TUF 22 - Europe vs USA (McGregor & Faber coaching)**Contains Spoilers**

Subcomandante Marcos

The man who decides if you're "good enough" to fight in the UFC, ladies and gentlemen.

ASOT

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

The man who decides if you're "good enough" to fight in the UFC, ladies and gentlemen.

Also the man who has more money than anyone that posts on this forum to be fair. I know which life I'd rather have haha

John_D80

FFS lads cop on. Even if he did teach boxercise in a past life, i think his 20+ years experience as a promoter and co-owner of the most succesful MMA promotion in history, more than qualify him as an authority on MMA.

Edit: How old is that picture anyway? 20 years? 25?

cletus

I'm not suggesting that ufc=wwe.

What I am saying is that by Dana deciding what type of win he considers to be good or bad us the first step to affecting the outcome of a fight.

He is absolutely entitled to like barnstorming brawls over lay and pray. However, he should not be able to decide that somebody who wins a fight did not win in a manner he approves of, and then say that win doesn't count. This does not happen at any other level in any other sport. Ever

Regarding the boxercise, that was hyperbolic facetiousness (mostly )

Subcomandante Marcos

cletus wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that ufc=wwe.

What I am saying is that by Dana deciding what type of win he considers to be good or bad us the first step to affecting the outcome of a fight.

He is absolutely entitled to like barnstorming brawls over lay and pray. However, he should not be able to decide that somebody who wins a fight did not win in a manner he approves of, and then say that win doesn't count. This does not happen at any other level in any other sport. Ever

Regarding the boxercise, that was hyperbolic facetiousness (mostly )

What happens when people start getting cut depsite being on winning streaks, just because Dana doesn't like their style?

The majority of people find Cathal Pendred fights boring as f*ck, but as long as he's winning he should be there getting fights and making money.

If someone like Thanh Le or Cowboy Cerrone with all their flash and flicks is getting beat up by wrestlers like Mendes or Nunez or grinders like Pendred or Gritz, so ****ing what, learn to stop them from taking you down or learn how to wrestle, the entire point of the UFC is to see how different styles against eachother, people get wound up because grapplers have by and large dominated the sport since it began, well guess what, in a 1 v 1 fight, grappling is the most effective way to immobilise your opponent and save yourself from injury. It's not rocket science.

There are already rules about refs making them stand up if they aren't active, so what's the problem?

Dana White is trying to turn it into Glory with a little bit of ground and pound.

cletus

Leyla Deafening Snapdragon wrote: »

But this is the real world, they're fighting for UFC contract and Dana is looking for exciting fights and that's who he wants to sign.

If they want the job they need to fit the role, same as any other job.

Except that its not. The show is not billed as "come down to the gym, fight once and if we like what we see we may hire you"

It is billed as a knockout tournament where if you win, you progress, and the overall winner gets a contract. But now, you can win your fight and not be allowed to progress. That is not how any sport works.

There are myriad reasons why a fighter might have a poor or slow fight, especially when fighting in quick succession, but the only consideration should be whether they won or lost

Subcomandante Marcos

cletus wrote: »

Except that its not. The show is not billed as "come down to the gym, fight once and if we like what we see we may hire you"

It is billed as a knockout tournament where if you win, you progress, and the overall winner gets a contract. But now, you can win your fight and not be allowed to progress. That is not how any sport works.

There are myriad reasons why a fighter might have a poor or slow fight, especially when fighting in quick succession, but the only consideration should be whether they won or lost

Also, if the winner of the boring fight was just caught in a match with someone who made it boring, then why should they be punished? If someone wants to stand up or throw punches but the other person just keeps pushing them onto the cage and lying on them or walking away or making it awkward, why should the winner be punished?

Last fight for example was boring as hell because Sascha kept trying to go to the ground, Gritz wasn't shooting for take downs, why the hell should Grtiz be kicked out because the lad he fought spoiled the fight?

Devastator

cletus wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that ufc=wwe.

What I am saying is that by Dana deciding what type of win he considers to be good or bad us the first step to affecting the outcome of a fight.

No its not!! Its not even close!! Please tell us whatever messed up logic in your head sees this as pre determining a fight outcome???

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

What happens when people start getting cut depsite being on winning streaks, just because Dana doesn't like their style?

