can couture beat machida?

12gauge dave

what you guys think is randy worth a bet at 5/2?????????

how about jake shields can he overcome st.pierre at 4/1

unknown13

YES. People didn't believe me when I told them Rampage was going to beat Machida and look what happened. Couture is a different fighter but he is so good with gameplans that he is definitely in with a shot of beating Machida.

Snappy the Moose

I would love Randy to win but I think he will be gone in a round if Machida pushes the pace. Machida will just be too good for him.

Stephen_King

I think Sheilds has a pretty good chance (4\1 are great odds) against GSP, I dont think the Kapman fight did him justice. His grappling is top notch, it will be interesting to see how he handle's GSP's striking though.

Couture Im not so sure about. Machida's reflexes are outstanding compared to Randy and I think he may be a bit too elusive for Randy to smother. If Randy does pull it off it'll be pretty epic though.

MrStuffins

Can he beat Machida? Of course!

Will he beat Machida? Of course not!

Randy to win by superman spinning backfist!!!

Oh_Noes

No.

Please just give me your money instead. I was shocked that the UFC made this matchup. Maybe Machida has poisoned himself drinking his own píss to take this match. Thankfully he's respectful enough to not just kill the 50 year old five seconds into the first round.

I'd have been happy with Couture vs. Ortiz as a kind of "classics" match like tennis or golf, but feeding Couture to a Machida is just cruel IMHO.

cowzerp

If age has not caught up on him then Randy can definetly find a way to win-don't doubt the Randmeister!!

jayteecork

I sincerely hope not.
Machida is the only one in the division (imo) with a "chance" of outlasting bones.

If he loses to Randy his career is in serious jeopardy.

Remeber Dana doesn't hold back on cutting people from the promotion.

Machida is still my all time fave fighter. Let's be fair he just about won the first bout against Shogun. The 2nd one, he was caught, but imo he looked great and was winning the round. He scored 2 takedowns and made a couple of nice combinations.

He's clearly a better fighter than bloody Rampage. What did Rampage do in that fight? Hold him against the cage? Knee him in the thighs a few times? As been evident a lot lately the whole MMA scoring system needs a serious overhaul.

mailburner

jakes shields won't beat pierre
that 4/1 should be 20s

RebelSoul

Oh_Noes wrote: »

No.

Please just give me your money instead. I was shocked that the UFC made this matchup. Maybe Machida has poisoned himself drinking his own píss to take this match. Thankfully he's respectful enough to not just kill the 50 year old five seconds into the first round.

I'd have been happy with Couture vs. Ortiz as a kind of "classics" match like tennis or golf, but feeding Couture to a Machida is just cruel IMHO.

I spilled my drink laughing at that. Thank you Sir

My heart says Couture but my head says Machida.

mailburner

mailburner wrote: »

jakes shields won't beat pierre
that 4/1 should be 20s

Koscheck trained Jiu Jitsu as his gameplan against St.Pierre. Obviously Dave Camarillo (who is a gameplan specialist) saw a weakness in his ground game that was to be exploited. Obviously didn't work for Kos but Jake Shields area of expertise is "American Jiu Jitsu" kind of an unreal Jiu Jitsu-Wrestling hybrid which works wonderfully for him, evident in his win streak. Hasn't lost in 7 years obviously Georges is a next level opponent and Jake didn't impress in his last fight but that was the exception not the norm.

Oh_Noes

RebelSoul wrote: »

I spilled my drink laughing at that. Thank you Sir

Hopefully drinking a fresh beverage and not a pint of Machida.

RearNakedJim

My money is squarely on randy to win, he will grind out a win in the same style as the win against vera. 3 awesome rounds of dirty boxing against the cage, maybe losing 1 round.

Either that or he will take Machida down and submit him with his new Black Belt skills :P.

Snappy the Moose

RearNakedJim wrote: »

My money is squarely on randy to win, he will grind out a win in the same style as the win against vera. 3 awesome rounds of dirty boxing against the cage, maybe losing 1 round.

Either that or he will take Machida down and submit him with his new Black Belt skills :P.

I will PM you my address, just send the money to me instead cheers

Mellor

mailburner wrote: »

jakes shields won't beat pierre
that 4/1 should be 20s

It shouldn't be near 20s,

MrStuffins

Randy's a legend and I can think of so many times when he;s been counted out!

