playing devils advocate Ive heard that they prefer to use officals that they are familar with. But in a certion sense it is one in the plus column for Peoples.

I can see it how that conversation would have went alright, "Sure he's completely incompetent, god love him, but I’m not great with new people and we know him so lets use him anyway."

I'm not saying he is a good judge by the way, he's made some really bad calls as far as I can see but the UFC obviously couldn't have had too much of an issue with him if they went to the bother of flying him over to the UK to judge.

rovert

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I can see it how that conversation would have went alright, "Sure he's completely incompetent, god love him, but I’m not great with new people and we know him so lets use him anyway."

Competency is only one part of it in my opinion consitancy is another. UFC tries to have uniform standards across all their shows across the world see their drug testing policy for example. In the case of Peoples say, better the devil you know.

Tim_Murphy

rovert wrote: »

Competency is only one part of it in my opinion consitancy is another. UFC tries to have uniform standards across all their shows across the world see their drug testing policy for example. In the case of Peoples say, better the devil you know.

Ok that might be the reason bu it seems highly unlikely tbh.

rovert

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Ok that might be the reason bu it seems highly unlikely tbh.

Care to explain why? You framing his selection as one solely based on competency would hardly be the sole reason why they picked him for the UK.

Is there anyone in the UK who has more “top level” experience judging under Unified Rules than Peoples for better or worse?

Tim_Murphy

Care to explain why?

Because it wouldn't make any sense.

rovert

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Because it wouldn't make any sense.

Again care to explain why? So UFC dont strive for consistency globally then? What?

Repeating myself, you framing his selection as one solely based on competency would hardly be the sole reason why they picked him for the UK, would it?

Tim_Murphy

Repeating myself, you framing his selection as one solely based on competency would hardly be the sole reason why they picked him for the UK, would it?

Hardly the only reason, but competency would surely be the most important thing when it comes to judging or ref’ing. You seem to be arguing that you think UFC management might have gone with judges they felt were incompetent simply because they were familiar with them and/or because they had judged for them in the past. Unless you are able to back with that with something then it is just a silly ascertain.

I'm bowing out of this conversation, it's not going anywhere and isn't very interesting.

rovert

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Hardly the only reason, but competency would surely be the most important thing when it comes to judging or ref’ing.

UFC doesn’t directly selection them that’s the issue. UFC applies to the commission who then select the judging panel. Even in the States it is a compliance issue for UFC

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

You seem to be arguing that you think UFC management might have gone with judges they felt were incompetent simply because they were familiar with them and/or because they had judged for them in the past.

No I am not, read what I wrote previously was the "Competency is only one part of it in my opinion consistency is another", I then in the same post made a point about availability of judges. So the case I made wasn’t as you put a "simply because" one.

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Unless you are able to back with that with something then it is just a silly ascertain.

How is it a silly ascertain? For UK shows UFC asks the Commission to provide them with judges for their international shows.

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I'm bowing out of this conversation, it's not going anywhere and isn't very interesting.

Good, dont leave in the hands of the judges!

Tim_Murphy

I'm leaving the man himself have the last word:

Sensei Cecil Peoples wrote:

It was a close fight. So people think: [Rua] did good. If he did that good, he must have won the fight. So you in a bar with 200 people that are sloppy drunk, and you're gonna argue with me about the decision? How does that work? Only in America. I give the fight to Machida in a very, very close fight. Now you're pissed off because it's my fault that you lost your money. No, it's not. It's Machida's fault. If you don't like it, you can go to hell."

Kevin Moran

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensei Cecil Peoples
It was a close fight. So people think: [Rua] did good. If he did that good, he must have won the fight. So you in a bar with 200 people that are sloppy drunk, and you're gonna argue with me about the decision? How does that work? Only in America. I give the fight to Machida in a very, very close fight. Now you're pissed off because it's my fault that you lost your money. No, it's not. It's Machida's fault. If you don't like it, you can go to hell."


Who's got two thumbs and doesn't give a rats?
Cecil Peoples, thats who!
I can see his logic but Rua still won that fight, the 10 point must system fell short a little, this is a good example of how the Pride FC rules would have been a better fit. Judges can hide behind round scoring and not actual fight knowledge, whatever about the score cards, nobody can stand up and say Machida won that fight, he didn't, he just stole rounds on the cards. discuss?

RealJohn

Sorry, didn't check the boards for a few days and left Tim and Barry defending me apparently. Thanks guys.

rovert wrote: »

Then report me then, RealJohn was far more combative then I ever was in this thread. His comments were vaguely trollish in my opinion just look at his exchanges with Pride Fighter.

I'm sorry if I came across as "combative" (though I didn't think I was). It certainly wasn't my intention.
To be honest, my intention was to calm the situation down, not inflame it. I just wanted to point out that the fight was close and that I think it's pretty clear that it could have gone either way. I agreed with the judges. I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with them but I think it's a bit much to brand them incompetent based on what was a close decision.

rovert wrote: »

If you are talking about what I said to RealJohn, then yeah I would say it to his face as I don’t what the big problem is with a I said?

I don't have any issue with anything you said to me. You can say anything you've said here to my face and I'll take it in the spirit in which I think you intended it. I didn't think you were trying to be insulting. Maybe you were. That wasn't how I read it.
I would like to assure you though that I wasn't trolling. I was voicing my opinion and I think I've been to and seen enough events to have a valid one.

