Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

UFC 142

1…910111214

Comments

  • #392
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,439 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Might not be popular but the ref was right so seen replay means nothing, the shots where hitting the back of the head and rogan was there saying that's legal that's legal! When half weren't
    Yep. I have to agree. When I was watching it I thought they were illegal blows before anything was even said about it.
    My understanding of a back of the head blow is anything behind the ears, which is where those punches landed.
    I thought Yamasaki got it spot on.


  • #393
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    Dean09 wrote: »
    Yep. I have to agree. When I was watching it I thought they were illegal blows before anything was even said about it.
    My understanding of a back of the head blow is anything behind the ears, which is where those punches landed.
    I thought Yamasaki got it spot on.

    pity about his decision on this fight

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-inlWDs3TETU/Tj354t6FvxI/AAAAAAAAEbY/K_YdFosc0G4/s1600/2.gif


  • #394
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,377 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Dean09 wrote: »
    Yamasaki had literally just made the decision 2 mins prior to Rogan questioning him about it. He was caught off guard and it was clear he was uncomfortable being questioned about it.
    It shouldn't matter how soon after the decision he was asked, he should of been able to provide his reasoning. IF he should of been asked in the first place is one issue, but all refs should know exactly why he makes a decision regardless of an expectation to being asked.
    Be like Nutella wrote: »
    maybe a bit yeah Joe blew up the whole situation put more pressure on Dana etc..
    My arse.
    The minute I seen it, I said to mates he'll still get the win bonus. Dana commented on twitter straight away that it was a bullsh*t call. So imo he was getting the win money regardless of the comments by Joe.


  • #395
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,439 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Mellor wrote: »
    It shouldn't matter how soon after the decision he was asked, he should of been able to provide his reasoning. IF he should of been asked in the first place is one issue, but all refs should know exactly why he makes a decision regardless of an expectation to being asked.

    Yeah I agree fully he should be able to explain why he made a decision.
    My point was that he had just made the decision and all of a sudden the commentator is publicly quizzing him about it. I think he wasn't expecting it and was caught off guard.


  • #396
    riffmongous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,931 ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Hococop wrote: »
    pity about his decision on this fight

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-inlWDs3TETU/Tj354t6FvxI/AAAAAAAAEbY/K_YdFosc0G4/s1600/2.gif

    So he got it wrong that time, should he allow punches to the back of the head in every fight now justs so he's consistent? He made a mistake before and tried to learn from it.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    riffmongous wrote: »
    So he got it wrong that time, should he allow punches to the back of the head in every fight now justs so he's consistent? He made a mistake before and tried to learn from it.

    every one makes mistakes and i understand that what im trying to say is that the punches to the back of the head were more obvious and dangerous in the belfort fight. i just think this rule of the back of the head is so inconsistent in fights and the refs disciplines on it


  • #398
    dave1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭dave1982


    Any one notice the laser being pointed into the octagon this weekend, very dangerous


  • #399
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,404 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    dave1982 wrote: »
    Any one notice the laser being pointed into the octagon this weekend, very dangerous

    Yeah I noticed it. Very bad form!


  • #400
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I think the ref made the right call and wrote my MMA blog on Setanta about it (just after watching it in fact!). I thought I'd be the only one but I'm glad it appears I'm not.
    I was thinking of that Okami fight too and some other high levels ones. Its not on and they should punish fighters who dont respect that.

    If every 5th kick was to the groin, people wouldnt be saying "most of his kicks were legal".

    DeV.


  • #401
    DrPhilG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,890 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    DeVore wrote: »
    If every 5th kick was to the groin, people wouldnt be saying "most of his kicks were legal".

    DeV.

    But no fighter throws a flurry of 8-10 legs kicks within a few seconds.

    It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.

    Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Shazbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 813 ✭✭✭Shazbot


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.

    This is when the attacking fighter needs to pick his shots carefully and not just flurry. Just because the fighter turtles doesn't give you an excuse to strike the back of the head. If you can't hit a clean target then don't throw the punch.
    Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?
    It wasn't a single shot in this case. There were multiple shots to the back of the head but Rogan was calling alot of illegal shots as legal ones.


  • #403
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    But no fighter throws a flurry of 8-10 legs kicks within a few seconds.

    It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.

    Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?
    Yes, if its an illegal move. The fighters should be more careful.

    Put it this way, if it was a poke in the eye, the fight is stopped and the fighter given time. If its a kick to the groin, the same happens.

    If a poke in the eye happened during or at the start of a KO... people wouldnt think twice about calling for a DQ.

    Fighters should pay more attention cos at the moment, they dont see to give a damn.

    DeV.


  • #404
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,439 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?

    Only if the blow to the back of the head is the one that put him away.....which is obviously what Yamasakis reasoning behind it was. He probably thought that the blows to the back of the head were the most damaging and they were the ones that caused the end of the fight.