I counted him out against Vitor, I counted him out against Chuck, I counted him out against Big Tim, I counted him out v Gabe Gonzaga............ i really hope he proves me wrong again!

mailburner

Mellor wrote: »

It shouldn't be near 20s,

maybe a slight overeaction but definitely more like 7or8/1
gsp much better in almost every aspect of mma imo.
there isn't anywhere jake is superior to gsp and if he
chooses then gsp could probably beat jake at his own game.
he'll dish out a similiar beating to shields as he did kosh if
it remains standing
only one possible winner as far as i can see

SanoVitae

mailburner wrote: »

there isn't anywhere jake is superior to gsp

How about his BJJ? Do you think Shields would have had as much problem as GSP did trying to submit Dan Hardy for basically a whole 5 rounds? I don't.

GSP will most likely win this fight be using his TDD and boxing to win a UD. I can't see him taking it to the ground where Shields is at his most dangerous - GSP does not have the size advantage in this match that he did against BJ.

Ush1

SanoVitae wrote: »

How about his BJJ? Do you think Shields would have had as much problem as GSP did trying to submit Dan Hardy for basically a whole 5 rounds? I don't.

GSP will most likely win this fight be using his TDD and boxing to win a UD. I can't see him taking it to the ground where Shields is at his most dangerous - GSP does not have the size advantage in this match that he did against BJ.

George should have submitted Hardy twice in that fight. I think he said after the reason he let go of one of them, when he had the full armbar locked in, was that he didn't want to injure Hardy who just refused to tap.

MrStuffins

Ush1 wrote: »

George should have submitted Hardy twice in that fight. I think he said after the reason he let go of one of them, when he had the full armbar locked in, was that he didn't want to injure Hardy who just refused to tap.

No, witht he armbar the reason Hardy didn't tap is because GSP got the technique wrong.

Immediately after the fight Greg Jackson told him this and I saw a video of him drilling it over and over after that fight in the locker room.

The kimura was another thing, Hardy's a tough b*stard!

mailburner

SanoVitae wrote: »

How about his BJJ? Do you think Shields would have had as much problem as GSP did trying to submit Dan Hardy for basically a whole 5 rounds? I don't.

GSP will most likely win this fight be using his TDD and boxing to win a UD. I can't see him taking it to the ground where Shields is at his most dangerous - GSP does not have the size advantage in this match that he did against BJ.

alves is a monster compared to to bj though and he beat
him everywhere
the gsp ud is probably a very safe bet
shields only hope of beating gsp is submitting him but i cant see gsp
getting caught out there
he probably would have submitted hardy alright though in fairness.
gsp outwrestled kosch and then stood with him and beat him
standing in the rematch when koscheck was beating the best
at everything in the division (bar fitch obv)
his stand up was much superior to alves when alves was knocking
everybody out
it wouldnt surprise me if he took shields down either and dominated
him for five rounds
different class altogether, can beat others at their own game.
jake shields has only one way of winning fights like fitch.

i do hope though that the very best jake shields turns up for this fight

Ush1

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, witht he armbar the reason Hardy didn't tap is because GSP got the technique wrong.

Immediately after the fight Greg Jackson told him this and I saw a video of him drilling it over and over after that fight in the locker room.

The kimura was another thing, Hardy's a tough b*stard!

Yeah, maybe was the kimura I was thinking of. What you're saying about the armbar rings a bell.

mailburner

saying as this thread is mainly about gsp/shields randy/machida

its 4/5 for gsp to win by sub or points
and 4/6 mach to win by ko or points

2/1 for the double (pp)
i think that price is just sweet

mailburner

mailburner wrote: »

saying as this thread is mainly about gsp/shields randy/machida

its 4/5 for gsp to win by sub or points
and 4/6 mach to win by ko or points

GSP will have to TKO/KO Shields to win this fight, you can quote me on that afterwards.

mailburner

Deleted User wrote: »

GSP will have to TKO/KO Shields to win this fight, you can quote me on that afterwards.

i certainly will

we'll agree to disagree
he probably wont ko/tko shields but will
still gain another comfortable ud imo

jayteecork

mailburner wrote: »

saying as this thread is mainly about gsp/shields randy/machida

I think the thread was supposed to be about can Randy beat Lyoto.