Those who know me (and there are several of them who've posted in this thread) know I'm not a wind-up merchant. I will tell you what I think though and I'm as entitled to as anyone else is, just as you're entitled to disagree with it.

I also won't back down just because someone tells me I've been "proven wrong" when I haven't been. Anyone who disagrees with my opinion on the fight (or anything else) is entitled to disagree but please don't tell me something is a fact when it isn't.

In summary: sorry if I got anyone's back up but I stand by everything I said. Hopefully Couture and Vera won't be so controversial and we can all be friends again.

I re watched the fight without sound this morning and scored it SLIGHTLY differently. I had it 49-46 to Shogun watching live.

Here’s how I saw it today:

Rd1: 10-10 – sorry but there was no clear winner. This round should be in a dictionary beside the definition of “an even round”. IF I HAD to pick, Id go 10-9 Machida.

Rd2: 10-9 Shogun – clear

Rd3: 10-9 Shogun – clear

Rd4: 10-9 Machida – VERY close but I edged towards Machida for the sake of not being biased and he maybe did a little more.

Rd5: 10-9 Shogun – VERY clear.

Thats 49-47 to Shogun or if you give round 1 to Machida 48-47 to Shogun. I really was being very generous to Lyoto here and trying to score EVERY strike he landed even the slaps, despite Shogun landed almost all of the power shots.

At the end of the fight Lyoto’s footwork had gone to dogsh1t due to his legs being chopped to pieces, while Shogun moved freely and quickly. Lyoto was more gassed. Lyoto had more visual damage on his legs, ribs and face whereas Shogun seemed to have one small mark on his face and that's it.

The big exchange in the 3rd where Lyoto opened up on him…. he LANDED one soft jab and a tepe to the body. Everything else he threw missed or was blocked. Shogun landed 2 power punches to Lyoto, the second of which forced Lyoto to give up on his flurry and clinch.

Lyoto landed almost all of his kicks with his toes, like grazing slaps whereas Shogun dug his shin into Lyotos leg over and over.

Agression – clearly Shogun. If you argue this I'll call you names!

Grappling – Ok. So Shogun tried to take Machida down and Machida defended. Something of a stalemate, but the natural inclination would be to say that Lyoto STOPPED the takedown so he won the grappling. But I’m looking for EFFECTIVE grappling. EVERY time they clinched, Shogun landed knees and rabbit punches and sought a takedown. He made his time in the grappling realm count. Machida, all but one time, merely defended the take down and threw nothing. The one time Machida had Shogun pinned on the fence, it was Shogun who was being aggressive. Also, the disengagements were controlled 100% Shogun and he landed a shot on the way out every time he did this. So for me, Shogun edged the grappling.

Octagon Control – Peoples claims that because Machida made Shogun chase him that he edged this? Right? Er…wrong. Firstly, if Usain Bolt got in there with Brock Lesnar and backed away for the whole fight resulting in no strikes, grappling etc and thus leading to the fight being decided by the judges based solely on the crteria of “Octagon Control”, then does Bolt win? No. If Machida was sucking Shogun into a trap and making him pay then yes, his backpedalling would be considered good Octagon Control. But in this case, for a change, it didn’t work for him. His backpedalling probably cost him a week or 2 of mobility as Shogun was able to get his kicks off over and over again. And Shogun had the centre of the cage for almost the whole fight. So IMO Shogun took this too.

Add in that Shogun landed twice the number of strikes and I find this decision to be even more astonishing than I found it on Saturday night.

And the old adage of “you have to BEAT the champ to beat the champ” is nonsense since Forrest decisioned Rampage.

johnny_adidas

Deleted User wrote: »

Octagon Control – Peoples claims that because Machida made Shogun chase him that he edged this? Right?

now i get what Kalib Starnes was at....:eek:

Roper

Neil that's exactly the way I scored it.

AARRRGH

I have to say I find it very interesting that people need to watch the fight again with the sound turned down to see the "real" fight. I don't mean any disrespect by this. It just goes to show how easy it is to influence people.

Tim_Murphy

AARRRGH wrote: »

I have to say I find it very interesting that people need to watch the fight again with the sound turned down to see the "real" fight. I don't mean any disrespect by this. It just goes to show how easy it is to influence people.

As one of the very few people on this thread who has actually been a judge at an MMA show I can say that there is a big difference between casually watching a fight on the TV for the purposes of entertainment and actually sitting there and trying to judge a fight objectively. If I were to give a round by round breakdown of how I think it should have been scored then I'd have to watch the fight again.

AARRRGH

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

As one of the very few people on this thread who has actually been a judge at an MMA show I can say that there is a big difference between casually watching a fight on the TV for the purposes of entertainment and actually sitting there and trying to judge a fight objectively. If I were to give a round by round breakdown of how I think it should have been scored then I'd have to watch the fight again.

Sure, but what I'm referring to is the amount of people (both here and on shertard) who quite clearly based a lot of their decisions on what the commentators were saying. Again, I am not trying to be offensive whatsoever, I just think it's an interesting thing about humans the way we allow "experts" influence us.

Btw I thought Shogun won, but believe it was a close fight.

rovert

AARRRGH wrote: »

Sure, but what I'm referring to is the amount of people (both here and on shertard) who quite clearly based a lot of their decisions on what the commentators were saying. Again, I am not trying to be offensive whatsoever, I just think it's an interesting thing about humans the way we allow "experts" influence us.

Btw I thought Shogun won, but believe it was a close fight.

I also think Machida is very elusive