UFC 142

Hococop · 17-01-2012 07:13PM

Shazbot 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

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.

Haha I knew that fight was going be mentioned I suppose it would depend on the attackers position if he moves his position he could risk being on his back.

Shazbot · 17-01-2012 07:13PM

Hococop wrote: »

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

Not really. I've never seen people give out about the fact that Rogan never questioned any official for a controversial decision. The reason people are annoyed is that he had no right to question Yamasaki yet "he spoke for the fans". He sure as **** didn't speak for me. As Cowzerp said, he put himself on a pedestal and forgot what his job is.

Raekwon · 17-01-2012 07:15PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Some insane finishes on the card though...Pyle getting knocked out was insane...absolutely beautiful kick.

You mean Etim. Pyle stopped Ricardo Funch in the first round of their fight.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 07:15PM

Shazbot wrote: »

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.

True haha I am really enjoying this discussion as opposed to other conversations ending in people insulting each other

Hococop · 17-01-2012 07:17PM

Shazbot wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

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

Not really. I've never seen people give out about the fact that Rogan never questioned any official for a controversial decision. The reason people are annoyed is that he had no right to question Yamasaki yet "he spoke for the fans". He sure as **** didn't speak for me. As Cowzerp said, he put himself on a pedestal and forgot what his job is.

Not on boards but I have seen it on other MMA sites. I agree speaking for the fans was stupid to say

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 07:18PM

Hococop wrote: »

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

Of course they wouldn't have been mad had he questioned Mario. What are you basing this on?

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 07:20PM

Hococop wrote: »

Not on boards but I have seen it on other MMA sites. I agree speaking for the fans was stupid to say

Oh no! If you're talking about Sherdog then you'll be shocked to discover that reasoned arguments are welcomed and encouraged here.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 07:21PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

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

Of course they wouldn't have been mad had he questioned Mario. What are you basing this on?

Again on other sites

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 07:22PM

Hococop wrote: »

Again on other sites

Which sites?

Hococop · 17-01-2012 07:23PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

Again on other sites

Which sites?

I will have to check again but I think bloody elbow

MrStuffins · 17-01-2012 07:26PM

Hococop wrote: »

I will have to check again but I think bloody elbow

So, what you're saying is, before this incident you have seen people on Bloody Elbow criticise the fact that Joe Rogan doesn't jum into the cage and question the decisions of the referees?

Are you sure?

DeVore · 17-01-2012 08:07PM

I've seen people on twitter accuse Rogan of being a "company man" and doing their PR for them. I dont make comment on that, I'm just saying I've seen quite a bit of it.

Admittedly in this case he's not criticising the UFC but many wouldn't know the subtle difference and certainly he didnt seem to consider how it might look for UFC/FOX. I believe his intention were good.

ASIDE: One of the nicest things about this forum is that the signal to noise is high. We dont get the haters and the idiocy of other forums. Agree or disagree, I dont have a problem as long as people are civil. Long may that continue, its the best thing about here.

DeV.

Hococop · 17-01-2012 10:13PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Hococop wrote: »

I will have to check again but I think bloody elbow

So, what you're saying is, before this incident you have seen people on Bloody Elbow criticise the fact that Joe Rogan doesn't jum into the cage and question the decisions of the referees?
Are you sure?

No what I meant to say was with this incident and what Joe Did you were never going to keep everyone happy sorry about the way I worded it

Hococop · 18-01-2012 12:04AM

DeVore wrote: »

I've seen people on twitter accuse Rogan of being a "company man" and doing their PR for them. I dont make comment on that, I'm just saying I've seen quite a bit of it. Admittedly in this case he's not criticising the UFC but many wouldn't know the subtle difference and certainly he didnt seem to consider how it might look for UFC/FOX. I believe his intention were good.
ASIDE: One of the nicest things about this forum is that the signal to noise is high. We dont get the haters and the idiocy of other forums. Agree or disagree, I dont have a problem as long as people are civil. Long may that continue, its the best thing about here.
DeV.

Yeah even though alot of people are disagreeing with me I really appreciate the way people don't insult me for my opinion

Logical Fallacy · 18-01-2012 02:25AM

Raekwon wrote: »

You mean Etim. Pyle stopped Ricardo Funch in the first round of their fight.

D'oh! Spot on.

Jimmy Bottlehead · 18-01-2012 02:24PM

Thing is, even if Rogan DID want to "speak for the fans" or whatever, he could have done so in a neutral, impartial manner. The way he went about it was very confrontational to Mario Yamasaki, pretty much defying him to explain the decision.

I know some don't, but I like Rogan, and I can excuse his occasionally daft commentary because he's quite easy to listen to. However, even when watching, I asked myself "what the **** are you doing, Joe?" when he did that interview in the Octagon.
Just not how it should be done.

DeVore · 18-01-2012 03:18PM

Yes, I must admit I had a bit of a "wtf?!" moment when he did it (after all, I think the ref was right!) but its mixed with a certain amount of respect that when he felt injustice had been done to a fighter, he wasnt afraid to confront it. The way he did it wasnt good perhaps, but I can see where he's coming from. I'd rather someone be passionate and occasionally wrong then someone who toes the line in order not to offend anyone.
The arguments here persuade me that the heat of the moment wasnt the time to do so, though.

DeV.

MrStuffins · 20-01-2012 02:50PM

Silva losses his appeal.

Erick Silva's controversial disqualification loss to fellow Brazilian welterweight Carlo Prater at UFC 142 won't be overturned.

UFC Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs Marc Ratner today issued a statement regarding the fight.

In it, he stated the referee's verbal warning and his determination that the blows were intentional leave him unable to overturn the decision.

Silva (13-2 MMA, 1-1 UFC), who rocked Prater (30-10-1 MMA, 1-0 UFC) with a knee before unloading the illegal blows just 29 seconds into the fight, ultimately suffered a DQ loss at the event, which took place Jan. 14 at HSBC Arena in Rio de Janeiro. It was one of five main-card bouts that aired live on pay-per-view.

"Based on the referee's verbal warnings and his determination that the blows were intentional and a disqualifying foul, this is not the type of decision that can be reviewed," Ratner stated. "Therefore, the decision stands.

"Recently, Zuffa has decided to implement the use of instant replay at all international events that are self-regulated, and to encourage all regulators to consider the feasibility and effectiveness of instant replay in the sport of MMA. While instant replay would not have reversed the call in the Silva-Prater bout, we believe that it could be valuable to referees and the sport in the future."

Despite the loss, Silva was awarded his "win" bonus. (Because the UFC acts as its own regulatory body for events in Brazil, official fighter paydays were not disclosed, so the amount of the win bonus isn't known.)

After the fight, referee Mario Yamasaki told UFC commentator Joe Rogan that he made the ruling due to Silva landing strikes to the back of the head, which are illegal under the unified rules of MMA. Replays of the stoppage appeared to show at least one strike landing illegally.

Earlier this week, Silva's manager, Wallid Ismail, told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) they planned to appeal the decision.

"Erick didn't lose the fight," Ismail said. "No way he lost the fight."

For more on UFC 142, stay tuned to the UFC Events section of the site.

UFC 142

Comments