As usual it goes off into a tangent.

mailburner

12gauge dave wrote: »

what you guys think is randy worth a bet at 5/2?????????

how about jake shields can he overcome st.pierre at 4/1

well, the op did ask about both match ups

Tones69

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, witht he armbar the reason Hardy didn't tap is because GSP got the technique wrong.

Immediately after the fight Greg Jackson told him this and I saw a video of him drilling it over and over after that fight in the locker room.

The kimura was another thing, Hardy's a tough b*stard!

He had it in nice but yeah maybe it wasnt 100% perfect, none the less 99% of fighters would have tapped from it

Tones69

Deleted User wrote: »

GSP will have to TKO/KO Shields to win this fight, you can quote me on that afterwards.

Why do you say that? I dont see shields lasting 5 rounds with GSP to be honest anyway,im deffo going with gsp by 2nd or 3rd round stoppage

Tones69

Tones69 wrote: »

Why do you say that? I dont see shields lasting 5 rounds with GSP to be honest anyway,im deffo going with gsp by 2nd or 3rd round stoppage

Shields is the king of grinding out decisions. More so than GSP even. This will be a nice test to see if GSP can beat someone who has beaten some great middleweights too.

mailburner

Deleted User wrote: »

Shields is the king of grinding out decisions. More so than GSP even. This will be a nice test to see if GSP can beat someone who has beaten some great middleweights too.

i'd have said gsp is the king of grinding out decisions given he's fought
24 rounds in his last five fights whereas jake has finished opponents
in his last few

the likes of fitch on the other hand...there's the king of grinding
out decisions

Snappy the Moose

mailburner wrote: »

jake has finished opponents
in his last few

No he hasn't, his last three were decisions.

mailburner

Snappy the Moose wrote: »

No he hasn't, his last three were decisions.

compared to gsp he has finished 2 opponents in his last five
gsp didn't really finish any of them apart from wearing out bj

Mellor

mailburner wrote: »

compared to gsp he has finished 2 opponents in his last five
gsp didn't really finish any of them apart from wearing out bj

GSP - 21 wins - 8 by knockout, 5 by submission, 8 by decision
Shields - 26 wins - 3 by knockout, 10 by submission, 13 by decision

In a relative sense, GSP finishes more fights that Shields

garrybergin

How many time has Couture been written off ???

My money is going on Randy ! dirty boxing all the way :)

The man is a master strategist ,amd always sticks to the game plan !!!

jayteecork

jayteecork wrote: »

I sincerely hope not.
Machida is the only one in the division (imo) with a "chance" of outlasting bones.

If he loses to Randy his career is in serious jeopardy.

Remeber Dana doesn't hold back on cutting people from the promotion.

Machida is still my all time fave fighter. Let's be fair he just about won the first bout against Shogun. The 2nd one, he was caught, but imo he looked great and was winning the round. He scored 2 takedowns and made a couple of nice combinations.

He's clearly a better fighter than bloody Rampage. What did Rampage do in that fight? Hold him against the cage? Knee him in the thighs a few times? As been evident a lot lately the whole MMA scoring system needs a serious overhaul.

Sorry to quote this so long after it was posted, but a couple of things:


- Let's be fair, Shogun was robbed. I still maintain that was THE worst decision in MMA history, I had it 49-46 Shogun. At absolute best you could say 48-47 Shogun. Machida lucked out in the 1st fight and form continued 2nd fight around.

- Re the Rampage fight, Machida did more damage but not fighting for the 1st 10 minutes of a fight is a surefire way to lose a decision. If you score the actual fight, it's 29-28 Rampage. He gifted 2 rounds to Page, and showed in the 3rd that had he done anything at all in rounds 1 and 2 he could have won convincingly.

This is a big fight for him, he's his own worst enemy if he doesn't look to be aggressive vs Couture tbh.

seadnamac

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry to quote this so long after it was posted, but a couple of things:


- Let's be fair, Shogun was robbed. I still maintain that was THE worst decision in MMA history, I had it 49-46 Shogun. At absolute best you could say 48-47 Shogun. Machida lucked out in the 1st fight and form continued 2nd fight around.

Ah come on. Don't you think you're letting the fact that it was such a high profile fight cloud your judgement? There have been far worse decisions than that. And for the record I had it 48-47 Shogun.

seadnamac

seadnamac wrote: »

Ah come on. Don't you think you're letting the fact that it was such a high profile fight cloud your judgement? There have been far worse decisions than that. And for the record I had it 48-47 Shogun.