Already happens.....Nate Marquart the obvious one.

grappling is the most effective way to immobilise your opponent and save yourself from injury. It's not rocket science.

I don't see how immobilizing your opponent so as not to get injured wins a fight! Thats just making it a neutral contest.

cletus wrote: »

It is billed as a knockout tournament where if you win, you progress, and the overall winner gets a contract. But now, you can win your fight and not be allowed to progress. That is not how any sport works.

Billed as a knockout tournament? Wonderful! And I'm sure whoever gets cut will not be a KO winner, rather someone who dry humped their opponent or didn't go all out to win.

How is it not how any sport works? Lots of sport work off ranking systems, including the UFC where someone(Maybe with boxercise experience :rolleyes:) decides where a fighter should be placed in a list based on their recent fight. This is basically what the new rule is, a ranking system with the lowest not continuing in the competition

There are myriad reasons why a fighter might have a poor or slow fight, especially when fighting in quick succession, but the only consideration should be whether they won or lost

Someone argued that exciting fighters should improve against grapplers if they want to succeed, so in the exact same sense you can argue the fighter must do better against a boring opponent so he is not in that position.


My head is about to explode with the wrestling comparisons, pathetic boxercise comments and the general craziness of what some of you are trying to argue in this thread.

I'm out.

jjdonegal

Devastator wrote: »

No its not!! Its not even close!! Please tell us whatever messed up logic in your head sees this as pre determining a fight outcome???



Already happens.....Nate Marquart the obvious one.




I don't see how immobilizing your opponent so as not to get injured wins a fight! Thats just making it a neutral contest.



Billed as a knockout tournament? Wonderful! And I'm sure whoever gets cut will not be a KO winner, rather someone who dry humped their opponent or didn't go all out to win.

How is it not how any sport works? Lots of sport work off ranking systems, including the UFC where someone(Maybe with boxercise experience :rolleyes:) decides where a fighter should be placed in a list based on their recent fight. This is basically what the new rule is, a ranking system with the lowest not continuing in the competition



Someone argued that exciting fighters should improve against grapplers if they want to succeed, so in the exact same sense you can argue the fighter must do better against a boring opponent so he is not in that position.


My head is about to explode with the wrestling comparisons, pathetic boxercise comments and the general craziness of what some of you are trying to argue in this thread.

I'm out.

Very good points but im opposed to the new format. For me id say may the best martial artist win. If that means Fighter A takes down Fighter B and grinds out a victory over 2 rounds then he deserves to go through in my eyes.
Jon Fitch on his run up to the GSP title fight was an extremely effective martial artist and although he might not have been everyone's cup of tea I loved watching him beat fighters through his effective style.
I might be old school but I want the best martial artist to get through not the most exciting.

cletus

Devastator wrote: »

No its not!! Its not even close!! Please tell us whatever messed up logic in your head sees this as pre determining a fight outcome???



Already happens.....Nate Marquart the obvious one.




I don't see how immobilizing your opponent so as not to get injured wins a fight! Thats just making it a neutral contest.



Billed as a knockout tournament? Wonderful! And I'm sure whoever gets cut will not be a KO winner, rather someone who dry humped their opponent or didn't go all out to win.

How is it not how any sport works? Lots of sport work off ranking systems, including the UFC where someone(Maybe with boxercise experience :rolleyes:) decides where a fighter should be placed in a list based on their recent fight. This is basically what the new rule is, a ranking system with the lowest not continuing in the competition



Someone argued that exciting fighters should improve against grapplers if they want to succeed, so in the exact same sense you can argue the fighter must do better against a boring opponent so he is not in that position.


My head is about to explode with the wrestling comparisons, pathetic boxercise comments and the general craziness of what some of you are trying to argue in this thread.

I'm out.

OK let me try and answer the above.

If Dana White says that "boring" wins will not be considered wins, he is attempting to affect the outcome of the fight, ie he is influencing how a fighter will fight in the octagon. This means that a fighter who is perhaps injured, or trying to conserve himself for the next round, or may simply Jon Fitch type fighter, will fight differently than if it was a simple case of win your fight.