  • #405
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,404 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Watching the fight again, it's a tough one.

    There was definitely at least 1 flush shot to the back of the head. So it can be argued that it's the right call. But a lot of those shots were to the side of the head too.

    It could also be said that Silva smashed Prater with a big knee, hit him with a lot of hammer-fists and lost on the technicality that 1 (or a couple) of the shots were poorly aimed and hit the back of the head.

    I don't think the outcome of the fight would've been any different had none of those shots been illegal. i think Silva was always gonna be finishing Prater in that position and once Prater was finished he complained he's been hit in the back of the head and chose to take his win on a technicality.


  • #406
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,404 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    DeVore wrote: »
    Yes, if its an illegal move. The fighters should be more careful.

    Put it this way, if it was a poke in the eye, the fight is stopped and the fighter given time. If its a kick to the groin, the same happens.

    If a poke in the eye happened during or at the start of a KO... people wouldnt think twice about calling for a DQ.

    Anthony Johnson v Kevin Burns.


  • #407
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    By the way, I think it was fine for Rogan to question the ref too... we cant have a situation where decisions cant be questioned. They should be questioned and defended. If its the right call, no one should be ashamed to say "I called it that way and I'm happy I'm right".

    Yamasaki should have been shown the video footage before the decision. It should have been made with plenty of time and perhaps a trinity of referees to consider it. This isnt Soccer here, the fight is over and there is plenty of time. A snap decision isnt required so let the contemplate it with full information.

    Rogan was right to question what he saw as a bad decision, he's given a special place in UFC and he represents the fans. Muzzling him because we dont want to embarrass someone or offend someone leads to very bad things imho...

    DeV.


  • #408
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,404 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    DeVore wrote: »
    By the way, I think it was fine for Rogan to question the ref too... we cant have a situation where decisions cant be questioned. They should be questioned and defended. If its the right call, no one should be ashamed to say "I called it that way and I'm happy I'm right".

    Yamasaki should have been shown the video footage before the decision. It should have been made with plenty of time and perhaps a trinity of referees to consider it. This isnt Soccer here, the fight is over and there is plenty of time. A snap decision isnt required so let the contemplate it with full information.

    Rogan was right to question what he saw as a bad decision, he's given a special place in UFC and he represents the fans. Muzzling him because we dont want to embarrass someone or offend someone leads to very bad things imho...

    DeV.

    How does Rogan represent the fans exactly? He's a commentator and an in-ring interviewer?

    What WILL lead to very bad things is allowing the commentator to question the referee in the middle of the cage with a hostile audience breathing down his back. The refs are under enough pressure as it is without having to second guess themselves next time just in case the interviewer starts questioning him and having everyone turn against him.

    it wasn't Rogan's place to question him. Rogan completely understands the fact that it is a split second decision and the decision was made.

    Also, wasn't it a case that he DID see the replay? Because, when watching again, he stopped the fight and waved Prater out of it. Was it Prater/Prater's corner that influenced him into changing his mind?


  • #409
    Shazbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 813 ✭✭✭Shazbot


    DeVore wrote: »
    By the way, I think it was fine for Rogan to question the ref too... we cant have a situation where decisions cant be questioned. They should be questioned and defended. If its the right call, no one should be ashamed to say "I called it that way and I'm happy I'm right".

    Yamasaki should have been shown the video footage before the decision. It should have been made with plenty of time and perhaps a trinity of referees to consider it. This isnt Soccer here, the fight is over and there is plenty of time. A snap decision isnt required so let the contemplate it with full information.

    Rogan was right to question what he saw as a bad decision, he's given a special place in UFC and he represents the fans. Muzzling him because we dont want to embarrass someone or offend someone leads to very bad things imho...

    DeV.

    Rogan was out of line questioning Yamasaki. When's the last time someone questioned a ref immediately after the fight? Why doesn't he do it when there is a bad judges decision? Rogan got ahead of himself.

    What made it worse was when he was showing Yamasaki the replay and saying "that's legal, that's legal, that might be illegal". When clearly the shots where illegal.

    You're right, decision should be questioned but by the proper authority. Then again, Rio don't have an athletics commission to overturn the decision. Maybe the UFC itself could but certainly not by Rogan.


  • #410
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    True, perhaps right after the fight wasnt the right time in retrospect. But decisions should be scrutinised.

    I can see Rogans point of view though, he's passionate about the sport and felt he had an unrepeatable opportunity.

    DeV.


  • #411
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,404 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    DeVore wrote: »
    True, perhaps right after the fight wasnt the right time in retrospect. But decisions should be scrutinised.

    I can see Rogans point of view though, he's passionate about the sport and felt he had an unrepeatable opportunity.