I really don't. Yea I agree that there have been plenty of decisions which were just as bad if not worse (Ricco vs Nog/ Nam Phan vs Garcia/Guida vs Griffin/Couture vs Rizzo 1 etc etc) but this came in a world title fight at a time when this sport is supposed to be breaking into the mainstream. I had people I know who were casual fans who were kind of getting into it around then who became convinced it was scripted like WWE after seeing that. I really thought this sport was past that. Obviously to us on this board and those that know the sport/hardcore fans, that's a laughable suggestion, but these are the stigmas that the sport has taken years and years to shake off, and poor judging sets it back, and I don't care what you say, title fights are higher profile making the judging blunders more costly.


That's the thing, there was 1 round which was probably a 10-10 but there were 3 rounds which were so clearly Shoguns round that I was embarrassed to be a fan of the sport when that decision came in. Dana said that him and Lorenzo watched the fight 3 times on the plane over to England a week later and every time they thought Shogun won at worst 48-47.

seadnamac

Deleted User wrote: »

I really don't. Yea I agree that there have been plenty of decisions which were just as bad if not worse (Ricco vs Nog/ Nam Phan vs Garcia/Guida vs Griffin/Couture vs Rizzo 1 etc etc) but this came in a world title fight at a time when this sport is supposed to be breaking into the mainstream. I had people I know who were casual fans who were kind of getting into it around then who became convinced it was scripted like WWE after seeing that. I really thought this sport was past that. Obviously to us on this board and those that know the sport/hardcore fans, that's a laughable suggestion, but these are the stigmas that the sport has taken years and years to shake off, and poor judging sets it back, and I don't care what you say, title fights are higher profile making the judging blunders more costly.


That's the thing, there was 1 round which was probably a 10-10 but there were 3 rounds which were so clearly Shoguns round that I was embarrassed to be a fan of the sport when that decision came in. Dana said that him and Lorenzo watched the fight 3 times on the plane over to England a week later and every time they thought Shogun won at worst 48-47.

Yea all that's fair enough but I still wouldn't call it the worst decision in MMA history as, you've admitted yourself, there have been other decisions that have been worse. I suppose we're differing over whether the fact it was a world title match should count when classifying it as such. Taking context out of it, definietly not the worst decision.

I'm struggling to remember the specifics of what rounds I thought went to who now but I do remember that when I was watching it I was struck by how Joe Rogan was really emphasizing everything Shogun did and almost completely ignoring every shot or counter shot that Machida was landing. Must watch it again...

Mellor

Deleted User wrote:

Let's be fair, Shogun was robbed. I still maintain that was THE worst decision in MMA history

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea I agree that there have been plenty of decisions which were just as bad if not worse

Doesn't makes sense.
I'm guessing you mean worst decision for the sport overall given it was a world title fight, rather than the time when the judges messed up the most.

I had it and easy 48-47 Rua

seadnamac

seadnamac wrote: »

Yea all that's fair enough but I still wouldn't call it the worst decision in MMA history as, you've admitted yourself, there have been other decisions that have been worse. I suppose we're differing over whether the fact it was a world title match should count when classifying it as such. Taking context out of it, definietly not the worst decision.

I'm struggling to remember the specifics of what rounds I thought went to who now but I do remember that when I was watching it I was struck by how Joe Rogan was really emphasizing everything Shogun did and almost completely ignoring every shot or counter shot that Machida was landing. Must watch it again...

I think you missed the point. First of all I said the other decisions were as bad or maybe worse. I don't believe any of them were THAT much worse. It's close, and certainly debateable. But the significance of the fight, the amount of people watching, exposure level for MMA, for the judges to get it so so wrong was a monumental cock up and given how many people saw it, and formed a view on the sport based on this, I rated it the worst. In the context of the decision alone, removing the significance of it from the equation, I still think it's right up there. Plus, the only argument I seem to see among people regarding the scoring of it was whether Shogun won 49-46 or 48-47.

As for the commentary. It was probably because by the end of the fight Machida was plodding around because his legs were gone and his face and ribs looked like he'd been mugged. Shogun was bouncing around, bobbing and weaving and moving freely, and hadn't a mark on him. Hence it was obvious Shoguns strikes were ever so slightly more effective.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Doesn't makes sense.
I'm guessing you mean worst decision for the sport overall given it was a world title fight, rather than the time when the judges messed up the most.

