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

can couture beat machida?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mailburner
    Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    Snappy the Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 216 ✭✭Snappy the Moose


    mailburner wrote: »
    jake has finished opponents
    in his last few

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


  • Options
    #34
    mailburner
    Registered Users Posts: 23,839 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,092 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    garrybergin
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭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 !!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #38
    seadnamac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #40
    seadnamac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #41
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,092 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #44
    seadnamac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,092 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #47
    seadnamac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    hisholinessnb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭hisholinessnb


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

    But in seriousness lads, chill the beans :)


  • Options
    #49
    jayteecork
    Site Banned Posts: 5,676 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭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?


Advertisement