I don't agree with cutting a fighter on a winning streak.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding the term knockout tournament. It has nothing to do with ko'ing somebody, rather it means that the winner of each fight/match etc, advances to the next round, and the loser goes no further, or is "knocked out" of the tournament


This new rule has nothing to do with rankings. Very specifically, a fighter can win a fight, and then that win is not counted. This is even more important in the knockout format this competition uses. It means that despite winning the first round, the fighter does not get a place in the quarter finals. Again, this does not happen in any other sport. I would challenge you to give an example where a team or individual won a match, and the governing body / organisers of the event ruled that the win would not stand or be counted based on the method of victory being too boring.

I'm not sure what your last point means, but essentially, I believe that the best fighter is the one that wins. If Jon Fitch takes you down, and you can't get up, land strikes or reverse position, that's on you not Jon Fitch. He deserves to win.

jjdonegal

cletus wrote: »

OK let me try and answer the above.

If Dana White says that "boring" wins will not be considered wins, he is attempting to affect the outcome of the fight, ie he is influencing how a fighter will fight in the octagon. This means that a fighter who is perhaps injured, or trying to conserve himself for the next round, or may simply Jon Fitch type fighter, will fight differently than if it was a simple case of win your fight.

I don't agree with cutting a fighter on a winning streak.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding the term knockout tournament. It has nothing to do with ko'ing somebody, rather it means that the winner of each fight/match etc, advances to the next round, and the loser goes no further, or is "knocked out" of the tournament


This new rule has nothing to do with rankings. Very specifically, a fighter can win a fight, and then that win is not counted. This is even more important in the knockout format this competition uses. It means that despite winning the first round, the fighter does not get a place in the quarter finals. Again, this does not happen in any other sport. I would challenge you to give an example where a team or individual won a match, and the governing body / organisers of the event ruled that the win would not stand or be counted based on the method of victory being too boring.

I'm not sure what your last point means, but essentially, I believe that the best fighter is the one that wins. If Jon Fitch takes you down, and you can't get up, land strikes or reverse position, that's on you not Jon Fitch. He deserves to win.

Pretty much sums up my thinking. Well said.

TherapyBoy

I think it's important to remember that they are filming a reality-type tv show that has previously had problems with 'boring' fights or fighters seemingly not wanting to take risks. For this type of UFC tv programming I've no problem with them trying to maintain viewers or even attract new ones by attempting to light a fire under these fighters to give us exciting fights.

They're not saying if your fight is dull it doesn't count, they saying we'll have 9 fight winners, the 8 most impressive winners will proceed so give 110% and don't leave anything in there.

If they start telling a fighter he won't win the belt with a win in his title fight unless the audience is all on their feet when the fight ends, well that's a different story.

martyos121

I'm absolutely fine with this rule. Last thing we need is more Pendreds in the UFC.

(No offence to him at all, he's a sound lad to talk to)

cletus

TherapyBoy wrote: »

I think it's important to remember that they are filming a reality-type tv show that has previously had problems with 'boring' fights or fighters seemingly not wanting to take risks. For this type of UFC tv programming I've no problem with them trying to maintain viewers or even attract new ones by attempting to light a fire under these fighters to give us exciting fights.

They're not saying if your fight is dull it doesn't count, they saying we'll have 9 fight winners, the 8 most impressive winners will proceed so give 110% and don't leave anything in there.

If they start telling a fighter he won't win the belt with a win in his title fight unless the audience is all on their feet when the fight ends, well that's a different story.

I understand that the programme itself is reality based TV, I'm just concerned that the fights, which up to this point have been legit (boredom not withstanding), will become viewed in the same vein.

And they are saying that two of the wins this season won't count. Everybody who agrees with this new "rule" seem to think that the net effect will be preventing the two most boring fighters progressing in the competition. But what happens if every fighter takes Dana's words to heart. What if every single fight is two guys whaling on each other, every fight is "exciting", what then? Two of those " exciting" fighters will STILL be told that their win doesn't count, and they don't get to progress because of some arbitrary notions around what makes a good or bad fight

TherapyBoy

I have no problem with it, as long as it is only happening on the TUF TV show. I don't consider these fights with the same weight as when they are fighting in the UFC afterwards.

To me, the Ultimate Fighter is just an audition for the UFC. Show us what you can do & if you impress us we'll let you do it on the big stage.