I had it and easy 48-47 Rua

Selective quoting FTW.

I've explained this POV twice now, and you'll find the answer in the post above.

We can all take sentences out of context to create a contradiction.

seadnamac

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you missed the point. First of all I said the other decisions were as bad or maybe worse. I don't believe any of them were THAT much worse. It's close, and certainly debateable. But the significance of the fight, the amount of people watching, exposure level for MMA, for the judges to get it so so wrong was a monumental cock up and given how many people saw it, and formed a view on the sport based on this, I rated it the worst. In the context of the decision alone, removing the significance of it from the equation, I still think it's right up there. Plus, the only argument I seem to see among people regarding the scoring of it was whether Shogun won 49-46 or 48-47.

As for the commentary. It was probably because by the end of the fight Machida was plodding around because his legs were gone and his face and ribs looked like he'd been mugged. Shogun was bouncing around, bobbing and weaving and moving freely, and hadn't a mark on him. Hence it was obvious Shoguns strikes were ever so slightly more effective.

I don't know how I can be missing the point. You've stated it was the worst (emphasised in capital letters) decision in MMA history, while at the same time admitting there have been others as bad if not worse. If I'm missing the point it's because you're not making it very well. You want to include the context around the fight, fair enough, but all things being equal, Phan/Garcia for example was a hell of a lot worse.

Mellor

I wasn't selective quoting.

You said it was the worst, then you said it wasn't. Then you you explained it. I clearly highlighted what you meant in my post. The fact that you explained it means the first comment was complete hyperbole.

seadnamac

seadnamac wrote: »

I don't know how I can be missing the point. You've stated it was the worst (emphasised in capital letters) decision in MMA history, while at the same time admitting there have been others as bad if not worse. If I'm missing the point it's because you're not making it very well. You want to include the context around the fight, fair enough, but all things being equal, Phan/Garcia for example was a hell of a lot worse.

How much more black and white can I explain it to you, in my opinion, given the significance, profile and exposure of the fight, as well as the fall out from it, I felt it was the worst decision I've ever seen, all things considered. Even if you take the external factors and significance out of it, I still feel it is right up there.

Mellor wrote: »

I wasn't selective quoting.

You said it was the worst, then you said it wasn't. Then you you explained it. I clearly highlighted what you meant in my post. The fact that you explained it means the first comment was complete hyperbole.

No, I wasn't exaggerating. As I have explained, I feel in its impact, that it was the worst decision. Yahoo Sports and various other major media outlets didn't give the Phan/ Garcia decision half the coverage that the Shogun/Machida decision got. It was the 1st high profile title fight since the UFC started crossing into the mainstream, to throw up such a rubbish decision. Rampage and Forrest was controversial as you could see the argument for both sides, but the vast vast majority of fans, journos and pros had Shogun winning that fight with 3 definite rounds in his favour, 1 in Machidas and 1 which could have went either way.

Taking a fights significance out of the equation, it was still a shocking decision (bear in mind this all started because the poster I quoted said "let's be fair, machida just about won the 1st bout" when in reality, 99% of people who watched that fight disagreed.) and right up there among the worst, which is the worst is a matter of opinion, as I have stated. It all depends on what your criteria of "worst decision" is. That's mine.

seadnamac

Deleted User wrote: »

How much more black and white can I explain it to you, in my opinion, given the significance, profile and exposure of the fight, as well as the fall out from it, I felt it was the worst decision I've ever seen, all things considered. Even if you take the external factors and significance out of it, I still feel it is right up there.

Which is exactly what I, and Mellor, said that you meant, and you told me I was missing the point. You then made the exact same point again, about the context around the fight, even though we had aleady said that we knew what you meant. What the hell are you arguing about?

hisholinessnb

I was one of the few who thought Machida won that fight.

But in seriousness lads, chill the beans

jayteecork

Guys, Machida won the fight.

You can't take the belt from the champ in a close bout using only legkicks.
It was the right decision.

MrStuffins

jayteecork wrote: »

You can't take the belt from the champ in a close bout using only legkicks.

I hate statements like this I really do. "You have to take the belt from the champ". Jaysus, you take the belt by winning the fight! Whether it's close or whether it's a runaway victory, you don't give extra points to one guy just because he happens to hold the belt.

Shogun won at least 3 of the rounds, meaning he won the fight and was robbed!

And about the leg kicks comment............ is that you Cecil Peoples?