    DeV.

    Just because he had the opportunity, doesn't make it right.

    If Rogan is allowed do this then what? He criticises a ref for stopping a fight to early right afterwards. So next time the ref decided to let it go a little longer, putting the fighters is danger. All because he all of a sudden Rogan "represents the fans".

    Well, if it's a case that Rogan represents the fans then get Rogan out of there. Because the fans have no right to jump into the cage after a fight and tell the ref how to do his job.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    Shazbot wrote: »
    DrPhilG wrote: »
    It's got to be damn near impossible not to land a shot to the back of the head in that situation with a fighter turtling up.
    This is when the attacking fighter needs to pick his shots carefully and not just flurry. Just because the fighter turtles doesn't give you an excuse to strike the back of the head. If you can't hit a clean target then don't throw the punch.
    Do you DQ every fighter that lands a single back of the head shot during a finishing flurry?
    It wasn't a single shot in this case. There were multiple shots to the back of the head but Rogan was calling alot of illegal shots as legal ones.

    If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems


  • #413
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    The thing Is Rogan is not representing the fans anyway-I'd say he's quite out of touch to be honest.

    Definitely putting himself on a pedestal of late and his opinions on mma are wacky, that spin heal kick causes a knock out and suddenly he's been saying for years how it's effective in mma, well guess what? If ya hit someone hard enough with your arrse you will knock them out.

    Not saying it should not be used but it's not high on my list of training priorities, just like the front kick silva and machida done, sometimes unusual stuff works.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #414
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Hococop wrote: »
    If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

    Turtling up does not cover everything, all them blows could have been legal if he had picked his shots, if you cower too much the ref will or should stop it anyway.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #415
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    DeVore wrote: »
    True, perhaps right after the fight wasnt the right time in retrospect. But decisions should be scrutinised.
    I can see Rogans point of view though, he's passionate about the sport and felt he had an unrepeatable opportunity.
    DeV.
    Just because he had the opportunity, doesn't make it right.
    If Rogan is allowed do this then what? He criticises a ref for stopping a fight to early right afterwards. So next time the ref decided to let it go a little longer, putting the fighters is danger. All because he all of a sudden Rogan "represents the fans".
    Well, if it's a case that Rogan represents the fans then get Rogan out of there. Because the fans have no right to jump into the cage after a fight and tell the ref how to do his job.

    Joe has commented on many fights and said if they were bad stoppages, it was different here. Here we thought one fighter won but actually the other fighter did this is why he questioned Mario.


  • #416
    Shazbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 813 ✭✭✭Shazbot


    Hococop wrote: »
    If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems

    There's turtling and intelligently defending yourself. You can pick you shots on a turtled opponent. GSP vs Serra 2 comes to mind. If you just lay turtled, yes your defended but your not intelligently defending.


  • #417
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,404 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Hococop wrote: »
    Joe has commented on many fights and said if they were bad stoppages, it was different here. Here we thought one fighter won but actually the other fighter did this is why he questioned Mario.

    No, that's not why he questioned Mario. He questioned mario because, and I quote, "I think he made a mistake here".

    Also, there's a difference between saying it's a bad stoppage into his mic from his commentary position and what he did on Saturday. It's not on and it shouldn't happen again.


  • #418
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Hococop wrote: »
    If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems
    Turtling up does not cover everything, all them blows could have been legal if he had picked his shots, if you cower too much the ref will or should stop it anyway.

    Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt


  • #419
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Hococop wrote: »
    If that's the case if a fighter is hurt all he has to do is turtle up and recover and technically he would be intelligently defending himself, Im not trying to say punches to the back of head are ok im just see this incident creating alot of problems
    Turtling up does not cover everything, all them blows could have been legal if he had picked his shots, if you cower too much the ref will or should stop it anyway.

    Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt


  • #420
    Shazbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 813 ✭✭✭Shazbot


    Hococop wrote: »
    Fair enough but one person said s few comments ago he had to pick shots carefully, by taking you time to pick shots carefully you allow the other fighter to recover. This is why many fighters throw a flurry of punches to not allow the fighter to recover from being hurt

    That was me. You can throw a flurry of punches but that doesn't mean you can throw them inaccurately.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Hococop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭Hococop


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Hococop wrote: »
    Joe has commented on many fights and said if they were bad stoppages, it was different here. Here we thought one fighter won but actually the other fighter did this is why he questioned Mario.
    No, that's not why he questioned Mario. He questioned mario because, and I quote, "I think he made a mistake here".

    Also, there's a difference between saying it's a bad stoppage into his mic from his commentary position and what he did on Saturday. It's not on and it shouldn't happen again.

    Lets be honest it's a 50/50 call people were going to be mad if he did or did no question Mario


Advertisement