Foxtrol

cletus wrote: »

OK let me try and answer the above.

If Dana White says that "boring" wins will not be considered wins, he is attempting to affect the outcome of the fight, ie he is influencing how a fighter will fight in the octagon. This means that a fighter who is perhaps injured, or trying to conserve himself for the next round, or may simply Jon Fitch type fighter, will fight differently than if it was a simple case of win your fight.

I don't agree with cutting a fighter on a winning streak.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding the term knockout tournament. It has nothing to do with ko'ing somebody, rather it means that the winner of each fight/match etc, advances to the next round, and the loser goes no further, or is "knocked out" of the tournament


This new rule has nothing to do with rankings. Very specifically, a fighter can win a fight, and then that win is not counted. This is even more important in the knockout format this competition uses. It means that despite winning the first round, the fighter does not get a place in the quarter finals. Again, this does not happen in any other sport. I would challenge you to give an example where a team or individual won a match, and the governing body / organisers of the event ruled that the win would not stand or be counted based on the method of victory being too boring.

I'm not sure what your last point means, but essentially, I believe that the best fighter is the one that wins. If Jon Fitch takes you down, and you can't get up, land strikes or reverse position, that's on you not Jon Fitch. He deserves to win.

Numerous sports give the team with the more decisive victory the chance to progress over a more boring side. For example the rugby world cup, you get an extra point for scoring more than 4 tries so you could win the same number of games as another team in your group but get knocked out if you’ve only scraped by opponents kicking penalties. Many other sports rely on points scored or points difference which has a similar effect of punishing teams who are boring and only do the minimal to win.

I agree that it’s no longer a straight knockout competition but the first round is more of a group phase but thereafter it is. The comparison to wrestling is just silly.

CatFromHue

So is your man Hall in a bit of danger as he's a submission specialist?

Subcomandante Marcos

CatFromHue wrote: »

So is your man Hall in a bit of danger as he's a submission specialist?

Submissions aren't boring, halls fights haven't been boring, they're just quick.

Boring is People like pendred grinding their way to wins by literally just exhausting their opponents.

Jiu Jitsu ain't boring, those heel hooks be a thing of beauty.

CatFromHue

Yeah I know.

I was just thinking if everyone else ups there games to go for interesting fights and Hall ends up getting really quick submissions could he then, in theory, be in danger.

Foxtrol

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah I know.

I was just thinking if everyone else ups there games to go for interesting fights and Hall ends up getting really quick submissions could he then, in theory, be in danger.

Of course not, decisive finishes will be top of the list of the fighters who will go through.

CatFromHue

Fair enough but it would be funny, though very remote, if Hall did get eliminated by these new rules.

ASOT

CatFromHue wrote: »

Fair enough but it would be funny, though very remote, if Hall did get eliminated by these new rules.

But he won't so there's not reason to worry about that.

cletus

Foxtrol wrote: »

Numerous sports give the team with the more decisive victory the chance to progress over a more boring side. For example the rugby world cup, you get an extra point for scoring more than 4 tries so you could win the same number of games as another team in your group but get knocked out if you’ve only scraped by opponents kicking penalties. Many other sports rely on points scored or points difference which has a similar effect of punishing teams who are boring and only do the minimal to win.

I agree that it’s no longer a straight knockout competition but the first round is more of a group phase but thereafter it is. The comparison to wrestling is just silly.

I dont think we're really getting anywhere with this argument, but I'll give it one last go. The above examples incentivise a win. If Ireland can score the fourth try in a game they receive the bodus point. If they don't get four tries, no bonus point.

However, and this is the point I've been making all along; they will not be told the win without a bonus point doesn't count because the match was boring. The points they scored from winning the match will still count towards moving out of a group, and if it happens st a knockout stage, they will not be told that even thought they won, they won't be progressing to the next round because the match was bad/boring/ not scoring bonus point etc. In every sport a win stands as a win, good match or bad

Foxtrol

cletus wrote: »

I dont think we're really getting anywhere with this argument, but I'll give it one last go. The above examples incentivise a win. If Ireland can score the fourth try in a game they receive the bodus point. If they don't get four tries, no bonus point.

However, and this is the point I've been making all along; they will not be told the win without a bonus point doesn't count because the match was boring. The points they scored from winning the match will still count towards moving out of a group, and if it happens st a knockout stage, they will not be told that even thought they won, they won't be progressing to the next round because the match was bad/boring/ not scoring bonus point etc. In every sport a win stands as a win, good match or bad

You asked for examples of sports with similar incentives to be exciting with repercussions of being eliminated despite a win and I’ve provided them.

The win in the house still counts as a win but they just don’t advance to the next round (even if none of this goes on the fight record). Similarly, Ireland could win the same number of games as Italy but not advance to the next round because they didn’t secure as many bonus points or have worse points difference or have worse trys scored. It doesn’t mean their win didn’t count, they simply don’t advance in the competition.

MMA is already different to most sports, as the judges subjectively decide who wins if there’s no finish in the allotted time limit. Because of this there isn’t another sport that specifically removes teams from a competition for subjectively being boring but there are many examples where the tournament rules are designed to make sure the more exciting team progresses over the boring conservative one. This does not mean the likes of the rugby world cup or the champions league are suddenly turned into the WWE.

cletus

Foxtrol wrote: »

You asked for examples of sports with similar incentives to be exciting with repercussions of being eliminated despite a win and I’ve provided them.

The win in the house still counts as a win but they just don’t advance to the next round (even if none of this goes on the fight record). Similarly, Ireland could win the same number of games as Italy but not advance to the next round because they didn’t secure as many bonus points or have worse points difference or have worse trys scored. It doesn’t mean their win didn’t count, they simply don’t advance in the competition.

MMA is already different to most sports, as the judges subjectively decide who wins if there’s no finish in the allotted time limit. Because of this there isn’t another sport that specifically removes teams from a competition for subjectively being boring but there are many examples where the tournament rules are designed to make sure the more exciting team progresses over the boring conservative one. This does not mean the likes of the rugby world cup or the champions league are suddenly turned into the WWE.

The above is what happens in group stage, or round robin. Neither of these are a factor in TUF. Its straightforward knockout. Win, you go forward, lose, your out. Its not a case of winning by a certain number of points but the team above won by more. Its simply you won, but we didn't like the fight, so it doesn't count. Anyway I think I'm done with this argument

Foxtrol

cletus wrote: »

The above is what happens in group stage, or round robin. Neither of these are a factor in TUF. Its straightforward knockout. Win, you go forward, lose, your out. Its not a case of winning by a certain number of points but the team above won by more. Its simply you won, but we didn't like the fight, so it doesn't count. Anyway I think I'm done with this argument

You’re pining for how TUF used to run, that day is gone for this season (hopefully for good). I already said in my initial response to you that it’s no longer a straightforward knockout competition, the first set of fights is now more like a group phase. If the fighters were informed the first day and if they didn’t want to compete they could have walked away.

I can’t see how this can be seen as a negative aside some purist view that it needs to remain a straight knockout competition or people who have a fundamental issue with the UFC trying to get fighters to be more exciting. All it means is if you leave the fight in the subjective hands of the judges, you’re now also going to leave it in the subjective hands of the UFC with the least exciting fighter leaving the competition.

CatFromHue

ASOT wrote: »

But he won't so there's not reason to worry about that.

There is a chance though



:pac:

reganreggie

I'm in favour of the rule. Hopefully it will stop the likes of big country getting a crucifix and gently tap his opponent's face while counting out the strikes till the ref has to step in. Really hope Hall wins tuf. Fantastic on the ground

Subcomandante Marcos

ASOT wrote: »

But he won't so there's not reason to worry about that.

If hall goes out it will because someone with good standup manages to shrug off his takedowns and kicks him in the head a few times.

Once it's on the ground there are very few people in MMA who are anywhere near his level. Cyborg, Maia, Edger, he's on that level.

Subcomandante Marcos

reganreggie wrote: »

I'm in favour of the rule. Hopefully it will stop the likes of big country getting a crucifix and gently tap his opponent's face while counting out the strikes till the ref has to step in. Really hope Hall wins tuf. Fantastic on the ground

Weirdly enough, it's so that there are more like LIKE Nelson that White bright in this rule, "spectacular" strikers who can light someone up on their feet rather than smart fighters who can grind their opponents down.

In fairness to Nelson, he's known for making fights fun to watch with that overhand right.